Option to remove bad cards

[Natural__20]

We have the option to remove the power birds. Why not the impotent birds? I'm sure you can look at the least played birds analysis to make your determinations, but here's my suggestions:

Acord Woodpecker
Bewick's Wren
Black-Billed Whistling-Duck
Blue Grosbeak
Common Nighthawk
Loggerhead Shrike
Yellow-Breasted Chat

Visionary Leader

I'm sure I'm pushing 1000 games of Wingspan and I've played all of these less than 10 times, and most less then 5.

[Archisian]

The whole point of having less useful cards is to work around them. That's the strategy of it. Besides, if we don't have bad cards, it would make "tuck" birds like the American, Purple Martin, etc. less powerful.

I know getting less useful cards really sucks, especially when all the cards in your opening hand aren't good. But I think it's better than having all good cards and having to make difficult choices on which ones to toss out. If you have ever played Magic: The Gathering, the reason why they make bad cards is

1. Make money selling packs.

and

2. Have players understand the game to make the best decks.

Bad cards can be useful in ways you might not imagine. But, at the very least, it keeps the game balanced and makes sure players don't win from the opening hand just because they got that one card that decimates from the beginning.

[Andrei3009]

The whole point of having less useful cards is to work around them. That's the strategy of it. Besides, if we don't have bad cards, it would make "tuck" birds like the American, Purple Martin, etc. less powerful.

I know getting less useful cards really sucks, especially when all the cards in your opening hand aren't good. But I think it's better than having all good cards and having to make difficult choices on which ones to toss out. If you have ever played Magic: The Gathering, the reason why they make bad cards is

1. Make money selling packs.

and

2. Have players understand the game to make the best decks.

Bad cards can be useful in ways you might not imagine. But, at the very least, it keeps the game balanced and makes sure players don't win from the opening hand just because they got that one card that decimates from the beginning.

By removing the bad cards, you reduce the chances that not only good but also only bad cards, so it is unclear whether this will make the game more balanced. I agree that you can't remove all the weak cards, but you can remove some that are practically unplayable, and I would support that.

Even though mtg makes bad cards, players still play only very best ones (except for the draft), so the example does not work

[Archisian]

The whole point of having less useful cards is to work around them. That's the strategy of it. Besides, if we don't have bad cards, it would make "tuck" birds like the American, Purple Martin, etc. less powerful.

I know getting less useful cards really sucks, especially when all the cards in your opening hand aren't good. But I think it's better than having all good cards and having to make difficult choices on which ones to toss out. If you have ever played Magic: The Gathering, the reason why they make bad cards is

1. Make money selling packs.

and

2. Have players understand the game to make the best decks.

Bad cards can be useful in ways you might not imagine. But, at the very least, it keeps the game balanced and makes sure players don't win from the opening hand just because they got that one card that decimates from the beginning.

By removing the bad cards, you reduce the chances that not only good but also only bad cards, so it is unclear whether this will make the game more balanced. I agree that you can't remove all the weak cards, but you can remove some that are practically unplayable, and I would support that.

Even though mtg makes bad cards, players still play only very best ones (except for the draft), so the example does not work

In the case of Wingspan, I don't think there are cards that are truly unplayable. In the examples the OP gave, I think all the migratory birds are useful, especially if played in the first round (Bewick's Wren, Blue Grosbeak, Common Nighthawk, Yellow-Breasted Chat), even if they are your only option for a forest or wetland bird. The fact that they can change habitats is powerful in and of itself. Yeah, there are better ones at a lower cost, but these ones are useful. I'm actually confused on why they included the Common Nighthawk. A 3 pt migratory bird for only 2 invertebrates? Did they include it here simply because Chimney Swift is better due to it having a star nest?

The only cards that I would consider near useless are the Loggerhead Shrike and the Acorn Woodpecker, but they are situational. If your opponent is going for the rat bonus or predator bonus, Loggerhead Shrike can give you some extra points when they take rats. Acorn Woodpecker is a 4 egg captivity nest that can help an end of round goal of most eggs in the forest or simply to complete the captivity nest bonus. It's power isn't bad either, since you can take an extra seed and cache it if you want.

