Imlerith: Sabbath

[Hellsmoke77]

It is curious that you omit the quote where I said, the abusers of this card ( and the following) has pushed beyond the limits. I don't believe you have 100% win rate against such decks, but rather I believe you are exactly one of those abusers.

If you wanted to keep enjoying your new toy, you should not have overplayed it.

I too own the card AND have lost one game to it out of around 25. I am an old monster player who jumped ship because other factions are simply stronger and better in every way. I own every monster card and most of them premium. I don't even play I:S because he isn't enough to make monsters great again. He gets destroyed the minute he drops, just like I have a mandrake waiting every time I encounter a monster deck.

I tried him out for one day in casual and came to the conclusion that he'd have a nice little spot in my moonlight deck but he wont make or break it. I went back to ST the next day. The card is easy to counter, nerfing him would just add to the junk pile of useless cards that monsters already has a lot of.

 

[Ic3Purple]

I too own the card AND have lost one game to it out of around 25. I am an old monster player who jumped ship because other factions are simply stronger and better in every way. I own every monster card and most of them premium. I don't even play I:S because he isn't enough to make monsters great again. He gets destroyed the minute he drops, just like I have a mandrake waiting every time I encounter a monster deck.

I tried him out for one day in casual and came to the conclusion that he'd have a nice little spot in my moonlight deck but he wont make or break it. I went back to ST the next day. The card is easy to counter, nerfing him would just add to the junk pile of useless cards that monsters already has a lot of.

So what are you suggesting? Should it stay as it is?

In my opinion, nope. The tag Dommed I believe it is fair enough. But I agree with you, the monster faction isn't quite as good as other. So, do we wish to see the coming back of it thanks to this card? Mhh, it is a point to start with, okay.

Again, I believe the doomed tag is okay but then, it should get a buff to its strength or amor as compensation. After that, there is still resilience in case someone passes the round. You still have the first play on the next round, and buffs its strenght. Yeah, he/she play a schorch... amen...You still forced your opponent to play another hard removal. Still not fair enough?

I'm open to suggestions

 

[Hellsmoke77]

So what are you suggesting? It should stay as it is?

In my opinion, nope. The tag Dommed I beleive it is fair enough. But I agree with you monster aren't quite as good as other factions of the meta. So, If we wish to see the coming back of it thanks to this card? Mhh, it is point to stat with.

Again, I beleive the doomed tag is is okay, but then buff its strength or amor. After that, there is still resiliance in case someone pass the round. You still have the first play and buffs its strenght. Yeah, a schorch... amen...you still forced your opponent to play another hard removal. Still not fair enough?

Thing is this is stupid to cry about, it's easy to remove. It's 7 to 9 points. I'd like to cut out all my removal too, we gonna start nerfing every other faction so I don't have to run removal? If you aren't running mandrake in this meta you are either pure point vomit or a poor player. Not "you" personally, people in general. Neither of those are reasons to nerf this card. Sabbath is by far not the only reason to run mandrake.

I manage to mandrake it every time and I'm no pro player. This card simply inconveniences people so they cry. They wanna spam points and are freaking out because monsters finally got one good card.

 

[Khreygond]

I have more sympathy with your position than others. It's fine to dislike a card. But the game shouldn't be balanced based on that. I hate, hate, HATE Ciri: Nova, but she's an alright card overall. She still shuts games down and wins them outright more times than not.

You may have added those cards just for Imlerith, but the fact they're in your deck is - in my opinion - a good thing. If Imlerith has forced them in there, hopefully other cards introduced before long will justify them remaining there. Because that is the only way we're getting away from point slam; the introduction of cards and mechanics that require shutting down.

I do not agree with your 'crucial point'. An unbuffed Imlerith is a 5 point duelling gold. He is ONLY able to get good/great value if other cards buff him. If you don't summon him through Royal Decree, he's dying to anything bigger than a 9. If you don't mandrake or parasite him, he's not every beating anything bigger than a 9 unless he gets lucky and builds up a fair bit of armour. A 13-14 point gold is not 'insane' value in anyone's estimation, not even yours. You can add on the value of whatever removal kills him if you wish, in which case he gets up to almost 20, again, lower than what you expect from most golds these days, and it's not direct value either.

