The more cards in the game with different effects, the more strategy and thought required to play. Win win.
FG15-ISH7EG;n10459462 said:
I mentioned alzurs thunder in the patch thread in the news section.. for all I've seen is thunder spam..in which case I didn't realise it had been bumped to 9 damage at the winter update because I barley seen it out side of ST.
now it seems to be "the" card (outside of nilfgaard spy spam shit) Those 2 cards alone can shut down nekkers, arachas, axemen ...anything that needs an engine going to make the deck playable
So I guess we will see how it plays out..but from what I'm seeing it's all about who's got more ways to stop the engine type decks...which seems to be very easy to do now
SHALLAHJUSTICE;n10460002 said:
Yes. But there needs to be balance on things. No one thing should rule them all (pun intended).
We saw it on dorf meta, how point spewing just plainly worked against almost anything.
I think the game starts to suffer when you introduce more cards and effects that has same exact purpose be it damage dealing or just strenghten ability.
What we really need is card combinations that can go farther than 2 cards. for example C harpy->vran -> nekkers profit.
Well.. thats only 3 cards, but I hope I am getting my point trough.
Introducing cards like "deal X damage...." "Strenghten self by X" etc are non interactive cards that should exist, but they should also be limited.
I much more enjoy card abilites like ambush, swap, consume, damage self, resurrect, reveal, draw, lock, charm, etc etc.
Those are the good abilities and create interesting combinations. Johnny/sarah/Iris' Companions (former lesser demons) for example are awesome cards, but sadly not good for climbing ladder.
They should be.
Card abilities that are boost, strenghten, damage, destroy... Well, I fail to see any meaningfull combinations that can be achieved with those abilities, unless they are designed creative way.
Good example of card that does damage and boost well is Wolfsbane. Has interaction because it can be discarded with other cards, needs to be timed and needs player to think what round he wants it to proc.
Bad example of card is Dwarven Skirmisher. Does not need brain, doesnt have synergy with other cards, totally non interactive.
TweetyLeaf;n10459892 said:
No, I completely understand where you're coming from. I run a few Henselt decks, and when oppo's see him it's like they have to zap every card I lay down just because I might run Henselt on it - like if my side of the board is clear and I'm at zero points (or only if Ronvid is out or there's something "non-Henseltable") then they're safe - which to a degree they are, but it gets fxxxing boring watching these people sacrifice their own game just to try and get another one of my cards off the board.
And things like Vrihedd Dragoons never stay on the board long enough to do but one point of buffing, so handbuff for me is pretty much retired. Of course there are alternatives to Dragoons, but they're one of the main engine pieces and it appears, drops one 1pt buff, then gets zapped... so yeah I totally understand where you're coming from.
*Mods* I did wander off topic earlier - apologies.
4RM3D;n10455222 said:
They are one and the same.
And thus both are the problem with gwent. You see scorch has one sole use: To deny your opponent power. Therefor it is a powerplay and there for it is simply point spewing in another format.
We have two things to do in gwent. Play stuff for points or kill stuff for points.
I mean Locks aren't needed because you can just kill stuff instead, and when you kill stuff you deny your opponent points. So you're playing for points rather than a tactical advantage. Yet more of gwents identity removed.
True, but thunder is only good against value-over-time-units. Otherwise it's just a 7-9 point card. Lock, on the other hand, is not good against anything at all right now. That has nothing to do with removal.
That isn't completly true. Units don't have to be value over time themselves for being a good Alzurs target, but it is enough for them to being affected by other cards.Barracuda88;n10460872 said:
If a card is removed, it can't be boosted anymore by Commanders Horn, by boons or other boosts. Also, it can't be decoyed or a copy if it being played by cards like Reaver Hunter or Henselt.
Also, even if Alzur has only 9 points, there are tutors with Elven Mercenary and Sage, giving the combination an average power of 11 points.
To sum this up, Alzur might be good against any card with synergie, whith 9 or less power. The only decks Alzur isn't really worth it are those point vomit decks without any synergie.
FG15-ISH7EG;n10461002 said:
Well, there are a few things in here that also aren't "completely true". What you're describing is a very specific deck with Mercs and Sages, not "Alzur's Thunder" per se. Yes, you can create a deck with... hmm I can count about 9 usable ATs. Between the merc and the sage, the MAX average would actually be 10.5, not 11 points.
If a card is removed, as you say, it can't be boosted by boons or CH, but you forgot to add FOR ONE TURN, which means i'm still only hitting +1-2 or 3(CH) value on top of whatever it was I removed, and unless I removed that perfect-fit 9-point card, the value I'm getting out of this play is not really all that. NOT hitting that 9 points will probably happen a lot.
If you want to sacrifice a Thunder to remove a card like Barclay or Hattori to prevent it from being Decoyed, that's a valid play, but I could do the same with the Archer and it will also leave me 7 points on the board, so.
To sum it up, Alzur - also like you said - MIGHT be good, or it might be average, or it might be bad, like many other cards. Funnily enough, the "point-vomiting" decks will at least usually allow you to hit the point cap. Regardless, it's a valid tactical choice to include it in a deck and it should not be nerfed.
My first instinct is to say that you just want two people to play solitaire in front of each other. But while I don't think we are there yet (I play a engine heavy deck successfully), I agree that we can't go too far on allowing removal.
