Hotfix on Brouver beeing able to play silver Spy needed?

[partci]

... It's very simple really, basically just make the losing player go first in the second round...

I fail to see the logic behind this. Explain how I go first in R1, than I lose it on equal cards and go first again in R2, what will happen?

 

[MU24bmw]

Brouver's not the problem. CA spies are.

 

[overcold_ice]

I fail to see the logic behind this. Explain how I go first in R1, than I lose it on equal cards and go first again in R2, what will happen?

(CnP from my own analysis, this is based on the game's current rules)
These are the possible outcomes for carryovers (considering each player's hand worth around the same value, without considering CA spies).
1. Carryover-player went first:
a. He wins first round with -1 card. Then he can bleed his opponent easily with his carryover (and making his opponent lose 1 card), resulting with even-cards on third round.
b. He loses first round with even cards. His opponent then can bleed him, but can't make him lose any card (due to his carryover), resulting with even-cards on third round.
c. He loses first round with +1 card. His opponent can't deny that +1 CA due to his carryover, resulting with him having 1 more card on third round. [PROBLEM]
2. Carryover player went second:
a. He wins first round with -1 card. This makes the same result as 1.a above.
b. He wins first round with even cards. He can make his opponent lose 1 card just by dry-passing, resulting in him having 1 more card on third round. This actually still applies even without carryovers going on from this player. [PROBLEM]
c. He loses first round with +1 card. This makes the same result as 1.c above. [PROBLEM]

By changing who goes first in round 2, that'd fix problem [1.c] and [2.c]. However, this won't fix carryovers' issues when they win the first round, which in this case, the carryovers themselves are the ones that need to be tweaked. A fix for problem [2.b] is in my previous post.

Btw, we already know that going second is better than going first in gwent, so I think it's very logical for the first round winner to go second on all following rounds as their reward. This fixes carryover problem as well, without having any much difference compared to what we have now (dry-pass is still available).

EDIT: Oh I actually missed something very important there. Auto safe-bleed will happen due to what I suggested. And now I'm 100% certain that only the second rule is needed, this one: "A player that went second can't declare a pass just after the other player declared one. (Applies on all rounds)". But of course a combination of both can be used, either way the results are the same. 1: Coin-flip issue is fixed. 2: Loser's carryovers is fixed (problems [1.c] and [2.c]). 3: CA spies is no longer needed. BUT, it creates one problem: The first round winner is guaranteed to be able to bleed his opponent safely (as if he played an uncountered spy, but without the 13 points body).

Therefore... that rule has to come with a compensation. The loser of first round gets some-kind of reinforcement, that can be leader-dependent or not, whose value should be around 13-15 in regard to CA spies we currently have. This can make leaders even more determining in deck-building, due to them having this new 'Reinforcement' effect. Or, just stick to that 13-15 points for any leader. Interestingly, this DO fix carryovers problem by preventing them to win in 2 rounds.

In my conclusion, these are what we need: a fix to coin-flip (something similar to what I suggested), CA spies removed, and the addition of this following rule (to fix carryover problems). "The loser of the first round plays a card from his hand first on the second round, but that player gets bonus starting points".

 

[Mathspy]

Kind of off topic but from my understanding of reading this topic, CA spies existed for a long time, but "coinflip" didn't. Did I understand correctly?
As a new player I really wanna know what "existed" before coinflip? Was there a specific way to determine who goes first or who goes second? Or was there some compensation given to either players?

 

[Tschjo]

(CnP from my own analysis)
These are the possible outcomes for carryovers (considering each player's hand worth around the same value, without considering CA spies).
1. Carryover-player went first:
a. He wins first round with -1 card. Then he can bleed his opponent easily with his carryover (and making his opponent lose 1 card), resulting with even-cards on third round.
b. He loses first round with even cards. His opponent then can bleed him, but can't make him lose any card (due to his carryover), resulting with even-cards on third round.
c. He loses first round with +1 card. His opponent can't deny that +1 CA due to his carryover, resulting with him having 1 more card on third round. [PROBLEM]
2. Carryover player went second:
a. He wins first round with -1 card. This makes the same result as 1.a above.
b. He wins first round with even cards. He can make his opponent lose 1 card just by dry-passing, resulting in him having 1 more card on third round. This actually still applies even without carryovers going on from this player. [PROBLEM]
c. He loses first round with +1 card. This makes the same result as 1.c above. [PROBLEM]

By changing who goes first in round 2, that'd fix problem [1.c] and [2.c]. However, this won't fix carryovers' issues when they win the first round, which in this case, the carryovers themselves are the ones that need to be tweaked. A fix for problem [2.b] is in my previous post.

