After watching some Kano games, I'm convinced that he is a mistake in Flesh and Blood. Kano is a combo deck that is VERY non-interactive due to how Arcane damage works. There really aren't and defense reactions that can be used against Arcane; it requires very specific equipment to stop it even partially. Many cards can be played at instant speed, so attack-based hand disruption isn't very effective. Kano doesn't defend well, so in early rounds it's just him getting hit in the face. I feel like Flesh and Blood is designed an an interactive, back-and-forth trading of resources, but Kano doesn't care about that. The only thing that matters is whether he can set his combo up before he dies, which usually means he has two or three turns AT MOST. However, because he can play so much on his opponent's turn, even in response to disruption, it often seems like both players are just "fishbowling" their decks. I'm not advocating for the removal of Kano, and I certainly would like to see more Wizards in the future, but I think design should shy away from encouraging non-interactive "combo" decks such as this one in the future.
due to the fact it uses arcane dmg is very interactive and punishes bad deckbuilding. Also, he went off at turn 3.5, he'd be dead that turn: aggros that goldfish a kill at t3 are ok, but combos who take 3-4 turns to try to win are bad? Thing is, combo, if supported well, keeps in check either aggro or control: and it has to be hateable enough by both if it goes overboard. It's about game design and now with frostbites kano will be less playable
I couldn't disagree more. Kano is a perfect hero to show how diverse this game really is mechanically. Kano is so deep with possibilities that from 4 cards one player would do only 6 damage, while an other one would do 34. Kano is the rawest power in the room.
@@arnoldnemeth8578 I think that Iyslander shows how terrible Kano's design is. She leans heavily on Arcane damage, but in a way that is interactive and interesting. The fact that she is in Classic Constructed now really highlights how poorly-designed it is to have a deck that designed to either just combo-out or lose, especially since Iys has a combo path to victory (with Frost Hex) or a more traditional path via burn spells, Waning Moon, and control. And she STILL plays on her opponent's turn, which is the defining characteristic of Wizards, it would seem. Also, the fact that one person could pilot 4 cards to 6 damage while another could pilot the same four cards to 36 doesn't make Kano any better. You have to assume that the best players will always pilot to that 36 damage. Player skill isn't a balancing factor and doesn't make things more interesting for the person sitting across the table for 10+ minutes while the Kano player attempts to riddle out their one-turn kill.
Awooooo! Wolf pack! Great game and showing from both players.
8:40 isnt this for 8 becuase of wildfire?
One can say he gambled the win, because if the opp had one blue and one red he would not be able to pull it off. But nice combo finish
Coool 🤩💪🏽
MATH
REKT
After watching some Kano games, I'm convinced that he is a mistake in Flesh and Blood.
Kano is a combo deck that is VERY non-interactive due to how Arcane damage works. There really aren't and defense reactions that can be used against Arcane; it requires very specific equipment to stop it even partially. Many cards can be played at instant speed, so attack-based hand disruption isn't very effective. Kano doesn't defend well, so in early rounds it's just him getting hit in the face.
I feel like Flesh and Blood is designed an an interactive, back-and-forth trading of resources, but Kano doesn't care about that. The only thing that matters is whether he can set his combo up before he dies, which usually means he has two or three turns AT MOST. However, because he can play so much on his opponent's turn, even in response to disruption, it often seems like both players are just "fishbowling" their decks.
I'm not advocating for the removal of Kano, and I certainly would like to see more Wizards in the future, but I think design should shy away from encouraging non-interactive "combo" decks such as this one in the future.
due to the fact it uses arcane dmg is very interactive and punishes bad deckbuilding. Also, he went off at turn 3.5, he'd be dead that turn: aggros that goldfish a kill at t3 are ok, but combos who take 3-4 turns to try to win are bad? Thing is, combo, if supported well, keeps in check either aggro or control: and it has to be hateable enough by both if it goes overboard.
It's about game design and now with frostbites kano will be less playable
I couldn't disagree more. Kano is a perfect hero to show how diverse this game really is mechanically. Kano is so deep with possibilities that from 4 cards one player would do only 6 damage, while an other one would do 34. Kano is the rawest power in the room.
@@arnoldnemeth8578 I think that Iyslander shows how terrible Kano's design is. She leans heavily on Arcane damage, but in a way that is interactive and interesting. The fact that she is in Classic Constructed now really highlights how poorly-designed it is to have a deck that designed to either just combo-out or lose, especially since Iys has a combo path to victory (with Frost Hex) or a more traditional path via burn spells, Waning Moon, and control. And she STILL plays on her opponent's turn, which is the defining characteristic of Wizards, it would seem.
Also, the fact that one person could pilot 4 cards to 6 damage while another could pilot the same four cards to 36 doesn't make Kano any better. You have to assume that the best players will always pilot to that 36 damage. Player skill isn't a balancing factor and doesn't make things more interesting for the person sitting across the table for 10+ minutes while the Kano player attempts to riddle out their one-turn kill.
@@Josh-99 copium