Possible Fix to Card Advantage Issues

[overcold_ice]

Possible Fix to Card Advantage Issues

UPDATED

These 2 rules fix CA problems we're having that originate from coin-flip and carry-overs, which are the things our current CA spies trying to fix.

Second Player Rule:
"A player that went second on the first round can't declare a pass just after the other player declared one."
(Fixes a major coin-flip issue)

Winner's Rule:
"When round 2 starts, the winner of the previous round must choose to play at least 1 card in the round, or lose the round and draw 1 card."
(Fixes some carry-over problems)

More details for Winner's Rule:
At the start of the winner's first turn in round 2, a choice-screen appears for that player (like how we select choose one effects). The choices are:
- Advance: Play a card. (Cannot declare a pass this turn.)
- Retreat: Draw 1 card, but you lose this round immediately. (Your opponent won't need to play any card to win.)

Credits:
- TrompeLaMort for his Yield effect. It's implemented as a part of Winner's rule here.
- time_drainer for supportive feedbacks.
- hydra66 for enlightening me to rework CA spies in a CA-way.

---

Silver Spies Rework

New keyword: Final (If both players have won a round, apply the following effects on deploy)
Basically, the ability can only happen on round 3, or after a tie.

Frightener - 14-power, Spying
Final: Move 2 units on each side of this unit to random rows and deal 3 damage to each unit moved. Then draw 1 card.
If you have 2 less cards in hand than your opponent and this turn you played this card, draw 1 card on turn end.

Cantarella - 14-power, Spying
Final: Charm a Bronze or Silver enemy with 5 power or less. Choose 1 card in your deck, draw that card, then reveal it.
If you have 2 less cards in hand than your opponent and this turn you played this card, draw 1 card on turn end.

Thaler - 14-power, Spying
Final: Draw 1 card, then swap 1 card. Repeat the ability of a Bronze or Silver ally.
If you have 2 less cards in hand than your opponent and this turn you played this card, draw 1 card on turn end.

Yaevinn - 14-power, Spying
Final: Draw 1 card and boost self by 4. Then create a Silver card from your starting deck, except Yaevinn.
If you have 2 less cards in hand than your opponent and this turn you played this card, draw 1 card on turn end.

Udalryk - 14-power, Spying
Final: Deal 10 damage to an enemy on this row. Then return a Bronze or Silver unit from your graveyard to your hand.
If you have 2 less cards in hand than your opponent and this turn you played this card, draw 1 card on turn end.

The changes in general:
- Can no longer be played in round 1.
- In round 2, can only be played by the first-round-winner, it can no longer be countered by the other player's CA spy.
- Both above are no longer effective if a player plays Tibor or offensive Vilgefortz.
- Always playable in round 3 as around -4 points play, to gain last-say and for their Final effects.
- In other matter, Final can possibly improve some cards that have Resilience.

---

Old thread. Sorry I'm rather lazy and I don't even know if this'd be important for anyone but me, so I just wrapped this in spoiler-tags without any changes.

Spoiler

These 2 rules fix CA problems we're having that originate from coin-flip and carry-overs, which are the things our current CA spies trying to fix.

Second Player Rule:
"A player that went second on a round can't declare a pass just after the other player declared one. (Applies to each round)"
Just to be very clear, this re-applies on each new round, that means the 'second' player will change in each new round.

Reinforcement Rule:
"The loser of the first round gets bonus starting points on the second round, with a value of 13-15 points."

What the rules fix, and some other details about them:
Second Player Rule
- The second player can no longer win with the same number of cards as his opponent through out-tempo-ing the first player. (Fixes a major coin-flip issue)
- A player that lost the first round, but have any-form of carry-overs, still need to play at least 1 card before he can pass because he can't just pass after his opponent (that won the first round) just declared a pass. (Fixes losers' carry-over problem)
- Removes the need of CA spies, they should not exist anymore, or should exist in a different form. (Fixes CA spies issues)
- BUT, this rule makes the winner of the first round can bleed the other player with zero risk.
Reinforcement Rule
- A player that won the first round, but have any-form of carry-overs, have a harder time to win round 2. (Fixes winner's carry-over problem)
- Adds limitation to how many cards that the first-round-winner can bleed on the other player due to the existence of 'Second Player Rule'.
- Can manifest in different forms, just bonus points, units, or even by Leader-dependent ability.