Btw, we already know that going second is better than going first in gwent, so I think it's very logical for the first round winner to go second on all following rounds as their reward. This fixes carryover problem as well, without having any much difference compared to what we have now (dry-pass is still available).

EDIT: Oh I actually missed something very important there. Auto safe-bleed will happen due to what I suggested. And now I'm 100% certain that only the second rule is needed, this one: "A player that went second can't declare a pass just after the other player declared one. (Applies on all rounds)". But of course a combination of both can be used, either way the results are the same. 1: Coin-flip issue is fixed. 2: Loser's carryovers is fixed (problems [1.c] and [2.c]). 3: CA spies is no longer needed. BUT, it creates one problem: The first round winner is guaranteed to be able to bleed his opponent safely (as if he played an uncountered spy, but without the 13 points body).

Therefore... that rule has to come with a compensation. The loser of first round gets some-kind of reinforcement, that can be leader-dependent or not, whose value should be around 13-15 in regard to CA spies we currently have. This can make leaders even more determining in deck-building, due to them having this new 'Reinforcement' effect. Or, just stick to that 13-15 points for any leader. Interestingly, this DO fix carryovers problem by preventing them to win in 2 rounds.

In my conclusion, these are what we need: a fix to coin-flip (something similar to what I suggested), CA spies removed, and the addition of this following rule. "The winner of first round automatically plays a CA spy as their first turn play in round 2 (BUT, without any card advantage gain, e.g. without the spy's effect)." However, the implementation of this is not restricted to just CA spies, it can be implemented in other manners like what I described above.

This is just... wrong?

Im just assuming carryover is a unit that when played in round X will still create power on the board in round X+1. Not sure if you were talking about this but lets go over it.

1.
a. This would actually work quite well but i dont see how it has anything to do with carryover. But he also has to go first round 3.
b. This means your opponent is up a card. Example both players have 2 cards in hand one lost so he has to go first round 2 plays a card is down to 1 opponent dry passes. This also creates an insane advantage for the going second player round 1 since he will be able to just check if he can win round 2 since the loser of round 1 has to go first. And he cannot win round 2 he just gets +1 card.
c. He wont have more cards round 3 since he has to play a card round 2 because hes going first even if he had 200 points of carryover on the board. Its always possible your opponent can trump your power thus you have to wait until he passes to stop playing.

2.
a. This is 1a which is a bad outcome.
b. This is equal to dry passing again with the option to bleed and having CA and winning the round. This is a disaster
c. This is another big problem. Players will now just dry pass round 1 to gain play advantage round 3.


Like this you just want to lose round 1 no matter what.
What i would do is just dry pass as the player going first always and as the player winning round 1 with -1 card i would try to stack my deck with carryover cards to bleed my opponent with in round 2 this is the only time carryover matters. Also double dry pass round 1 seems very reasonable here. Honestly this doesnt really fix anything it just shifts some problems over but creates potentially bigger new ones.

Sneaky Edit there anyway still the problem is that you will just want to lose round 1. As player going first i dry pass what you gonna do? Play a card you go down a card and i get points in round 2 and you have to play round 3 first even with those new rules.

 

[soph912]

Hell yeah! Change the ability of Henselt! He is insane! He can pull out of the deck 3 (and even up to 6 bronzes) at once.
This blows my mind honestly...

 

[devivre]

Often it doesn't even matter if you play the CA spy with Brouver or by hand. With ST decks like for example the one Swim played, it frequently puts the opponent in a tricky position, because even if he leads by ~20 points, you can quite often overcome that with the Barclay + Cleaver combo (and if you don't play Yaevinn with Brouver, you just play Barclay with Brouver afterwards, so it will be the same amount of points - the situation will be the same). One thing that can make this a problem is that many decks probably don't want to go in a long round against Mulligan ST. If you lose round 1, you can expect a very long second round. If you win round 1 you'll often do that with less cards... and if you pass in round two it puts you in a bad spot in round 3. So you kind of need a CA Spy too or keep a very strong finisher for the last few turns. That being said, it's not like other factions can't pull a similar combo.

But I agree with some people here, IMO CA spies in general are more of an issue, not so much the fact that Brouver can play Yaevinn.
And of course the whole coin-flip situation is a thing that needs improvement...