I say, if a 5 point gold - unbuffed - is enough to win the game against your deck (quoting 'not just one gold card that can win the game if not countered immediately) then your deck is awful.

Seltkirk of Gulet forced Muzzle out of the deck. So I swapped one tech card (which is great against engines) for a card that is pure removal and value simply because the latter can work on Imlerith: Sabbath. While I agree with you that those cards should be in my deck, Margarita already was, and I had a card which was great against engines removed for something that is decent in general but offers some good removal against golds. So as you can see, it's not like Imlerith made my deck any more interactive. If anything, it probably made it slightly less.

Fair enough. It is a card combo. You require Mandrake/increasing his base strength. But that is still not an engine if we accept that engines are what I said (since there is no clear definition of engines, you might as well argue that every card with an active ability is an engine. But even in that case, the similarities between Imlerith and engine-centric archetypes end at that point.) Meaning that it is still a "counter this NOW or I win", which is what is problematic. Not his strength. As demonstrated he is not OP, his winrate in the higher ranks is not even 50%.

And no, it's not unbuffed that is the problem, it's when the opponent uses Mandrake. Which you can't prevent unless you shut him down as soon as he appears. For which you need at least 2 locks/removals in hand because of Renew. Which is not only disrupting you (like I said, you can't counter anything the opponent puts on the board because you have to keep these 2 in your hand just out of fear that he might be running Imlerith and Renew), but also makes for a game that I can't enjoy at all. Since no one runs Imlerith without Mandrake and Whispess: Tribute, this enforces the need to counter it immediately and the need to keep removals in hand just in case.

 

[Ic3Purple]

Thing is this is stupid to cry about, it's easy to remove. It's 7 to 9 points. I'd like to cut out all my removal too, we gonna start nerfing every other faction so I don't have to run removal? If you aren't running mandrake in this meta you are either pure point vomit or a poor player. Not "you" personally, people in general. Neither of those are reasons to nerf this card. Sabbath is by far not the only reason to run mandrake.

I manage to mandrake it every time and I'm no pro player. This card simply inconveniences people so they cry. They wanna spam points and are freaking out because monsters finally got one good card.

Alright, fine.

I got an idea for Imlerith, based on this conversation about the WILD HUNT deck. Which I invite you to take part, and everyone else interested.

I still believe the doomed tag is okay. But what about adding this condition: When imlerith dies, buff all your wild hunt in your hand?

 

[FG15-ISH7EG]

At the moment 62% of all players (at higher ranks) are teching against Imlerith by using either Mandrake or Seltkirk. Nonetheless Eredin and Whisperring Hillhock, who are mainly using him still have a 40% winrate, which is pretty high for that.
There are currently more people running Mandrake then any Scorch-Effect or Weather Clear.

 

[Hellsmoke77]

Alright, fine.

I got an idea for Imlerith, based on this conversation about the WILD HUNT deck. Which I invite you to take part, and everyone else interested.

I still believe the doomed tag is okay. But what about adding this condition: When imlerith dies, buff all your wild hunt in your hand?

Wild Hunt is so bad even Sabbath won't change that. They were my first premiums and my favorite cards but just the worst archetype there is. Sabbath does nothing for them. The only way to play wild hunt is with so many other cards supporting them that you may as well run a different archetype all together. You need Iris, hailstorm, drowners and god knows what else to try to make it work.

I'd leave the card and see how it goes this season, people will get tired of getting mandraked and it will lose popularity. None of the big monster players like JoeSnow or Oceanmud even use it.

 

[iamthedave]

Seltkirk of Gulet forced Muzzle out of the deck. So I swapped one tech card (which is great against engines) for a card that is pure removal and value simply because the latter can work on Imlerith: Sabbath. While I agree with you that those cards should be in my deck, Margarita already was, and I had a card which was great against engines removed for something that is decent in general but offers some good removal against golds. So as you can see, it's not like Imlerith made my deck any more interactive. If anything, it probably made it slightly less.