I honestly think there are worse cards, like the Horned Lark, Bobolink or Northern Flicker. But they still have their uses in the right situation.

The example I brought up with Magic is that, if you are playing Standard Format, you need to work with what you got within those sets. A lot of the time, you need to include bad or less useful cards just to make a deck. Modern and Legacy, yeah you'll take the best.

[kitwin]

I think this would be an intriguing option but I'm generally opposed to it for competitive settings. The "power 4" are obvious power outliers, and after that the Wood Duck has a unique ability to end a game in the first round, but while some of those birds are pretty bad in the abstract, most aren't stone unplayable (Bewick's Wren is probably my least favorite) - with end of round goals and bonus cards giving them fringe use.

Not a bad idea, necessarily, but I think it doesn't solve problems the way removing overpowered birds does. Easier to work around a card you don't want (discarding it, tucking it, etc) than it is to avoid a busted card from running away with the game when you keep it.

And terrible birds just aren't reliably truly terrible. Someone in the thread mentioned Bobolink, which has probably won me 3 or 4 games on its own at the right time. Horned Lark is awful, but it is still a bird that can help you secure Prairie Manager, "birds in grasslands" end of round, etc. Trim too many and you start to upset the balance bonus cards, etc.

Probably my favorite "yeah, kill it" from the list is Visionary Leader, because it's legitimately a trap for newbies and only IS a goal rather than affecting them. But I don't think any of the birds are reliably bad enough to cut.

[Andrei3009]

The whole point of having less useful cards is to work around them. That's the strategy of it. Besides, if we don't have bad cards, it would make "tuck" birds like the American, Purple Martin, etc. less powerful.

I know getting less useful cards really sucks, especially when all the cards in your opening hand aren't good. But I think it's better than having all good cards and having to make difficult choices on which ones to toss out. If you have ever played Magic: The Gathering, the reason why they make bad cards is

1. Make money selling packs.

and

2. Have players understand the game to make the best decks.

Bad cards can be useful in ways you might not imagine. But, at the very least, it keeps the game balanced and makes sure players don't win from the opening hand just because they got that one card that decimates from the beginning.

By removing the bad cards, you reduce the chances that not only good but also only bad cards, so it is unclear whether this will make the game more balanced. I agree that you can't remove all the weak cards, but you can remove some that are practically unplayable, and I would support that.

Even though mtg makes bad cards, players still play only very best ones (except for the draft), so the example does not work

In the case of Wingspan, I don't think there are cards that are truly unplayable. In the examples the OP gave, I think all the migratory birds are useful, especially if played in the first round (Bewick's Wren, Blue Grosbeak, Common Nighthawk, Yellow-Breasted Chat), even if they are your only option for a forest or wetland bird. The fact that they can change habitats is powerful in and of itself. Yeah, there are better ones at a lower cost, but these ones are useful. I'm actually confused on why they included the Common Nighthawk. A 3 pt migratory bird for only 2 invertebrates? Did they include it here simply because Chimney Swift is better due to it having a star nest?

The only cards that I would consider near useless are the Loggerhead Shrike and the Acorn Woodpecker, but they are situational. If your opponent is going for the rat bonus or predator bonus, Loggerhead Shrike can give you some extra points when they take rats. Acorn Woodpecker is a 4 egg captivity nest that can help an end of round goal of most eggs in the forest or simply to complete the captivity nest bonus. It's power isn't bad either, since you can take an extra seed and cache it if you want.

I honestly think there are worse cards, like the Horned Lark, Bobolink or Northern Flicker. But they still have their uses in the right situation.

The example I brought up with Magic is that, if you are playing Standard Format, you need to work with what you got within those sets. A lot of the time, you need to include bad or less useful cards just to make a deck. Modern and Legacy, yeah you'll take the best.

I missed that Common Nighthawk is included in the list. He's definitely weak, but even I've played him a couple of times in 150 games. The rest of the birds are at least so bad that I'm more likely to leave an empty hand than one of them if there's something in the tray.

Cards for three food slow down your pace too much, while having almost useless abilities. Loggerhead Shrike can do things sometimes, but his ability is almost useless anyway. Perhaps he should also be excluded from the list.