An example of a Leader with reinforcement ability (for 'Reinforcement Rule'):
Brouver Hoog - 4-power (Dwarf, Leader)
Play a Silver unit or a Bronze Dwarf from your deck.
Reinforcement: Trigger this leader's ability.
(Reinforcement - trigger this ability on the start of round 2 if you lost the first round, after Mulligan phase, even if you have played this leader.)

Those 2 rules might create other side-effects that I haven't realized yet. So if you find any, please post it down below.
Hopefully CA issues will be fixed soon.

Btw, some other card games do take weird mechanics to balance their first/second player advantage-differences. So I'm sure Gwent can go that way just fine, it's hard to find a super-simple solution to such complicated problems we're having.

---

Silver Spies Rework

New keyword: Final (If both players have won a round, apply the following effects on deploy)

Frightener - 12-power
Move up to 3 units to the row above.
Final: Draw a card, then consume self.
(Allies are moved to the row above, e.g. Ranged to Melee. Consume self won't provide any points, but still trigger Nekkers.)

Cantarella - 1-power, Spying
Choose one:
Lock and destroy a Bronze or Silver unit on this row, or Final: Choose 1 card in your deck, draw that card, then reveal it.

Thaler - 1-power, Spying
Choose one:
Repeat the ability of a Bronze or Silver ally then boost it by 3, or Final: Draw 1 card, then swap up to 2 cards.
(Can only repeat a 'deploy' ability.)

Yaevinn - 1-power, Spying
This card cannot be Created.
Create a Silver card from your starting deck. Final: Set self base power to 15. Draw a card.
(That means this card can't be created by any other Create effects as well.)

Udalryk - 1-power, Spying
Choose one:
Resurrect a Bronze or Silver unit from either graveyard, or Final: Draw 2 cards, then discard a card.

The idea is to make them playable on round 1-2 as ~12 points cards. And make them ~0 points play that give last-say in round 3.

 

[DannyGuy]

Quite a unique solution to the coin flip. I don't think I've seen this anywhere before. I like spies being in the game, I think they create an interesting dynamic when they aren't abused, but instead played smartly. Maybe the "second player rule" could come into effect only in the first round. Though this rule is pretty unfriendly to noobs, so I doubt anything like this would ever be put into the game.
I do think that 13-15 points are too much though. 2-0 should still be an imminent threat, but with that many points, the loser can pretty much play any garbage he wants without having to worry about keeping up in points. I think that 7 points would be ideal.

 

[overcold_ice]

Quite a unique solution to the coin flip. I don't think I've seen this anywhere before. I like spies being in the game, I think they create an interesting dynamic when they aren't abused, but instead played smartly. Maybe the "second player rule" could come into effect only in the first round. Though this rule is pretty unfriendly to noobs, so I doubt anything like this would ever be put into the game.
I do think that 13-15 points are too much though. 2-0 should still be an imminent threat, but with that many points, the loser can pretty much play any garbage he wants without having to worry about keeping up in points. I think that 7 points would be ideal.

I agree with you. I like spies, they make you think about when/how you play them. But because they cause problems (making easy win in round 1, and making almost every deck runs them, therefore reducing the silver slots to 5), they should go away from the game. Also, I'm sure when they're being abused, they're being played smartly in the same time (like to win round 1 quick, and with no CA loss).

The 'second player rule' was actually divided into 2 rules when I first came up with such ideas, and now that's like the simplest form I can think of. I'm sure it can be explained easily through tutorials, and during the challenges. If this rule only works in the first round, it actually makes the rule itself a little more complicated, and it will no longer fix carry-over problems. Like, when you win first round vs Bran with -1 CA, it'd be very hard to regain back that CA without using any CA spies (which as I mentioned, should go away from the game).

For reinforcement-points, if it goes too low, bleeding would be less limited (due to second player rule). For carry-over players, they can focus their carry-over for the third round instead for the second round, or just spam their second round with more carry-overs. Anyway, I dislike how 2-0 can be done. Since without even 2-0-ing anyone, they do have their advantage from winning the first round already, and they can just make more carry-overs or plan their third round because bleeding is always safe due to second player rule (even without this rule, they can bleed safely just because of their carry-overs though).

 

[overcold_ice]

Updated with possible changes to CA spies.

 

[time_drainer]

As I've already written in the coin-flip topic, I absolutely love your idea on second player rule for first round.
I also very much appreciate how you explain the intent of your changes complete with possible side effects.