Viper witcher, for example, I tend to think they shouldn't be able to be resuscitated. You get 3 OP removals, that is enough. I haven't played against many ST decks, but 4-6 Alzurs could get tiring. (However, most lists I saw play only one thunder, which gives a maximum of 2 thunders.) If you think that thunder is that strong, that you should play as many as possible, try it out. It is a good exercise: we can only see clearly the flaws of cards and decks by playing them.
When you get stuck with thunder against a mass of 4-5 point creatures with only deploy effects (for example, a Temerian deck), you will see how removal is not overpowered right now.
Viper witcher, for example, I tend to think they shouldn't be able to be resuscitated. You get 3 OP removals, that is enough. I haven't played against many ST decks, but 4-6 Alzurs could get tiring. (However, most lists I saw play only one thunder, which gives a maximum of 2 thunders.) If you think that thunder is that strong, that you should play as many as possible, try it out. It is a good exercise: we can only see clearly the flaws of cards and decks by playing them.
When you get stuck with thunder against a mass of 4-5 point creatures with only deploy effects (for example, a Temerian deck), you will see how removal is not overpowered right now.
There are still alot of point vomiting decks out there, and scorch/removal spam decks are point vomiting decks too, just in the opposit way.
There are way too few interesting decks out there with engines, a healthy mix between big units and removal and all that. NG Spies, NR Mashines and ST Handbuff are some examples of what Gwent decks should be like.
There are way too few interesting decks out there with engines, a healthy mix between big units and removal and all that. NG Spies, NR Mashines and ST Handbuff are some examples of what Gwent decks should be like.
Shadow-Stalker;n10460382 said:
Let's take a small detour here. Gwent's identity has indeed changed over time with the change to weather and rows, among other things. However, spewing points is not one of the reasons.
The Witcher 3 Gwent was also all about spewing points and had even less variety or tactics compared to the current Gwent. Not to mention the factions were pretty unbalanced. So, this change in identity you speak of, doesn't apply here.
Shadow-Stalker;n10460382 said:
On that, I can agree. However, there is still a middle ground. It's up to CDPR to incentivize players to push more towards that balance, instead of running one or the other complete opposites.
TweetyLeaf;n10459892 said:
My current main deck only has like four cards with any type of removal. I don't really see the problem that you are seeing currently. Decks that use multiple scorches don't really seem very powerful.
4RM3D;n10461212 said:
That's incorrect; sure, Gwent is, was and always will be about points. That is the main basis of the game.
However, it used to be about what tactical advantage you had over your opponent, what your deck could do that they couldn't. Expecting what they could do and stopping it or countering it. Luring them into a trap or playing every moment like it was your last. (To sum it up very, very simply)
Now you play your deck. You don't care what your opponent does because it won't change what card you play next. Because you're going to play your cards in a specific order because that's the order you play your cards every match.
And you're also kidding or weren't actually in the closed beta if you think there was LESS identity and variety back then.
TweetyLeaf;n10455402 said:
Then what should be done? Also, its just your opinion. Maybe its not your kind of game. Nothing is "brainless" behind using scorch and other damage cards to reduce or remove strong units. Your fault for making 2 unit strong. Your fault for not having a different tactic for damage spam. Also, if the enemy spams damage cards they got almost no units.
Shadow-Stalker
You have nostalgia goggles on. In the Witcher 3 Gwent, most cards didn't have an ability and all that mattered was spamming as many spies as you could. This concept of Gwent would never have worked as a CCG because it's far too limited and unbalanced. In closed beta, the devs maintained a semblance of identity while evolving Gwent into something more akin to a CCG. The closed beta had interesting mechanics and a decent meta. It had a few things it did better then compared to now. However, in order to expand Gwent, the devs needed to break open the game, so to speak. It's debatable whether or not Gwent is going in the right direction and it has walked a rocky path. Regardless, there is one thing that is certain, Gwent could not keep growing within the confines of closed beta. In the end, Gwent's nemesis is itself and it should not remain shackled by it.
You have nostalgia goggles on. In the Witcher 3 Gwent, most cards didn't have an ability and all that mattered was spamming as many spies as you could. This concept of Gwent would never have worked as a CCG because it's far too limited and unbalanced. In closed beta, the devs maintained a semblance of identity while evolving Gwent into something more akin to a CCG. The closed beta had interesting mechanics and a decent meta. It had a few things it did better then compared to now. However, in order to expand Gwent, the devs needed to break open the game, so to speak. It's debatable whether or not Gwent is going in the right direction and it has walked a rocky path. Regardless, there is one thing that is certain, Gwent could not keep growing within the confines of closed beta. In the end, Gwent's nemesis is itself and it should not remain shackled by it.
Last edited:
4RM3D;n10467592 said:
Indeed, to the nth degree. I've never seen a game win and lose against itself so frequently while the fanbase just looks on slack-jawed & wondering why.
SarahAustin;n10467512 said:
It definitely is my kind of game.
And you are wrong, as I stated the problem is chaining damage cards while at the same time racking up small points. For example playing AT from elven merc is over and over again to stop the engine of any decks that you go against is just brainless.
My point is, that decks should be "allowed to breathe". Completely shutting down every deck that has creative multi card combinations with pure damage is brainless but most importantly it is not fun mechanic in the long run for either party.
It does not result in interesting, deep gameplay.
TheShift;n10460042 said:
Play smart, dont just blindly throw critical building cards down, throw down silver cards that chain with eachother, those 3 witcher cards for example gives you a lead and an opportunity to play either a building card or an attack card depending on your enemy's build.