 

[overcold_ice]

This is just... wrong?

Im just assuming carryover is a unit that when played in round X will still create power on the board in round X+1. Not sure if you were talking about this but lets go over it.

1.
a. This would actually work quite well but i dont see how it has anything to do with carryover. But he also has to go first round 3.
b. This means your opponent is up a card. Example both players have 2 cards in hand one lost so he has to go first round 2 plays a card is down to 1 opponent dry passes. This also creates an insane advantage for the going second player round 1 since he will be able to just check if he can win round 2 since the loser of round 1 has to go first. And he cannot win round 2 he just gets +1 card.
c. He wont have more cards round 3 since he has to play a card round 2 because hes going first even if he had 200 points of carryover on the board. Its always possible your opponent can trump your power thus you have to wait until he passes to stop playing.

2.
a. This is 1a which is a bad outcome.
b. This is equal to dry passing again with the option to bleed and having CA and winning the round. This is a disaster
c. This is another big problem. Players will now just dry pass round 1 to gain play advantage round 3.

I think I forgot to mention something. That analysis is according to the game's current rules, not what rules I suggested.

Since I made many confusing stuffs up there, I'll correct some things you mentioned according to these 2 rules.
"A player that went second can't declare a pass just after the other player declared one. (Applies on all rounds)"
"The loser of the first round gets bonus starting points on the second round (only)"
(No change to who goes first/second)

Like this you just want to lose round 1 no matter what.
What i would do is just dry pass as the player going first always and as the player winning round 1 with -1 card i would try to stack my deck with carryover cards to bleed my opponent with in round 2 this is the only time carryover matters. Also double dry pass round 1 seems very reasonable here. Honestly this doesnt really fix anything it just shifts some problems over but creates potentially bigger new ones.

No that's incorrect. Here's a rundown according to my understanding of your statements:
1. Dry-passing on round 1 still exist the same way as before, even in round 1. But the rules just prevent the second player to just win with even-cards. If you dry-pass round 1, that means you lose round 1. So after that you can't really spam all your carryovers, because the number of plays you can make in round 2 is dictated by your opponent who won first round.
2. If a player won the first round, he can indeed spam his carryovers. But carryovers in general are low-tempo plays, and actually are still counterable. I don't think carryover-spam on round 2 will happen, since that won't be consistent in the first place (play for tempo in round 1 to get a win, play for carryovers on round 2 which is quite the opposite of what you're doing in round 1). Also keep in mind that in round 2, your opponent already developed tempo on his board due to bonus-points rule.

As player going first i dry pass what you gonna do? Play a card you go down a card and i get points in round 2 and you have to play round 3 first even with those new rules.

What I'm going to do when someone just dry-passed me on round 1? Accept the dry-pass very gratefully, win first round with -1 card (which is normal), bleed my opponent to the max (because it's always safe to do so due to the rules, but also limited because of the rules), play round 3 with my previously-saved cards for finishers, and with that I win the game. In round 2, the player that lost round 1 always needs to go down -1 card thanks to the rules. It's either they play first, or they can't pass after you just declared a pass (whichever set of rules leads to the same result). Who goes first in round 3 is not the problem, it's fine whoever goes first as long as they start that round with the same number of cards, which is what I tried to fix.

 

[Tschjo]

I think I forgot to mention something. That analysis is according to the game's current rules, not what rules I suggested.

1a
Then your analysis is just flawed as hell. For example if you win round 1 currently with 1 card down you should not i repeat NOT play another card round 2 unless you have a spy or you want to go down a card for round 3. See when you win round 1 with a card down in round 2 you play FIRST which means if you choose to play you will be down 2 cards the moment your opponent outtempos you. Thgus you cannot bleed people at all. Carryover or not DOESNT MATTER all that matters is to not be outtempoed so your opponent has to play 1 card to catch up and another to get ahead. If they get ahead with 1 you lose.
b
This is the same as 1a
1c You can fight carryover here by not beeing outtempoed by it in round 1 or just take your chances and apply 1a. Tempo so hard your opponent has to play 2 cards. Again carryover doesnt matter here.

2a
b again carryover doesnt matter here what matters is your opponent has to play a card while you dont
c Tempo issue again. Dont get outtempoed by a carryover play prevents this

These were the current rules

Since I made many confusing stuffs up there, I'll correct some things you mentioned according to these 2 rules.
"A player that went second can't declare a pass just after the other player declared one. (Applies on all rounds)"
"The loser of the first round gets bonus starting points on the second round (only)"
(No change to who goes first/second)

Ill asume these dont apply to the current rules but to your new ones.