I can't say I'm on board with second round changes though.
I feel that they complete remove any stake or tension from second round by making bleeding opponent completely safe (up to the last cards), while also pretty much decreasing first round winner's chances to get a second win close to zero (along with his incentives to try and push for a win). So I feel it would degrade second round to a weird ritual of players taking turns in discarding cards they think they won't need in final round until first round winner says it's enough.
Personally I like current second round dynamic (excluding CA spies & coin flip abuses) where first round winner gets to choose to either play it safe and dry-pass winning back CA and still getting last say or try to bleed out opponent with the risk of getting stuck with -1 CA.

I also have a different take on problem analysis. I agree that loser's carry-over problem is an issue. On the other hand I don't see too many 2-0 wins even with current rules and it almost always includes winning 1st round on even or some obscene spy abuse (which problems would be eliminated). Though I have to admit my experience is limited as I joined Gwent only second half of the last two-month season and peaked on 3900 MMR on both my seasons so far, so maybe it's different on higher ranks / pro ladder.
(I figure winner's carry-over problem is the same as 2-0 win problem?)

So back to loser's carry-over problem: I think a less disruptive solution would be fixing the individual cards and preventing them from interacting with a dry-pass.
Personally I don't see any problems with Resilient units: they are low tempo plays in previous round and can be countered with elimination.
I think we can agree that main offenders are Wardancers, but there's a pretty easy fix to that: add "Ambush: flip this card, when any player plays a card.")
I'm a bit more hesitant about Bran, cause it involves a relatively low tempo Leader ability (compared to other leaders) and some silver cards, but yeah I'm also more in favor of a nerf there. Probably making Olgierd's and Morkvarg's ability only activate during own turn. I'd probably add Truce to the mix, as it feels unfair to me to force a losing Bran to both commit a card and make his silvers resurrect (thus weakening them for last round), but it can be argued. Though I have to say I feel a bit sorry about Morkvarg, cause I kinda like how the stubborn little bugger comes back instantly after being killed.

UPDATE: regarding silver spies rework maybe I'm missing something but on first glance I'm against the idea of a card that gives last-say for free, as with CA gone, last-say is pretty much what we're fighting for in first round (in addition to round length control).

 

[overcold_ice]

I can't say I'm on board with second round changes though.
I feel that they complete remove any stake or tension from second round by making bleeding opponent completely safe (up to the last cards), while also pretty much decreasing first round winner's chances to get a second win close to zero (along with his incentives to try and push for a win). So I feel it would degrade second round to a weird ritual of players taking turns in discarding cards they think they won't need in final round until first round winner says it's enough.
Personally I like current second round dynamic (excluding CA spies & coin flip abuses) where first round winner gets to choose to either play it safe and dry-pass winning back CA and still getting last say or try to bleed out opponent with the risk of getting stuck with -1 CA.

Yeah, I agree. All seems fair and balanced when there's no coin-flip issues and CA spies issues, until you meet carry-overs. I like playing games where I don't see any carry-overs, even Olgierd being played on a random deck can make me rage sometimes. But from what I can see so far, it's either remove or completely rework carry-overs, or apply whatever solution options we have just to fix the problems they cause. Because the first option is not as easy as removing/reworking silver spies (which are only 5 cards), the work-around option is pretty much the easier solution to this.

(I figure winner's carry-over problem is the same as 2-0 win problem?)

Yes. Actually in regular games (without carry-overs, coin-flip issues, CA spies), there's little possibility of winning a game 2-0. But carry-overs can ease that, so that's the other part of carry-over problems.

So back to loser's carry-over problem: I think a less disruptive solution would be fixing the individual cards and preventing them from interacting with a dry-pass.
Personally I don't see any problems with Resilient units: they are low tempo plays in previous round and can be countered with elimination.
I think we can agree that main offenders are Wardancers, but there's a pretty easy fix to that: add "Ambush: flip this card, when any player plays a card.")
I'm a bit more hesitant about Bran, cause it involves a relatively low tempo Leader ability (compared to other leaders) and some silver cards, but yeah I'm also more in favor of a nerf there. Probably making Olgierd's and Morkvarg's ability only activate during own turn. I'd probably add Truce to the mix, as it feels unfair to me to force a losing Bran to both commit a card and make his silvers resurrect (thus weakening them for last round), but it can be argued. Though I have to say I feel a bit sorry about Morkvarg, cause I kinda like how the stubborn little bugger comes back instantly after being killed.

Bran's tempo can top at 24 points actually (discarding wolfsbane, morkvarg, and a raider). But I think he's fine.