Fair enough. It is a card combo. You require Mandrake/increasing his base strength. But that is still not an engine if we accept that engines are what I said (since there is no clear definition of engines, you might as well argue that every card with an active ability is an engine. But even in that case, the similarities between Imlerith and engine-centric archetypes end at that point.) Meaning that it is still a "counter this NOW or I win", which is what is problematic. Not his strength. As demonstrated he is not OP, his winrate in the higher ranks is not even 50%.

And no, it's not unbuffed that is the problem, it's when the opponent uses Mandrake. Which you can't prevent unless you shut him down as soon as he appears. For which you need at least 2 locks/removals in hand because of Renew. Which is not only disrupting you (like I said, you can't counter anything the opponent puts on the board because you have to keep these 2 in your hand just out of fear that he might be running Imlerith and Renew), but also makes for a game that I can't enjoy at all. Since no one runs Imlerith without Mandrake and Whispess: Tribute, this enforces the need to counter it immediately and the need to keep removals in hand just in case.

Your engine definition is fine by me, and sure, I'll say he's not an engine. My own definition is more along the lines of a repeated ability; so I would class reinforced trebuchet as an engine, because it does damage every turn, the archespore and others of that nature. Under those terms, Imlerith would also be. So I wouldn't say, for example, Henselt Machines are engine-based, because they're one-use cards. I think of Henselt more as a combo deck. Elven handbuff is more of an engine, since it relies (usually) on a mix of Vrehedd dragoon and Farseer, which both repeat, same with drunken dorfs, though the line is a little blurry there.

You're right on your last point, you DO need to keep hold of those things. But I don't see that as a bad thing. There are tons of decks I hold removal for, because I know they very likely have something horrible in the offing if I don't. Axemen requires me to hold removal for Derran at the very least, and axemen as well if I'm running a deck with enough to spare. Greatswords needs me to shoot something (honestly I've never quite worked out the right targets, though killing greatswords as fast as possible to stop them getting huge seems the best idea). Consume obviously needs removal for dem giant nekkers/vran late in the game, etc. etc. And in all these cases, if you don't have that removal you're probably going to lose eventually. I saw a game with MegaMogwai where he got a greatsword up to 34 pts because he locked the opponent into a long round and they never pulled the removal they (probably) had. Shock of shocks, a freya won him that game.

Taking vanilla Imlerith, cutting him momentarily outside the context of his use (mandrake/renew/royal decree), what is it that makes him worse than all the other cards that can get completely out of hand if you lack the removal to stop them doing so?

 

[Hellsmoke77]

At the moment 62% of all players (at higher ranks) are teching against Imlerith by using either Mandrake or Seltkirk. Nonetheless Eredin and Whisperring Hillhock, who are mainly using him still have a 40% winrate, which is pretty high for that.
There are currently more people running Mandrake then any Scorch-Effect or Weather Clear.

So let them tech, you know how many cards I sacrifice teching other decks? Eredin doesn't gain a thing from sabbath, longships don't stay on the board lol. Funny how folks always zap my longships but can't remove a 9 point sabbath.

 

[partci]

I kinda like how people forfeit in Ranked when they see my Eredin now. Or how the other Eredins forfeit when I deal with the fucker.

But is this really fun? To make some cards (like Mandrake) auto-include to such degree? Is this good for the game?

 

[Khreygond]

Your engine definition is fine by me, and sure, I'll say he's not an engine. My own definition is more along the lines of a repeated ability; so I would class reinforced trebuchet as an engine, because it does damage every turn, the archespore and others of that nature. Under those terms, Imlerith would also be. So I wouldn't say, for example, Henselt Machines are engine-based, because they're one-use cards. I think of Henselt more as a combo deck. Elven handbuff is more of an engine, since it relies (usually) on a mix of Vrehedd dragoon and Farseer, which both repeat, same with drunken dorfs, though the line is a little blurry there.

You're right on your last point, you DO need to keep hold of those things. But I don't see that as a bad thing. There are tons of decks I hold removal for, because I know they very likely have something horrible in the offing if I don't. Axemen requires me to hold removal for Derran at the very least, and axemen as well if I'm running a deck with enough to spare. Greatswords needs me to shoot something (honestly I've never quite worked out the right targets, though killing greatswords as fast as possible to stop them getting huge seems the best idea). Consume obviously needs removal for dem giant nekkers/vran late in the game, etc. etc. And in all these cases, if you don't have that removal you're probably going to lose eventually. I saw a game with MegaMogwai where he got a greatsword up to 34 pts because he locked the opponent into a long round and they never pulled the removal they (probably) had. Shock of shocks, a freya won him that game.

