Why Geralt: Igni needs to be Tweaked

[Redcoat2012]

Why Geralt: Igni needs to be Tweaked

As the baseline values for cards have increased G:igni's requirements for use have not. It's no longer a matter of whether a row will reach 20 points in value but when and what value will G:igni burn. Gigni was a loathsome card back when the values were significantly lower and as such I suggest that G:igni should only trigger on rows above 25 or perhaps even 30 strength. It currently lacks any risk as its effect will practically always be usable and far more often than not for greater than the 9 points it would need to hit the 13 value sweet spot. By upping the requirements it would bring back some of the risk and allow players to actually deny it rather than just accepting it as an inevitability and trying to minimize its impact.

 

[kaalev]

Or maybe stop stacking units of same power on the same row? Surely you can manage that when almost every unit is agile now, no?

On a side note, Gigni is a necessary evil in this powercreep meta.

 

[R3V3RS3PARADOX]

I actually just lost 5 games in a row because of that one card. Seems like everyone has one but me and it is a very powerful last card to play to turn the game. I agree with it being change to 25 and his power could be increased to a 6.

 

[Redcoat2012]

Or maybe stop stacking units of same power on the same row? Surely you can manage that when almost every unit is agile now, no?

On a side note, Gigni is a necessary evil in this powercreep meta.

Certain deck archetypes cannot avoid making high power igni targets, take mulligan decks the Vrihedd Brigades are 13-15 points a piece, if the final round goes beyond 3 cards its practically guaranteed that one row will hit 20+ strength. Worse still when you combine drowners or scoia movement cards you're left with no option but to watch yourself get rekt 2 turns ahead. Again as you mentioned power has creeped up and it's at the point where G:igni doesn't need stacked rows of matching power cards but a mere 9 strength card will almost always guarantee that this card performs as well if not better than the majority of golds even though it was meant to be a high risk high reward.

 

[devivre]

Not really...often I'm kinda struggling with getting value from Igni and I don't often see opponents get that much value from it either.
Sometimes it works well, sometimes it doesn't. Also it's not like you can't anticipate this move.

I really don't see the problem.

 

[4RM3D]

While there usually is a row with +20 power, that isn't always the case when you have Igni. This will render the card useless sometimes. At the same time, if you can hit multiple units with the same strength, you can get insane value from it. This huge difference between being useless and creating a massive power swing, might actually be unhealthy for the game. No one is using assassination, while that card always provides value, just at a lower potential, and at the same time, at a lower risk. This has to change. I am actually thinking about suggesting to change Igni altogether. Just keep it at 4 strength with the ability to lock and destroy a unit (and rework Assassination). It becomes less tactical, yes. But now, it's just too dominating/prevailed.

 

[Tapiir]

Or maybe stop stacking units of same power on the same row? Surely you can manage that when almost every unit is agile now, no?

On a side note, Gigni is a necessary evil in this powercreep meta.

Well if two or three units a row is stacking.... Not to mention e.g. NR trios which require you to have multiple units on the same row to get the maximum effect out of them.

I agree with OP that Igni should be tweaked to require atleast 25 power. I could also support what 4RM3D is suggesting.

 

[Redcoat2012]

Not really...often I'm kinda struggling with getting value from Igni and I don't often see opponents get that much value from it either.
Sometimes it works well, sometimes it doesn't. Also it's not like you can't anticipate this move.

I really don't see the problem.

If you're failing to see the problem take one look at the meta decks on gwent DB and you'd notice that near every patch this card shows up in an large number of decks, if they don't automatically include Gigni they generally suggest it as a card replacement. Ironically it was only a rare card during the start of OB because the ragh nah drought decks had counter synergy with it. Igni and Borkh sit in this weird spot where they would pretty much always be your 5th or 6th gold choice if your first 4 choices happen to have better synergy, something that is rare in and of itself.

You can anticipate it but there is not an awful lot you can do about it, pass early to deny the opponents satisfaction? You still end up losing. It also plays into SK's favor and may well be part of the reason that SK is always so prevalent. As they can revive the unit you scorched and as they generally avoid boosting strength it usually comes without much cost to do so. If you play something like an investment scoia deck (dragoons/brigades) it's a very different matter and part of the reason that the only scoia deck worth mentioning recently has been such a cheesy one, although ST is in a very bad place for a variety of reasons.

Igni is one of the most detested cards whilst also being (and whilst I have no metric data to back this following statement up but I'm confident in its validity) the most utilized gold card in the game, possibly both current patch and throughout the games lifespan. If you can't see the problem with it could it possibly be that you're climbing the ladder with it?