First rules doesnt change anything. I still drypass when beeing first you play a card you are down a card i go first second round i play a card you pass i play a card and you have to go first round 3 which gives me an advantage. The only way this rule impacts anything is a player spams huge amounts of carryover on the board when going second while forcing their opponent to win round 1 with a card down so they can dry pass round 2 which 200 points on the board and force their opponent to go down a card for no reason since they cant dry pass when going second in a round. Other than that you dry pass round 1 because if you play a card your opponent dry passes for round 3 advantage.

Giving the one who gets an advantage by loosing round 1 another advantage in round 2 seems unreasonable. If the first player or the second just dry pass (which is always correct) They will have +1 card round 2 and + points from your second rule. It can be abused like that so it doesnt work sorry.

No that's incorrect. Here's a rundown according to my understanding of your statements:
1. Dry-passing on round 1 still exist the same way as before, even in round 1. But the rules just prevent the second player to just win with even-cards. If you dry-pass round 1, that means you lose round 1. So after that you can't really spam all your carryovers, because the number of plays you can make in round 2 is dictated by your opponent who won first round.
2. If a player won the first round, he can indeed spam his carryovers. But carryovers in general are low-tempo plays, and actually are still counterable. I don't think carryover-spam on round 2 will happen, since that won't be consistent in the first place (play for tempo in round 1 to get a win, play for carryovers on round 2 which is quite the opposite of what you're doing in round 1). Also keep in mind that in round 2, your opponent already developed tempo on his board due to bonus-points rule.

Nope its totally different as you can see above. If you lose round 1 you increase your chances of winning round 3 since you will go second and have the last play.
Your opponent will likely want to bleed you and carryover an prevent that so consuming your nekker with the carryover guy is a very good tempo response to that.
Yeah your opponent can basically not lose round 2 after he lost round 1 because of exra points and on top of that beeing a card up which makes him win round 2 and therefore go last in round 3 with even cards because you cant even pass on him as the player winning round 1.

What I'm going to do when someone just dry-passed me on round 1? Accept the dry-pass very gratefully, win first round with -1 card (which is normal), bleed my opponent to the max (because it's always safe to do so due to the rules, but also limited because of the rules), play round 3 with my previously-saved cards for finishers, and with that I win the game. In round 2, the player that lost round 1 always needs to go down -1 card thanks to the rules. It's either they play first, or they can't pass after you just declared a pass (whichever set of rules leads to the same result). Who goes first in round 3 is not the problem, it's fine whoever goes first as long as they start that round with the same number of cards, which is what I tried to fix.

What isnt normal is you beeing the one with the play disadvantage in round 3 though which you will have by default if you win round 1 and you cant even counteract that... unless you spam carryover. Its not limited at all its just safe.
If you dont play a card round 1 you will never have to go down 1 card though and will always have play advantage round 3.
You had a good angle it just doesnt quite cut it unfortunately.

Anyway back to the topic of the thread.

Expecially if you consider silver spies to be a problem (which i do not only their abuse is a problem) then why should Brouver be allowed to always have access to that problem at will?

 

[overcold_ice]

1a
Then your analysis is just flawed as hell. For example if you win round 1 currently with 1 card down you should not i repeat NOT play another card round 2 unless you have a spy or you want to go down a card for round 3. See when you win round 1 with a card down in round 2 you play FIRST which means if you choose to play you will be down 2 cards the moment your opponent outtempos you. Thgus you cannot bleed people at all. Carryover or not DOESNT MATTER all that matters is to not be outtempoed so your opponent has to play 1 card to catch up and another to get ahead. If they get ahead with 1 you lose...

Alright. At least I'll say some things, that analysis is for all possible outcomes. Of course you can avoid some outcomes there. It wasn't about how to avoid them, playing around them, or anything. It's about seeing all possible outcomes, and balance the ones that really needs to be balanced.

Then seriously, your statement on my [1.a] analysis doesn't make sense. Dry-pass on round 2 is not always the thing to do after a win (with carry-overs or not). And I'm not going to explain this, I think it's easier to just watch games somewhere and learn why they don't dry-pass on round 2. Btw, after carry-over player won the first round, they have the possibility to 2-0 his opponent, which is not rare.

