Clearly that isn't an exploit, as CDPR has acknowledged the need for a discard feature. I've actually been in the Scorch/Bekker's Mirror situation with weather on the board, and I roped simply to discard the Scorch simply to let weather tick another tick. I've also done it with Epidemic and Alzur's Thunder because I didn't want to nuke my own unit.JVmachado;n9388011 said:Either that or play a random card (for when you disconnect for a second and can't play a card) . There's just so many problems with the way it's done now, as many of you mentioned before.
There's just too much of an exploit in it, more so for Skellige decks.
Banishing wouldn't solve the problem either, to be honest. There are those cases where you've done all you possibly could to play around someone's scorch and now you got them in a tough situation where he could scorch his own unity... And let's say you just passed, the game is tied, but you have an unity under weather effect, then the other person could just wait to get their Scorch discarded and winning because of weather. When actually the other person should just pass or play a card. That's the way Gwent works and that's the beauty in it. You can Check your opponent against the wall and leave them in a tough situation where he has to pass, because playing more cards would just hurt him more.
Come on, guys, that's a clear exploit and somewhat ridiculous. I used to see it as a legit strategy when I was just a newbie, but through my own experiences and from what I get now about the more deep Gwent mechanics and strategies, I don't see how this kind of play would fit with what Gwent represents.
If I could select the card to banish from my hand, it would give no advantage at all to SK. They gain nothing from banish, and banish doesn't hit the GY. The only thing you can argue is that a card I didn't play but surrendered would cause the next on-turn trigger effects. Which is exactly how the game is right now. Banish/Card Surrender makes more sense rather than having to wait 60 seconds for an intentional rope.
You've yet to define a single exploit. You've given an anecdotal situation where a close game would be decided on whether a player should harm their own unit or surrender a card. That's not an exploit, that's strategic play. And really, it only involves weather or some on-turn effect that would decide the game. That's absolutely zero reason to not support an official means of surrendering a card.JVmachado;n9390211 said:The exploits that can be played out of this mechanic right now are just embarrassing.
As I stated previously - card surrender should be in the game at a base since passing is permanent. The card should be banished directly from the hand, so it has no board or GY interactions. And it shouldn't count as a discard. There's absolutely zero reason to make my opponent wait for a random discard.