Taking vanilla Imlerith, cutting him momentarily outside the context of his use (mandrake/renew/royal decree), what is it that makes him worse than all the other cards that can get completely out of hand if you lack the removal to stop them doing so?

Except you can hardly remove anything else. That is the main problem. The fear that the opponent might be running this card stops you from resetting and locking his STR 21 Nekkers (it did so last night for me), his Vran warriors, anything really. Not to mention that I am now officially as tech'd against this card as I can be and still lose to it (lost to it twice today, once when I didn't have both removals/locks in hand, another time when he Adr. Rushed Imlerith and buffed him to 16 STR when all the removal I had was Seltkirk). And if he proves to not have it, and you kept your removal out of fear, well, too late now, the Nekkers are in the stomach of the immune Arachas Queen and have all been brought to the board. This is completely binary guessing. If you decide to keep them and he doesn't have Imlerith Sabbath, then you've lost because you didn't use them when it was a perfect opportunity to do so. If you use them but then I:S appears, you will also lose if your opponent pulls Mandrake (or if you use something with weak bodies, even if he doesn't pull mandrake he can cost you the game) Only if you guess correctly whether your opponent has this card can you win. That's hardly strategic.

Of course having to hold onto removal is not the game's problem. Having to hold onto it even when you could use it to great effect simply out of fear is however bad. Like you said and I quote, "there are tons of decks that require you to hold onto removal because [you] KNOW they very likely have something horrible in the offing if [you] don't". See the problem? With Imlerith you have to hold onto it for the mere possibility. You don't know that they have something horrible. It might even prove to be that they don't have anything at all and you held onto your removal when you could have used it to great effect for nothing but fear of a possibility.

And to answer your last question, well, it's that the context is very narrow. Imlerith out of context is not bad at all. However to answer, I must bring the context of use in the discussion because there is no single card in the game that can get out of hand without context. Greatswords need Longships and a long round. Enforcers need spies, need to be played early, and a long round. Mangonels need revealers, they need to be played early too. Villentretenmerth needs a good line up of targets and 3 turns, etc etc.

Imlerith however, all he needs is Mandrake. You can drop him on the penultimate turn and Mandrake him and he'll still be out of hand, especially if you have the last card over your opponent. He gets out of hand far faster than ANYTHING else. Within 2 turns (one to drop him, one to Mandrake him) he is out of control unless you can scorch him (and the opponent doesn't have Renew of course). No other card gets out of control, even with the context of use, that fast.

 

[Mathspy]

I will try to keep this as short and sweet as possible:

Preface:
I don't consider Sabbath to be OP, but merely unhealthy. I rarely lose against him, if ever (I don't bother to keep track) since I am playing a control deck (not Alchemy, still plans to craft the missing cards from that later)

Definition of unhealthy engine:
Basically Sabbath when he gets played on any length round 3 and gets mandraked; if the opponent doesn't have an answer, you can safely pass although having 7 cards in hand and watch your opponent as they drop every card and it gets removed or if the opponent cares about their time, they forfeit
This is the difference between Sabbath and any other engine currently in game, none of them gives you the luxury of passing with 7 cards in your hand and still win EVER


Story time: Sabbath and his Five Siblings
CDPR decides they like the way Sabbath shaped the meta and they like how gold engines like him works, so they release an engine like Sabbath for each faction. You know what? They even release 5 silver cards that are as tailored to counter those 5 as Mandrake is to counter Sabbath. Next meta will never be forgotten as the Silverless meta.
It wasn't actually silverless, you see, there was no variation in silvers (hence the name), everyone didn't even bother running silver spies or mages anymore, you auto-lose against specific factions if you play anything besides Mandrake and its 5 siblings. The meta when Gwent became a 19 cards per deck game


And this is simply why Sabbath is unhealthy because nobody wants to play the game mentioned in the story

 

[Khreygond]

I just ran across a guy that played Eredin. First round he Royal Decree'd I:S so I passed. Second round he renewed him on an empty board so I scorched him. And then, all of a sudden, without any other problems during the match, he disconnected.

