We've had a few days for the meta to settle and to feel some of the effects from the latest OTA, so let's look at the Good, Bad, and the Ugly.
The Good
Lockjaw
Let's start with one that is overall a good change that, to some, probably comes off as bad. Lockjaw in both Thanos and Hela decks has provided a way for both decks to cheat out big power at a low cost consistently. At Lockjaw's former cost of 3-power, he could do this hyper efficiently and effectively, giving you 3 turns to buff one lane immensely. Now, however, at 4-cost, that efficiency is knocked down. This is a good change. At first glance, this nerf takes about 33% of his usage away because you only get two instead of three turns to use his ability. At a deeper glance, the move to 4-cost creates an awkward spot for Lockjaw in the decks he is currently being run in. This doesn't mean those decks can't run him. It just means they might need to explore other options. Overall, that makes the card a bit more fair, which is the goal of a balance change. Provide balance to cards that are overpowered. I still think Lockjaw is a good card. He just has changed in a good way to be fairer and needs to find the deck that will best utilize this fairness for maximum profit.
Ant-Man
Usually, I would mark down the addition of 1-power to Ant-Man as slightly irrelevant of a change, and while this probably will bump up his only slightly, I think that added power here is a good change. It's always nice to see lower series cards get buffs, and with Thanos moving away from Lockjaw, adding power to a card that usually runs in an ongoing Thanos list feels good. The only weird part about this change is that we just had a buff to Martyr up to 5-power, so now that these two cards are on the same power level and the condition to make sure they are effective is similar, this change might mean Martyr is pushed out of some decks.
The Bad
Darkhawk
I had to do some digging to understand this change. I have not seen a Darkhawk in my games for the last two weeks, so I was surprised when he got a nerf followed by this response from Glenn. This was a sentiment shared by a lot of people.
Then, I started looking at the actual data revolving around Darkhawk. Over the numerous websites that help track stats for decks, you'll find that Darkhawkisn'tt seen too often with the best win rate among high Collection level players, and he was being phased out on the ladder at the upper levels of play. He couldn't compete in the Zabu decks that would instead be running other 4-cost cards than Darkhawk. So why the change? Well, at lower collection levels and even lower ranks, these two decks had a win rate of around 70% and a cube rate of around 1.
Darkhawk Odin
Junk Darkhawk
Those are some excellent stats. This doesn't mean this is all Darkhawk's fault because both of these decks include other cards, but I will concede that the developers probably have better data on actual win rates when a card is played than I do. So why is this in the bad category when the nerf seems slightly justified? I am mainly putting this here because of their reasoning for changing Darkhawk and because this will feel unwarranted for most players at higher collection levels. Also, while balancing a game like Marvel Snap can be difficult because everyone's collection is completely different, I'm not entirely convinced Darkhawk was unbalanced overall, so changing him to "freshen the landscape" instead of just making sure that he is balanced is a little off-putting especially when they also state things like "There's" every chance we'll revert this down the road, in a different metagame."
But Darkhawk is not dead and has seen some success in non-Zabu decks after the OTA. Check this one out when you get a chance.
Bounce Hawk
The Ugly
Adam Warlock
I have too many variants for this card and never played him. I don't see myself playing him now that he has received this change or "buff," as some say. Initially, as a 2/0 Adam Warlock, it was hard to justify putting into your deck because while card draw is essential and can be overpowered with a 12-card deck, you are already drawing the majority of your cards anyway, so few decks are actively trying to get all of their cards by the final turn. The decks that do want to get all their cards can't spare a slot for a zero-power card with the original Adam Warlock. So now that he is a 5-cost card with 4-power, maybe this will change things? Honestly, I think this might make him worse. Late-game card draw is good, but early-game card draw is a lot better because it is more advantageous for more decks. Late game draw is good for decks looking for a specific card, but at 5-cost, you will, at best, be getting 1 extra draw. That isn't much and something that can be easier to accomplish with Crystal or even Magik.
Both cards offer something different than raw card draw but have easier conditions because Adam Warlock's draw is not guaranteed. Nothing would feel worse than wasting your turn 5 play on Adam and then accidentally losing that lane so you don't draw anything. Furthermore, the previous iteration of Adam Warlock provided early-game lane fights because your opponent would probably fight to keep you from drawing extra cards. 5-cost is too late to matter, and you're likely just drawing one additional card at the cost of your whole turn 5. All of these reasons make this change feel Ugly, and the only good thing here is they stated they have started conservatively, which makes me think his power has a knob that will be turned up soon if he doesn't show any difference from this initial change.