While there usually is a row with +20 power, that isn't always the case when you have Igni. This will render the card useless sometimes. At the same time, if you can hit multiple units with the same strength, you can get insane value from it. This huge difference between being useless and creating a massive power swing, might actually be unhealthy for the game. No one is using assassination, while that card always provides value, just at a lower potential, and at the same time, at a lower risk. This has to change. I am actually thinking about suggesting to change Igni altogether. Just keep it at 4 strength with the ability to lock and destroy a unit (and rework Assassination). It becomes less tactical, yes. But now, it's just too dominating/prevailed.

There are occasions where some players will allow the game to turn into a one card final round, if you have igni and allow this to happen you've no one to blame if you lose but yourself, honestly when the game comes down to who flips the better card both players deserve to lose. As for rendering the card potentially useless, that is exactly my suggestion; not that it is technically true as it will still hold its base value. There are plenty of cards out there that can become dead cards by circumstances, I see no reason Gigni should be any different.

Furthermore this wouldn't even really be a nerf to Gigni, it would maintain the same power just without the same ease of use, again back in closed beta Igni cards would regularly fail to trigger as bronze and silver cards on the whole brought significantly lower value to the board. Even so back in those days many moons ago people complained en masse about this card and at the time it was far more avoidable, again at current the risk to running this is practically non existent, the few hypothetical situations such as the 1 card round draws don't outweigh the realistic rate of success. Honestly 25 strength wouldn't even make this card that tricky to run just potential to avoid. Another suggestion for it would be make it burn the strongest card/s on the row friend or foe so that players can take shelter under their opponents higher value cards, just like Scorch and Borkh, or even perhaps apply scorch effects to both rows by standard to again reduce its flexibility.

I like assassination as it is, I actually think its a powerful card, unfortunately for it there are so many cards that do for most intentions the same thing and it being NG only limits its access whilst also sitting next to Vilg. The only thing this card does better than the rest is kill Morkvarg where as gigni brings strength, Vilg brings even more strength and multiple uses. If you really wanted to make Assassination stand out it could demote, lock, and kill units (so basically a gold sniper), however I think that this would be unhealthy for the game, that having been said D.Shackles are just as unhealthy for similar reasons and they're not being removed anytime soon - sadly.

Either way turning G:igni into Assassination would likely just piss off the reddit balance team more than tweaking igni itself. As for assassination, given the decision I wouldn't do much to try and promote it, instead I would address the cards that outshine it, Vilg could probably use a base strength nerf. If at 4 strength if he burns a vico (which is a probability) hes getting a bronze (9 strength seems to be the baseline) so that exchange would be 8 points and as 12 appears to be the gold baseline (triss/geralt suggests this) so 4-5 strength seems to be a good place for him. When that and G:igni are dealt with Assassination might start being more widely used (especially if mork keeps being spammed). Another option for ass could be to banish a card but again this only helps it kill mork and the problem with ass is its competition.

 

[devivre]

If you're failing to see the problem take one look at the meta decks on gwent DB and you'd notice that near every patch this card shows up in an large number of decks, if they don't automatically include Gigni they generally suggest it as a card replacement. Ironically it was only a rare card during the start of OB because the ragh nah drought decks had counter synergy with it. Igni and Borkh sit in this weird spot where they would pretty much always be your 5th or 6th gold choice if your first 4 choices happen to have better synergy, something that is rare in and of itself.

You can anticipate it but there is not an awful lot you can do about it, pass early to deny the opponents satisfaction? You still end up losing. It also plays into SK's favor and may well be part of the reason that SK is always so prevalent. As they can revive the unit you scorched and as they generally avoid boosting strength it usually comes without much cost to do so. If you play something like an investment scoia deck (dragoons/brigades) it's a very different matter and part of the reason that the only scoia deck worth mentioning recently has been such a cheesy one, although ST is in a very bad place for a variety of reasons.

Igni is one of the most detested cards whilst also being (and whilst I have no metric data to back this following statement up but I'm confident in its validity) the most utilized gold card in the game, possibly both current patch and throughout the games lifespan. If you can't see the problem with it could it possibly be that you're climbing the ladder with it?

The card is by far not that present anymore as it was in CB.
Besides I haven't met that many SK decks that would rely on Igni. This card definitely has nothing to do with the crap that is going on there.

Also I don't give a shit about climbing the ladder, so please don't assume stuff like that, just because I disagree with you .

 

[Redcoat2012]

The card is by far not that present anymore as it was in CB.
Besides I haven't met that many SK decks that would rely on Igni. This card definitely has nothing to do with the crap that is going on there.

Also I don't give a shit about climbing the ladder, so please don't assume stuff like that, just because I disagree with you .