How do you think about this? Any kind of points-change for a player will only counts at the end of their turn. So, after you play a card, do damage, etc, the points total that we see on the left will not get updated until it's the end of that player's turn. So any kind of carry-over points will never count before the loser makes a play. And therefore, this fixes losers' carry-over problems. Any not-yet-counted changes should be visible with a +/- sign next to them. So if I play a Fiend on my turn, the points on the left will say (0+11) when I just played it, then it becomes (11) when my turn ends.

Omg! Am I a genius? I mean, that fixes carry-overs major problem we have. But that have a weird interaction with weathers, but I think it's fine. And it won't fix winners' carry-over problems, which I think is also fine.

UPDATE: regarding silver spies rework maybe I'm missing something but on first glance I'm against the idea of a card that gives last-say for free, as with CA gone, last-say is pretty much what we're fighting for in first round (in addition to round length control).

I see, will update it when I have more time.

 

[time_drainer]

But from what I can see so far, it's either remove or completely rework carry-overs, or apply whatever solution options we have just to fix the problems they cause. Because the first option is not as easy as removing/reworking silver spies (which are only 5 cards), the work-around option is pretty much the easier solution to this.

I'm not that convinced about the difficulty of this task. I don't think there are too many carry-over cards out there that are abusive. It's true though that without a general solution, any newcomers to the carry-over party would need to be rigorously checked whether they break second round dry-pass.

Bran's tempo can top at 24 points actually (discarding wolfsbane, morkvarg, and a raider). But I think he's fine.

Yeah, that's true. I automatically thought of the grand trio of Morkvarg, Olgierd and Cerys.

How do you think about this? Any kind of points-change for a player will only counts at the end of their turn. So, after you play a card, do damage, etc, the points total that we see on the left will not get updated until it's the end of that player's turn. So any kind of carry-over points will never count before the loser makes a play. And therefore, this fixes losers' carry-over problems. Any not-yet-counted changes should be visible with a +/- sign next to them. So if I play a Fiend on my turn, the points on the left will say (0+11) when I just played it, then it becomes (11) when my turn ends.

So if I get it right, in order to work it would mean that any changes in my points would only register on my turn end (so not on the end of my opponent's turn) and would not register at all if I've just passed as second.
Hmm, I like the effect it has on loser's carry-over problem. Although I'm not sure the best solution should involve confusing the board and overall gameplay just to fix this one problem , so I would prefer a solution that's only limited to second round start.
Also please mind that, it's not only weather that would be affected. Off the top of my head it would interact with most Ambush cards (completely breaking Toruviel in her current form), break False Ciri, probably interact with Dun Banners and King of Beggars, some limited effect on Archespore. Possibly a dozen other cards that don't come to my mind would also be affected for better or worse. I think it would end up way more effort sorting this out than fixing individual carry-over cards.

 

[overcold_ice]

So if I get it right, in order to work it would mean that any changes in my points would only register on my turn end (so not on the end of my opponent's turn) and would not register at all if I've just passed as second.
Hmm, I like the effect it has on loser's carry-over problem. Although I'm not sure the best solution should involve confusing the board and overall gameplay just to fix this one problem , so I would prefer a solution that's only limited to second round start.
Also please mind that, it's not only weather that would be affected. Off the top of my head it would interact with most Ambush cards (completely breaking Toruviel in her current form), break False Ciri, probably interact with Dun Banners and King of Beggars, some limited effect on Archespore. Possibly a dozen other cards that don't come to my mind would also be affected for better or worse. I think it would end up way more effort sorting this out than fixing individual carry-over cards.

Very true. So it has to be a more specific solution, the one that I wanted to write before I ended up with what you read there. I don't really like very specific approach in fixing things, but it can't be helped.

Basically, just make the first-round-winner always have the same starting points as his opponent on the start of round 2. But really, this looks very weird. Making both players' points zero (like what I mentioned before) will look even weirder if that only applies on such specific moment. What I ended up writing is the result of me avoiding that weirdness, which causes more problems as you pointed out. But there're still other alternate solutions.

After much thoughts, doing anything involving points will look bad/weird and twisting/rewording 'second player rule' will result in complicated mess. So it should be a given choice right at the start of the winner's first turn, to play or to safe-pass. This is actually another form of 'second player rule' that someone else came up with, I just tweaked it a bit to fit the needed conditions.

"When round 2 starts, the winner of the previous round can choose to play the round, or lose it and draw 1 card."
That's what the rule states, but it should be implemented with a direct choice-screen (similar to how we select choose-one effects) right at the start of the winner's first turn. The choices are:
- Advance: Play a card. (Cannot declare a pass this turn.)
- Retreat: Draw 1 card, but you lose this round immediately.