I agree with kitwin words that removing birds won't change game as much and it feels very good winning with starting with one of those birds

I disagree with your assessment of Northern Flicker. If there are 2 worms, you get a cheap bird in the forest, which is already OK, with 3+ worms this is a good tempo bird, especially if you want to spend them right away.

Bobolink is very situational, but I sometimes take it when I already have 4+ birds with the right nest. In the starting hand, it is really useless unless there are corresponding goals\bonus cards.

Regarding mtg: even in the standard, you choose the best cards from 2 (even 3 since 2023) and play with them. I can't remember the last time I saw weak cards in top decks.

UPD: the term "weak" depends on the total strength of the cards in the pool, but even so, the cards have good abilities and you understand that they were added for a reason. There is a lot of competition for almost all slots, it doesn't happen that there are no cards and you have to (and at the same time they are needed) take something not very good. The only thing that comes to mind is a "bad" manabase in some blocks

[Natural__20]

The whole point of having less useful cards is to work around them. That's the strategy of it. Besides, if we don't have bad cards, it would make "tuck" birds like the American, Purple Martin, etc. less powerful.

I find this unconvincing. I highly doubt cards were deliberately designed to be bad. Each card was attempted to be balanced with various degrees of success.

As far as tucking goes, you always tuck your least valuable bird for your particular set up. There is no weakening of tucking birds by getting rid of birds which are played in a miniscule number of circumstances. Plus, all birds have a time and a place. A spotted towhee can be very strong in round 1 but useless in round 4.

I know getting less useful cards really sucks, especially when all the cards in your opening hand aren't good. But I think it's better than having all good cards and having to make difficult choices on which ones to toss out.

How is it better? You devise a game plan from the 5 cards your are presented. The thing about not having useless cards is that you can always draw more valuable cards. And again, cards have a time and a place. Removing the useless cards doesn't mean you can't get "bad" cards at the start. A starting hand of all expensive white powers, for example.

[Natural__20]

In the case of Wingspan, I don't think there are cards that are truly unplayable. In the examples the OP gave, I think all the migratory birds are useful, especially if played in the first round (Bewick's Wren, Blue Grosbeak, Common Nighthawk, Yellow-Breasted Chat), even if they are your only option for a forest or wetland bird.

These migrators are all birds which require two of the same food cost. Most are 3 food cost total. In order to play them early you need to take a gain food action or overpay. This is hugely costly for round 1. Their point values are low. Migration is not a terrible power but it's also not great. The cost of these birds far outweighs their benefit.

[Natural__20]

I think this would be an intriguing option but I'm generally opposed to it for competitive settings. The "power 4" are obvious power outliers, and after that the Wood Duck has a unique ability to end a game in the first round, but while some of those birds are pretty bad in the abstract, most aren't stone unplayable (Bewick's Wren is probably my least favorite) - with end of round goals and bonus cards giving them fringe use.

The cards I listed are very fringe in my option. I would say that they are as useful as the power birds are useless. I've had starting hand wood duck and score in the low 80's before, but it's very rare. I've played the yellow breasted chat before and scored in the 100's, but it's also very rare. The fact that they are not completely useless all of the time does not mean they are worthy of being kept. I contend that removing them would lead to a more balanced game, and that is the ultimate goal and the ultimate good.

[FrankJones]

We have the option to remove the power birds. Why not the impotent birds? I'm sure you can look at the least played birds analysis to make your determinations, but here's my suggestions:

Acord Woodpecker
Bewick's Wren
Black-Billed Whistling-Duck
Blue Grosbeak
Common Nighthawk
Loggerhead Shrike
Yellow-Breasted Chat

Visionary Leader

I'm sure I'm pushing 1000 games of Wingspan and I've played all of these less than 10 times, and most less then 5.

I agree those are bad cards. I don't think I have ever played any of them. But, there likely would never be a consensus on which cards to include in that list, and the game designer is unlikely to sign off on such a change.

[EDIT: Whoops. I missed the Comon Nighthawk. That bird can be useful, and I have played it.]