If it were an assumption it wouldn't have been posed as a question, though you never denied whether you was was using it. I think you've mistaken the SK point, I'm saying that being igni'd hurts SK less as it plays into their rez mechanic. I didn't imply that Igni was something SK uses more than other factions also Igni typically isn't found in weather decks, that being said Igni was in Lifecoach's deck the last I saw of it (yesterday) and his decks seems to be the one that gets spammed the most in my opinion on the ladder at least.

 

[Tir_na_Lia]

I agree with the OP.

Also, unlike Assassination, it provides 4 Str.
A Neutral Card being stronger than a faction card with a similar effect should be somehow reworked.

 

[Laveley]

G;igni is not that good right now and it tends to get weaker with every patch.

People advice it as a substitute just because he is a neutral that can more or less fit any deck.

Assassination is a bad card yes, and should be reworked.

 

[Redcoat2012]

G;igni is not that good right now and it tends to get weaker with every patch.

People advice it as a substitute just because he is a neutral that can more or less fit any deck.

Assassination is a bad card yes, and should be reworked.

As per usual we've come to a disagreement, would you care to elaborate on your beliefs or will it just be sweeping statements?

 

[Laveley]

As per usual we've come to a disagreement, would you care to elaborate on your beliefs or will it just be sweeping statements?

Beliefs on what? Why the card isnt that good?

i mean, on the current meta, the scenarios where you will capitalize more with gigni are when your opponent have buffed cards (i.e. axeman, DBP's or buffed dwarfs). On those scenarios maerdroeme will have pretty much the same results while being a bronze card with more utility than igni (on a pinch you can use it to heal a high base strength unit on weather).

its way easier to avoid igni now with all the agile units around too.

the scenarios where you will use him on non-buffed unis he will give you an average of points any other gold will give you (i.e. igni on crones) or simply be a dead card on your hand.

That doesnt mean igni is a plain bad card, but is far away from being an auto-include as it already was on its glory days.

 

[Redcoat2012]

Beliefs on what? Why the card isnt that good?

i mean, on the current meta, the scenarios where you will capitalize more with gigni are when your opponent have buffed cards (i.e. axeman, DBP's or buffed dwarfs). On those scenarios maerdroeme will have pretty much the same results while being a bronze card with more utility than igni (on a pinch you can use it to heal a high base strength unit on weather).

its way easier to avoid igni now with all the agile units around too.

the scenarios where you will use him on non-buffed unis he will give you an average of points any other gold will give you (i.e. igni on crones) or simply be a dead card on your hand.

That doesnt mean igni is a plain bad card, but is far away from being an auto-include as it already was on its glory days.

Auto include would be going a tad far for sure, but its popularity is creeping up and it's popularity will also as weather use declines, its getting worryingly close to that level. I don't propose that the card is flat out too powerful more that its too easy to use and rewards its users more often than it punishes them. Mardroeme for example doesn't see that much play outside control decks purely because you run the risk of having a 3 strength card by including it, it is also bad for your mulligan black listing strat to take lots of single bronze units but you generally can't afford to take two of these for the sake of those games they won't work.

Igni doesn't have this problem, it doesn't affect your mulligan like single bronze units can, is always at least a 4 but lets be honest its always going to burn 6+ and that's an extremely conservative estimate of its minimum. Sure agile units are prevalent but in a medium to long round its almost a given that a row if not all of them will be above the 20 minimum required. It might be easier to play cards where you want them but back in igni's prime the board values were considerably lower than they are today, even then people truly hated this card and it wasn't hard for it to trigger for high value's. I'm merely suggesting that the risk factor needs to be toned up, frankly I'm not sure this sort of change would even warrant a full scrap refund if it were implemented.

 

[Laveley]

Auto include would be going a tad far for sure, but its popularity is creeping up and it's popularity will also as weather use declines, its getting worryingly close to that level. I don't propose that the card is flat out too powerful more that its too easy to use and rewards its users more often than it punishes them. Mardroeme for example doesn't see that much play outside control decks purely because you run the risk of having a 3 strength card by including it, it is also bad for your mulligan black listing strat to take lots of single bronze units but you generally can't afford to take two of these for the sake of those games they won't work. Igni doesn't have this problem, it doesn't affect your mulligan like single bronze units can, is always at least a 4 but lets be honest its always going to burn 6+ and that's an extremely conservative estimate of its minimum. Sure agile units are prevalent but in a medium to long round its almost a given that a row if not all of them will be above the 20 minimum required. It might be easier to play cards where you want them but back in igni's prime the board values were considerably lower than they are today, even then people truly hated this card and it wasn't hard for it to trigger for high value's. I'm merely suggesting that the risk factor needs to be toned up, frankly I'm not sure this sort of change would even warrant a full scrap refund if it were implemented.

