Allow players to replace a unit if the row is full

[BornBoring]

Allow players to replace a unit if the row is full

I think you should be allowed to replace (destroy) a unit on your side of the board if the row the is full. I don't really see much sense in having a row limit gameplay wise anyway, so it shouldn't have as little influence on the game as possible. Additionally, although CDPR refuses to believe every unit being agile is suboptimal, this change would be necessary if you'd reintroduce row locked units or introduce a prefered-row-system in order to avoid situations there your opponent would fill a row (e.g. NG spies).

 

[DannyGuy]

Yeah, why not. I haven't had any problems with limited rows yet, but I can imagine that in certain archetypes this could be a problem.

 

[G4merY]

The row limitation is put in place to restrict swarm decks. The Gwent board depicts a battlefield, so it doesn't makes sense for you to replace your own units if the battlefield is full, unless they die. And a 9 card limit is fairly generous. I only suffered from it once when I played every card on the same row.

Deck-building is an important aspect of Gwent. So, you shouldn't be carrying that much units that they fill all of your rows. Alternatively, you also have the option to pass, or spread your game across three rounds. Moreover, with cards like Pit Trap and Hailstorm, it's not recommended to play any more than 5 cards on the same row. That too, only, when you've the Commander's Horn.

I do agree that the NG Spy deck could be an issue, however...specially in NG Spy vs. Swarm Deck games. So, they could nerf the spy-generating capabilities of the deck (without making it unplayable), or program the game such that spies don't count toward your row completion.

 

[TrompeLaMort]

I disagree. I think it raises the skill ceiling and strategic complexity of the game. And it allows for outplays by filling the opponent rows and avoiding some abilities. It also limits row-stacking, which I believe it is ultimately a good thing.