I think this has a good side-effect. It makes safe-passing won't hurt the other player at all. Right now, dry-pass can sometimes cause the losing player to play a card they don't want to play.

 

[time_drainer]

"When round 2 starts, the winner of the previous round can choose to play the round, or lose it and draw 1 card." That's what the rule states, but it should be implemented with a direct choice-screen (similar to how we select choose-one effects) right at the start of the winner's first turn.
The choices are:
- Advance: Play a card. (Cannot declare a pass this turn.)
- Retreat: Draw 1 card, but you lose this round immediately.

I can see why you wanted to avoid this solution, as it feels way less organic than an uninterrupted dry-pass option. But I agree that mechanically it would be superior to all other options we have so far. I'd much rather prefer mechanic over organic, so I absolutely support this idea.
Only risk I see here that it might be harder to sell to some people, even if technically it does the same as a less explicit (but so far non-existent) solution would. I mean I can imagine people who are basically okay with dry-pass and pissed off by carry-over complaining about not wanting to make Gwent a 2-round game. But let's put some trust into people and hope my fear is groundless.

I think this has a good side-effect. It makes safe-passing won't hurt the other player at all. Right now, dry-pass can sometimes cause the losing player to play a card they don't want to play.

I also agree with this completely. As a matter of fact it's the very reason I have slight preference for the Yield variant over Second Player Rule for first round.

 

[overcold_ice]

I also agree with this completely. As a matter of fact it's the very reason I have slight preference for the Yield variant over Second Player Rule for first round.

Tbh I prefer my solution than his because his solution would involve adding a playable card (playable with Emhyr, new dandy poet). And actually it might hurt the other player when a straight-pass occurs, since sometimes a player might want to drop a unit into the graveyard for resurrection effects, play Bran, etc. Man, Bran can get countered with that...

 

[hydra66]

just make it so draw only triggers if you have less cards than opponent when the card hits the battlefield.
Question is whether a different effect is triggered instead of card draw if equal/ ahead on cards

 

[time_drainer]

Tbh I prefer my solution than his because his solution would involve adding a playable card (playable with Emhyr, new dandy poet).

That's true. So don't make it a card but another button next to pass to completely deny any interaction.

And actually it might hurt the other player when a straight-pass occurs, since sometimes a player might want to drop a unit into the graveyard for resurrection effects, play Bran, etc. Man, Bran can get countered with that...

Yeah, but I figure you can make all the setup you need in second round for the third round as now opponent cannot pass. So you can play Bran first thing in second round. Yes, Olgierd will only resurrect once for example, but will remain stronger in the final deciding round.
Not sure though if it's a good thing to be able to automatically force Bran to play 3-round game, though certainly he wouldn't be the only archetype there you can do that with. Needs some further consideration, possibly some playtesting.

 

[time_drainer]

just make it so draw only triggers if you have less cards than opponent when the card hits the battlefield.
Question is whether a different effect is triggered instead of card draw if equal/ ahead on cards

If you're referring to Yield, that's pretty much automatic as it would be an option available for first player of the first round only. (Assuming CA Spies are removed, which is the default assumption we're working with in this thread.)

 

[oOxhaosOo]

Strange that only ST cant be created and Ng spy with choosing any card seems OP

 

[time_drainer]

And actually it might hurt the other player when a straight-pass occurs, since sometimes a player might want to drop a unit into the graveyard for resurrection effects, play Bran, etc. Man, Bran can get countered with that...

Gave it some more thought. While denying 1st round Bran may indeed limit his usefulness to some extent, giving up 1st round and match control without a fight can be a reasonable price to pay for that. Too high even. And he's hardly useless even in 2nd round. (You said it yourself he can even be played to 24 points + 3 thining - though of course you would have had to build your deck that way, so not an option if you were only aiming for resurrection trio.)
That said I'm not that committed to Yield. That or Second Player Rule would both work perfectly for me.

 

[overcold_ice]

Gave it some more thought. While denying 1st round Bran may indeed limit his usefulness to some extent, giving up 1st round and match control without a fight can be a reasonable price to pay for that. Too high even. And he's hardly useless even in 2nd round. (You said it yourself he can even be played to 24 points + 3 thining - though of course you would have had to build your deck that way, so not an option if you were only aiming for resurrection trio.)
That said I'm not that committed to Yield. That or Second Player Rule would both work perfectly for me.