You see, thats why i dont like to discuss with you. Basically i think the opposite of everything you wroth, from its popularity (maedroeme is far more popular), from the times it wont be useful (an dead igni is far more worse than a dead maerdrome, and like i already said, maedrome is less prone to be dead anyways) to the frequency of its usefulness (for me, igni is more often a dead card or at max an average value gold than a high value one). Also, on ignis prime board values were much bigger than we have now imo, again i think the exact opposite of you.

It seems we play a complete different game.

All in all, what i can say to you i already said; on the current meta igni is basically a maerdrome with the worsening factor that igni is a gold and maerdroeme is a bronze.

 

[4RM3D]

Deleted a post and edited another one. It seems the vendetta in another thread has jumped to this one. As SigilFey already mentioned there, shake hand and move along. No more fist fighting.

 

[Redcoat2012]

You see, thats why i dont like to discuss with you. Basically i think the opposite of everything you wroth, from its popularity (maedroeme is far more popular), from the times it wont be useful (an dead igni is far more worse than a dead maerdrome, and like i already said, maedrome is less prone to be dead anyways) to the frequency of its usefulness (for me, igni is more often a dead card or at max an average value gold than a high value one). Also, on ignis prime board values were much bigger than we have now imo, again i think the exact opposite of you.

It seems we play a complete different game.

All in all, what i can say to you i already said; on the current meta igni is basically a maerdrome with the worsening factor that igni is a gold and maerdroeme is a bronze.

You say you don't like to discuss things with me yet you're always present without an argument ready to disagree, almost feels like you feel some sort of obligation to argue with me....

You're welcome not to comment, and I truly mean very welcome, I will say this though, a dead mardroeme is literally 1 strength worse than a dead igni, so objectively its worse.

"but its a goooooold card"....

At some levels a card is a card, the external deck building limitations do not apply to the in game ones, the only difference would be that gold status cards can't be interacted with by things like alzurs, the same can be said for mardroeme. Igni is far less likely to be 'dead' however as buffed strength is much rarer than increased base strength and almost always will be therefore whilst igni will burn a 10 strength NGKnight for a 14 tempo play mardroeme will deal a meager 3 damage.....

If you honestly believe what you said with "for me, igni is more often a dead card or at max an average value gold than a high value one", it might reflect a skill level disagreement, what is your current mmr? I couldn't find you briefly browsing the top 1000.

Deleted a post and edited another one. It seems the vendetta in another thread has jumped to this one. As SigilFey already mentioned there, shake hand and move along. No more fist fighting.

Fist fighting? But I hadn't even threatened to take this to a physical level!

 

[Laveley]

You say you don't like to discuss things with me yet you're always present without an argument ready to disagree, almost feels like you feel some sort of obligation to argue with me.... You're welcome not to comment, and I truly mean very welcome, I will say this though, a dead mardroeme is literally 1 strength worse than a dead igni, so objectively its worse. "but its a goooooold card".... At some levels a card is a card, the external deck building limitations do not apply to the in game ones, the only difference would be that gold status cards can't be interacted with by things like alzurs, the same can be said for mardroeme. Igni is far less likely to be 'dead' however as buffed strength is much rarer than increased base strength and almost always will be therefore whilst igni will burn a 10 strength NGKnight for a 14 tempo play mardroeme will deal a meager 3 damage..... If you honestly believe what you said with "for me, igni is more often a dead card or at max an average value gold than a high value one", it might reflect a skill level disagreement, what is your current mmr? I couldn't find you briefly browsing the top 1000.

I dont like to argue with you because you are the type of guy that i feel i'm playing chess with a bird when i argue with. I just gave my opinion on my first post with a simple but well developed argument (that you still didnt refuted) and yet here you are saying i presented my opinion without any argument...

worst, your arguments are pretty nonsensical also. You say things like "a card is a card" so its better having a gold dead card than a bronze one or even simply ignoring the fact that if you heal a unit even by one single point than your dead maerdroeme its already better than a dead igni, etc... its useless. In fact, i'm ignoring this thread from now on, it was a mistake to post here.

 

[Redcoat2012]

Calls my refutation nonsensical and then misconstrues it entirely whilst mirroring my "no argument" line in error..... Does a 6 strength gold card beat a 10 strength bronze one because its gold? in a 1 card show down? No. That was the point. It doesn't matter that Gigni is gold and shrooms are not; the two are incomparable frankly a reset and a scorch have different implications. Even then gold/silver/bronze for most intents and purposes are simply deck building limitations, the value of some bronze cards vastly exceed that of golds, especially f you set Iorveth as the baseline for golds.

It would be best that you actually ignored the thread, your right about the bird chess analogy you're really mistaking your place in it however.