I don't know if this is just my understanding being wrong, or anything. But I can't really understand this one:

First rules doesnt change anything. I still drypass when beeing first you play a card you are down a card i go first second round i play a card you pass i play a card and you have to go first round 3 which gives me an advantage.

First rule removes second player advantage that can make them win on the same number of cards as his opponent.
Please count how many times the one referred as "you" plays a card, and how many times "I" plays a card. Without seeing any rules, with just seeing what happens there, it's very clear that the "you" player has 1 more card than the "I" player on round 3. Which makes your statement that says the "I" player has an advantage becomes questionable, because the "I" player is actually holding 1 less card than his opponent on round 3.

A player that loses the first round will go first on round 3, this is by the game's current rule. I'm sure I've restated that there's no change to who goes first/second to avoid confusion there. And I've never stated anything about "the loser goes first on the following round". What I stated was:

It's very simple really, basically just make the losing player go first in the second round.

I'm sure my try on the fix was confusing and hard to understand. And I think you didn't understand it properly. Just to make things really clear, these fixes some of the CA issues (including carry-overs):

"A player that went second can't declare a pass just after the other player declared one. (Applies on all rounds)"
"The loser of the first round gets bonus starting points on the second round (only)"
(No change to who goes first/second)

 

[Khreygond]

Often it doesn't even matter if you play the CA spy with Brouver or by hand. With ST decks like for example the one Swim played, it frequently puts the opponent in a tricky position, because even if he leads by ~20 points, you can quite often overcome that with the Barclay + Cleaver combo (and if you don't play Yaevinn with Brouver, you just play Barclay with Brouver afterwards, so it will be the same amount of points - the situation will be the same). One thing that can make this a problem is that many decks probably don't want to go in a long round against Mulligan ST. If you lose round 1, you can expect a very long second round. If you win round 1 you'll often do that with less cards... and if you pass in round two it puts you in a bad spot in round 3. So you kind of need a CA Spy too or keep a very strong finisher for the last few turns. That being said, it's not like other factions can't pull a similar combo.

Agreed. Basically this deck is a nightmare to face when on the blue coin. On the blue coin, this combo can be destructive, as it generates huge tempo. In order to catch up to that, you'll take at least a turn or two, by which time their elven swarm will have started appearing and making things miserable on your end. You either lose the round on equal cards or win 2 cards down with your opponent having carryover in the form of wardancers. Not to mention that these guys prevent drypassing on the blue coin as well.

That said, things are far more manageable on the red coin. You have control of the match. And countering their play with your own silver spy, especially if you remain within range by keeping your high tempo plays, can let you bleed them out of their elf swarm on R1, or concede the round and be forced to use that on R2. The only time I've lost against this deck on the red coin was from my own misplay

 

[oOxhaosOo]

What if instead of CA they would give you the option to mulligan a card for a card from your choice out of your deck.
The card advantage problem would be gone, the spys would be more tactical and probably easier to balance.

To make them more different you could give them something like a additional abillity suited to your leader or ( just because its mutch easier) to your faction.
ST would get a 1 point buff to all units with the same tag on the field( elfs, dwarvs, dryads)

NR would get he samething just with armor ( temerien, redanien , kaedweni)

SK would get it with strengthening in the graveyard ( for every clan)

Mo in deck (ogroid, beats, vampire, relic)

and NG .... no idea ask a NG player.

 

[TheNotoriousThree]

Remove spies. If you want card advantage you can use Ciri, which is a gold card, while risking to get zero points with your gold. You also brick your hand a bit and have to mulligan her away later.

That's what gaining CA should be, high risk high reward.

 

[x1Cygnus]

Brouver's ability hasn't been changed - not in at least a year, maybe longer (if ever actually, but I could be wrong - I probably am). He's always been able to call spy as far as I can remember...

So the point of this thread doesn't appear to be Brouver's ability that's the problem, but rather CA Spies.

IMHO CA Spies should just be removed from the game - that solves the problem immediately - they're not really needed to be honest, and are open to abuse as we have seen recently.
Alternatively make them a permanent addition to every deck that occurs automatically like a Leader; they're attached to every deck - whether you choose to use them or not is up to you, and they don't take up a silver spot. However, the penalties for using such a card should be higher than just +13pts to oppo (which in the power creep isn't much and can be overcome by most bronze or silver cards).

The long/short of it is that if you don't include a Silver Spy into every deck, chances are you're probably going to lose due to CA or lack thereof - and when that happens I would say that the game is kinda broke. Of course there are decks that don't use spies, but they're generally capable of putting large numbers of points on their boards, so +/- 13 doesn't really make much odds; I'm thinking Axemen/Consume type decks, who almost never run a spy as they can cope with going a card or two cards down and still having their win condition available to them.