It's about bricking Bran's hand. And other things that might require set-up.
I just noticed that Yield can involve complicated 'mess' when it's supposed to be unplayable after the second player's pass. It won't cause any CA problems though, it's just about the feel, the weirdness.

just make it so draw only triggers if you have less cards than opponent when the card hits the battlefield. Question is whether a different effect is triggered instead of card draw if equal/ ahead on cards

I'll try to mix and match things based on this. The condition will require a player to have 2-less cards than his opponent. Only 1-less still cause problems.

Strange that only ST cant be created and Ng spy with choosing any card seems OP

Yaevinn is rather strange indeed. Francesca can choose anything as well, but she is not OP. Stefan Skellen might be another case for that, but this one is hardly a comparison to that.

---

Thread is updated.

 

[time_drainer]

It's about bricking Bran's hand. And other things that might require set-up.

Yes I can see that 2nd Mulligan being tricky. Still not sure whether it's really hurting enough to be a viable tactic without actually testing it.

I just noticed that Yield can involve complicated 'mess' when it's supposed to be unplayable after the second player's pass. It won't cause any CA problems though, it's just about the feel, the weirdness.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I think it's okay to leave it playable. It's like playing a card that still leaves you behind, opponent passes, and you realize that you don't wanna spend another card(s) to get ahead so you also pass. You clearly made a mistake playing that card earlier, no need to punish you further by limiting your options.
Possibly I just didn't what is the mess, you are referring to.

Again these are small details & nuance differences between the two solutions, I'm fine with both.
Ideally would playtest both to see if any issue comes up with either one of them, not sure it would be worth spending the resources to this though.

 

[time_drainer]

Now regarding CA Spies, I'm clearly missing the first half of the conversation, but here's my 2 cents. Not going into details of individual abilities only the general concept.

- In round 2, can only be played by the first-round-winner, it can no longer be countered by the other player's CA spy.

I'm not a big fan of the safe bleeding CA Spies allow in round 2. Let me quote my opinion on this from another topic.

Allowing the safe bleeding of opponents is one of the cheap tricks of CA spies able to play on you that makes me hate them. Strategic thinking, my foot.
Yes, barring spies bleeding has to be done with some careful thinking involved, going only so far so that you still have an opportunity to pass while ahead, hence winning back your CA. Going down -1 CA is also a viable option against some decks, that are bad on short rounds. Worked quite well for me so far. Alternatively you can always just dry-pass and get back your CA, if you want to play it safe (yes, carryovers messing with dry-pass should be addressed). Which gives you last-say, which is also far more than nothing (which is one of the reasons I think finishers should be left alone).

- Always playable in round 3 as around -4 points play, to gain last-say and for their Final effects.

People consistently playing their CA Spies against me in round 3 for -13 points instead of mulliganing them, so I guess it's worth that much. Making them -4 points could easily making them OP alone, and I didn't even consider the ability they provide.
I can easily missing something as I'm not playing spies myself too much (mostly out of spite).

 

[overcold_ice]

Maybe I'm missing something, but I think it's okay to leave it playable. It's like playing a card that still leaves you behind, opponent passes, and you realize that you don't wanna spend another card(s) to get ahead so you also pass. You clearly made a mistake playing that card earlier, no need to punish you further by limiting your options.
Possibly I just didn't what is the mess, you are referring to.

Yes it is okay, it won't cause any CA problems, but it's too weird from my point of view. And making Yield not a card is another mess to think of.
But I dislike Yield in round 1 primarily not because of that. It's primarily because of blocking opponent's set-ups in round 1, some decks want to thin a lot in round 1 (and can possibly brick in round 2 without thinning).

Then about CA spies. Here's a calculation for regular CA spies in round 3:
- Say each player's hand is 4 cards. But you have 1 CA spy as 1 of your cards.
- You play first, and play a CA spy.
- After playing your CA spy, you give your opponent 13 points. But it's still the same, 4 cards vs 4 cards.
- Because of that -13, logically the round is actually about ~3 cards vs 4 cards.

That -4 is highly interchangeable. This one does need testing. Having last say doesn't mean having 1 more card, or like, supreme advantage.

I'm perfectly fine with CA spies being removed. Those changes are there just as an alternate solution other than removing them. Being playable in round 2 or not, I'm fine with either. It's about what most people want, and most importantly, what CDPR wants.

 

[Kinglionsfox]

I was going to make a topic with my idea, but saw this and going to just throw it in here.

My Suggestion: For 2nd and 3rd rounds, the player with the most cards in hand goes first. For ties, the player that won the last round goes first.

Also I'm on the side for removing CA spy units from the game.