Granted servers are a bit messed up right now, it could not have been him, but the timing was suspicious. That was not a healthy game at all if you ask me.

 

[twinkiegorilla]

Jesus this conversation took off since my last update. Current update: Imlerith actually sucks now that every deck in ranked mode has 3+ counters for him per game. I've been on the worst losing streak the last two days that I've ever had, going all the way back to week one of the closed beta.

My Imlerith Sabbath deck is officially going into retirement, without much thought of ever bringing it back. Realtalk: Anybody who thinks this card is too powerful isn't very good at this game.

Edit: I will absolutely agree that he is UNHEALTHY though. Unhealthy for the game and unhealthy for me. This last week...even though I hung in there until today...was miserable. Maybe the worst meta in Gwent I've ever experience. Might have to take a walk away from this game for awhile, tbh.

 

[iamthedave]

Except you can hardly remove anything else. That is the main problem. The fear that the opponent might be running this card stops you from resetting and locking his STR 21 Nekkers (it did so last night for me), his Vran warriors, anything really. Not to mention that I am now officially as tech'd against this card as I can be and still lose to it (lost to it twice today, once when I didn't have both removals/locks in hand, another time when he Adr. Rushed Imlerith and buffed him to 16 STR when all the removal I had was Seltkirk). And if he proves to not have it, and you kept your removal out of fear, well, too late now, the Nekkers are in the stomach of the immune Arachas Queen and have all been brought to the board. This is completely binary guessing. If you decide to keep them and he doesn't have Imlerith Sabbath, then you've lost because you didn't use them when it was a perfect opportunity to do so. If you use them but then I:S appears, you will also lose if your opponent pulls Mandrake (or if you use something with weak bodies, even if he doesn't pull mandrake he can cost you the game) Only if you guess correctly whether your opponent has this card can you win. That's hardly strategic.

Of course having to hold onto removal is not the game's problem. Having to hold onto it even when you could use it to great effect simply out of fear is however bad. Like you said and I quote, "there are tons of decks that require you to hold onto removal because [you] KNOW they very likely have something horrible in the offing if [you] don't". See the problem? With Imlerith you have to hold onto it for the mere possibility. You don't know that they have something horrible. It might even prove to be that they don't have anything at all and you held onto your removal when you could have used it to great effect for nothing but fear of a possibility.

And to answer your last question, well, it's that the context is very narrow. Imlerith out of context is not bad at all. However to answer, I must bring the context of use in the discussion because there is no single card in the game that can get out of hand without context. Greatswords need Longships and a long round. Enforcers need spies, need to be played early, and a long round. Mangonels need revealers, they need to be played early too. Villentretenmerth needs a good line up of targets and 3 turns, etc etc.

Imlerith however, all he needs is Mandrake. You can drop him on the penultimate turn and Mandrake him and he'll still be out of hand, especially if you have the last card over your opponent. He gets out of hand far faster than ANYTHING else. Within 2 turns (one to drop him, one to Mandrake him) he is out of control unless you can scorch him (and the opponent doesn't have Renew of course). No other card gets out of control, even with the context of use, that fast.

But if this is so, why does the meta report show decks using him to have mid-low win rates?

Is the problem the card, or your - relative - unfamiliarity playing against it?

There's something not adding up here, between this thread's opinion of the card and the actual reality of it in the game, going by the numbers. How do you explain the discrepancy there? And it is a discrepancy.

One of two things MUST be true: decks are able to draw removal for him so reliably that he doesn't stick often, or Monster players haven't realised how good he is yet.

How else can we have the Meta report that we currently have, which shows essentially no movement at the top (Henselt and Crach are still top), and Monsters actually sliding a little downwards by a 1% or two?

Maybe the worst meta in Gwent I've ever experience. Might have to take a walk away from this game for awhile, tbh.

Worse than Dorfs?

 

[Khreygond]

But if this is so, why does the meta report show decks using him to have mid-low win rates?

Is the problem the card, or your - relative - unfamiliarity playing against it?