As for the new Elf/Cleaver/swarm deck doing the rounds... I generally don't have a problem with the actual deck itself - ST players (well, some of the stranger ones who still use movement decks in ranked... like me) have been using decks like this for a good long while, but this deck does seem to be optimised very well. Where I find the problem is that when decks like this become popular it does seem that every other match you play is against it, and that gets stale and boring very very quickly, and also that the players don't seem to be able to mix it up at all - they'll have a play sheet/guide or whatever, and stick rigidly to it, and if things don't go their way, then they generally don't know what to do and end up either losing 2-0 or quitting. It would be nice if these players were encouraged to try different cards (maybe play the cards in a different order? how about swapping in/out a different silver/gold card? something... anything) but if it's not in their play sheet/guide then they won't do it, which makes me sad for the game and players as a whole.

 

[jeremyb616]

Brouver's ability hasn't been changed - not in at least a year, maybe longer (if ever actually, but I could be wrong - I probably am). He's always been able to call spy as far as I can remember...

So the point of this thread doesn't appear to be Brouver's ability that's the problem, but rather CA Spies.

IMHO CA Spies should just be removed from the game - that solves the problem immediately - they're not really needed to be honest, and are open to abuse as we have seen recently.
Alternatively make them a permanent addition to every deck that occurs automatically like a Leader; they're attached to every deck - whether you choose to use them or not is up to you, and they don't take up a silver spot. However, the penalties for using such a card should be higher than just +13pts to oppo (which in the power creep isn't much and can be overcome by most bronze or silver cards).

The long/short of it is that if you don't include a Silver Spy into every deck, chances are you're probably going to lose due to CA or lack thereof - and when that happens I would say that the game is kinda broke. Of course there are decks that don't use spies, but they're generally capable of putting large numbers of points on their boards, so +/- 13 doesn't really make much odds; I'm thinking Axemen/Consume type decks, who almost never run a spy as they can cope with going a card or two cards down and still having their win condition available to them.

As for the new Elf/Cleaver/swarm deck doing the rounds... I generally don't have a problem with the actual deck itself - ST players (well, some of the stranger ones who still use movement decks in ranked... like me) have been using decks like this for a good long while, but this deck does seem to be optimised very well. Where I find the problem is that when decks like this become popular it does seem that every other match you play is against it, and that gets stale and boring very very quickly, and also that the players don't seem to be able to mix it up at all - they'll have a play sheet/guide or whatever, and stick rigidly to it, and if things don't go their way, then they generally don't know what to do and end up either losing 2-0 or quitting. It would be nice if these players were encouraged to try different cards (maybe play the cards in a different order? how about swapping in/out a different silver/gold card? something... anything) but if it's not in their play sheet/guide then they won't do it, which makes me sad for the game and players as a whole.

I would've read the rest of your post but you said get rid of CA spies, its like literally the only way of dealing with coin flip which is the real bulk of the issue with gwent right now. it IS a advantage especially if a player knows how to use it( it can be easily played around using simple math/ still though hard when someone knows whats up (I mean like 4000 point players and up)

 

[Guest 4226291]

The problem is silver spies in general, not Brouver's ability to pull them reliably.

There is no problem with spies. It’s the coin flip that’s the problem. Spies can only be used once in a game. They’re is nothing wrong with Brouver being able to play them.

 

[pthieu1986]

I think it would be better if he can only pull a silver or bronze dwarf; he's supposed to work in a dwarf deck; making him pulling out any silver card is too much versatile. Also, Hattori should only res an elf.

 

[4RM3D]

There is no problem with spies. It’s the coin flip that’s the problem.

Correction: the coin flip is also a problem. When CDPR does finally fix the coin flip, the CA spies are still going to be problematic; less problematic, but problematic still.

 

[Guest 4226291]

Correction: the coin flip is also a problem. When CDPR does finally fix the coin flip, the CA spies are still going to be problematic; less problematic, but problematic still.

Why do you think they’re problematic?

 

[4RM3D]

Why do you think they’re problematic?

Various reasons, excluding the coin flip, let's just look at the gameplay side. Using spies is a binary choice. It rarely involves smart play or tactics, instead you can almost blindly slap down a spy without any risk or penalty. Going into examples would derail this thread too much, though.