Forge and America Chavez
Forge has seen multiple changes in the last few months, which have landed him back to where he started, which is interesting because if where he started needed a change, then bringing him back to that place is a little head-turning. Although I will say that Forge was good at doing his job, I am inclined to believe that he has been one of the most played cards in the game ever since he was moved to one cost. However, this change back to 2-cost is a nail in the coffin. Forge was great at what he did, and while he was helpful in many decks, he was heavily used in bounce decks to get his buff repeatedly. Bounce has not been the most effective deck this season, and with a pretty heavy meta on decks that can go over the top of most bounce decks, taking away one of their most effective cards is just ugly.
Furthermore, there were statements made that they wanted to buff some more 1-cost cards to make up for taking away one of the most used with Forge, and they started with the Ant-man change, which is fine, and then moved America Chavez down to 1-power. This is interesting because she adds 2-power to a card, but instead of being able to control which card gets the power, it is just the card on top of her deck. This is not an even replacement at all. America Chavez is useless when drawn late in the game, and in a perfect world, being able to bounce her back multiple times is excellent. In theory, having her buff applied to a random card off the top of your deck is not as helpful as you think. It's possible this change to America Chavez while masking as a buff is just a nerf across the board. Both of these card changes feel pretty ugly, and while things are still in flux, these changes don't inspire a lot of confidence that there will be a lot of positive change from them, landing them squarely in the ugly category.
The Irrelevant
Sword Master and Vulture
While both of these are simple buffs, it is significant that they are adding 1-power here and there. These will be mostly irrelevant. There is a world where the change to Vulture will make a difference because, after 1 move, he is now at 9-power, which is not insignificant. Move is an archetype that requires many moving pieces in the proper order to be powerful, which usually isn't that consistent. But I will say that I would love to be wrong about these changes and hope to see them more often in my games.
Cerebro Watch
C5
Cerebro 5 got several new cards to mess around with with this OTA. While putting Lockjaw in a C5 deck would be interesting, I am not convinced that would be the most effective use of a deck slot. It is something that could be fun. Ant-man is much more helpful in C5 because he is cheap and 5-power. Mainly, if you include cards like Black Swan that can make him free to play, that is a lot of power for little to no cost. Take some time and check out C5.
C5
C7
I was messing around with this the other day because Proxima Midnight came out, and with the sword master change, I thought C7 would be funny, especially with Onslaught, which could push out a ton of power if everything goes correctly. Give it a shot!
C7
C4
I shared a C4 deck in one of my previous articles, but now that we have gone through some changes, that deck is a little outdated. Here is an updated version with the newest addition, Adam Warlock. I still think I'd rather play Sera on turn 5, but in a pinch, he might be helpful to draw Cerebro.
C4
Overall OTA Feel
I am adding this section because there is a growing uneasiness in the community every time an OTA or a patch comes out. People are on both sides of arguments about whether a change is good, bad, or just plain ugly. There is also a good portion of people who think these are sometimes primarily irrelevant. The main thing is that many of these changes don't do much to balance the game, although they are labeled as balance patches or OTAs. Instead, they are mainly game and card changers. For example, the original iteration of America Chavez was not exactly unbalanced. She just put a spin on deck building that was unappealing to the developers then. That original change hasn't made much difference other than people missing her being in their decks. Now they have changed her another time to be at one cost. Does this make her effect more balanced? I'm not sure, especially because her original effect didn't make that much of a difference anyway, and many more cards feel more overpowered. These changes don't make the game seem balanced. They make the game appear different. I am sure many players loved playing Darkhawk and were having a good competitive time while people playing also were having a great time and not thinking, "Ugh, this Darkhawk deck is oppressive. I see it everywhere." To these players, this is a mix-up that seems out of left field. This change might be correct, and I don't have enough data to justify any internal discussions that justify a change, but the so-called "balance" of the patch doesn't feel like a balance at all. That can lead to many feel-bad moments; generally, each patch is initially met with good and bad. The other thing here is that since the changes don't always feel like a balance but more like a change, it can feel awful if the card you saved your scarce resources for is changed, not just balanced, right out from under you. So overall, I think this is a good patch, but it has a very initial feeling of being bad and head-scratching.
We should hopefully move back to an average OTA and balance schedule soon, which will result in some more mix-ups. It is still early to see all the effects, but this has been the latest OTA's Good, Bad, and Ugly. Let me know your thoughts down below!