There's something not adding up here, between this thread's opinion of the card and the actual reality of it in the game, going by the numbers. How do you explain the discrepancy there? And it is a discrepancy.

One of two things MUST be true: decks are able to draw removal for him so reliably that he doesn't stick often, or Monster players haven't realised how good he is yet.

How else can we have the Meta report that we currently have, which shows essentially no movement at the top (Henselt and Crach are still top), and Monsters actually sliding a little downwards by a 1% or two?

It's because I am not arguing that he is OP, or too powerful or anything. Of course if I play 100 games against opponents that run him, then statistically I have more chances of drawing enough removal to use against it than not drawing enough. He is NOT too powerful. The problem is how oppressive he is, for me. That I have to keep my removal in hand for the mere possibility of my opponent playing with this card, that he is independent of archetypes and synergies and all he needs is Mandrake to go out of control. I quite simply, don't enjoy games against this card at all, and all of that for the reasons posted in this thread.

Sure, like you said, not enjoying playing against a card is no grounds for reworking it (I am not THAT entitled ), but when you look at the reasons why he is as oppressive as he is, I think a rework is warranted in his case. Just like Roche: Merciless was "if you play Ambush I win the game", in a way, that's what Imlerith: Sabbath is but instead "if you don't remove me as soon as I appear, everytime I do so, I win the game." Sure, he also requires Mandrake and a concept to work that way, but it's a concept that is very easily fulfilled and very oppressive by nature.

 

[twinkiegorilla]

Worse than Dorfs?

That's hard to comment on since I disappeared between early Open Beta and came back a month or two after Midwinter Patch. So when I came back ALL of my old strategies, cards, everything...worthless. It took the entire dorfs month to even re-understand the damned game.

When every single deck is teching against a card though, like it's been said, it's a problem. I peaked at rank #30 early on. Then fell but held at the #1000-3000 until yesterday. By this afternoon I'd slid to #7000. Easily the most dismal and disgusting time I'd ever had, personally.

 

[Maerd]

It's because I am not arguing that he is OP, or too powerful or anything. Of course if I play 100 games against opponents that run him, then statistically I have more chances of drawing enough removal to use against it than not drawing enough. He is NOT too powerful. The problem is how oppressive he is, for me.

And why something should be changed just because it's oppressive for YOU? Look at the other thread, where somebody complains that weather is too oppressive and should be removed. My personal feeling tells me that most oppressive card is Henselt. Let's remove it from the game. And if we're at it we should also remove/nerf Archespores and reinforced trebuchets. Let's everybody play point vomit and the winner will be decided by the coin flip and lucky draw.

Did you love dwarves meta? Do you want more of that?

 

[Khreygond]

And why something should be changed just because it's oppressive for YOU? Look at the other thread, where somebody complains that weather is too oppressive and should be removed. My personal feeling tells me that most oppressive card is Henselt. Let's remove it from the game. And if we're at it we should also remove/nerf Archespores and reinforced trebuchets. Let's everybody play point vomit and the winner will be decided by the coin flip and lucky draw.
Did you love dwarves meta? Do you want more of that?

And as I say a few lines below this, in the very post you quoted me from:

Sure, like you said, not enjoying playing against a card is no grounds for reworking it (I am not THAT entitled ), but when you look at the reasons why he is as oppressive as he is, I think a rework is warranted in his case. Just like Roche: Merciless was "if you play Ambush I win the game", in a way, that's what Imlerith: Sabbath is but instead "if you don't remove me as soon as I appear, everytime I do so, I win the game." Sure, he also requires Mandrake and a concept to work that way, but it's a concept that is very easily fulfilled and very oppressive by nature.

And like I've said in this thread a lot of times, the fact that the mere possibility that your opponent has this card forces you to keep at least 2 locks/removals in hand does not make for a healthy game in my opinion.

 

[Maerd]

And like I've said in this thread a lot of times, the fact that the mere possibility that your opponent has this card forces you to keep at least 2 locks/removals in hand does not make for a healthy game in my opinion.

This is just simply not true. You're not required to have everything, having few tall units is enough for Imlerith to fail. But if you have no removals or locks in your deck then you just play pure point vomit deck, which should not be encouraged. Fewer strong point vomit decks we have, the better it is for the game.