I agree, it is stupid. An alchemist should be researching potions, not brewing beer. Lorewise it removes all mysticism from the alchemy science. Just remove beer from alchemy and make the potions worth using. What is even the point of Shriek potion? Beer gives the same points and is much easier to use (and the points provided do not depend on hitting unarmored followers or followers with just 1 health). Swallow potion gives less points than beer and is more risky (all points into a single unit that can be destroyed or reset).
It is balantly stupid that beer is better than the other potions.
It is balantly stupid that beer is better than the other potions.
Last edited:
Another nonsense tutor.
You can play a card for its value, or you can play a 2 strength body and choose which card to play.
I'm still amazed designers think this is balanced.
If a bronze is worth 11 points, a card that searchs for bronzes cant also add force to the table. Card game design 101.
You can play a card for its value, or you can play a 2 strength body and choose which card to play.
I'm still amazed designers think this is balanced.
If a bronze is worth 11 points, a card that searchs for bronzes cant also add force to the table. Card game design 101.
In theory (I emphasise 'theory) Mahakam Ale is fine, because it's what Merchant calls 'miniquest' gameplay. To get value you need a card on all three rows. Same as you need 5 in a row to get full value from commander's horn. And you can interrupt it by killing units that get played, or direct countering with crows' eye.
The problem is Ale hit the game the same time as Create, meaning the average play now creates two cards on different rows, so you can have your ale set up on turn 2.
I think rather than removing the alchemy tag it would be better to make it riskier or harder to get full value. Maybe as far as giving +2 six times, but only twice to each row. That'd probably be too harsh a nerf, but I think that's the ballpark where Ale should go to make it justified to be so much better than the basic potions.
The problem is Ale hit the game the same time as Create, meaning the average play now creates two cards on different rows, so you can have your ale set up on turn 2.
I think rather than removing the alchemy tag it would be better to make it riskier or harder to get full value. Maybe as far as giving +2 six times, but only twice to each row. That'd probably be too harsh a nerf, but I think that's the ballpark where Ale should go to make it justified to be so much better than the basic potions.
partci;n10594692 said:
Generally I don't like nerfing, but I do think cards that limit the usage of other cards should be nerfed. The problem with Ale is its too easy to optimise it, and it's such a powerful boost card it outright invalidates multiple other alchemy cards. Accordingly I think it needs a slight nerf to where other cards are viable, so I'd rather it just be made harder to get the most out of it than outright lowering its numbers.
I suggested a while ago that they should at least decrease the value that it gives (from 12 to 10) but nobody agreed with me, oh well.
iamthedave;n10594852 said:
And Hazards are it's ultimate Achiles heel.
If something - I am bummed how Ale is Alchemy, but Froth is not.
And instead of nerfing AGAIN the shhhalalala of something NG that is working, why not BUFF some of the other Archetypes? Nerfing is the reason so many archetypes are gone from the game right, as the most recent one is Spies.
I don't see a good reason to nerf this interaction. It's strong but still, it's a conditional 14 points swing. You first need to setup the board to have a unit in every row (which against some opponents can be kind of bad) and you sometimes draw Ale when you don't have enough units. Besides, a lot of bronze cards can get you up to 14 points under the right circumstances.
I'm more worried about bronze create cards.
I'm more worried about bronze create cards.
devivre;n10595772 said:
Which are instantly creating at least two bodies on the board, which can be huge. Also, why do we have cards that are two bodies and split 12 PTS between each as staples in the main decks of two factions right now - SK and ST, while NG has the NG Knight that is 12 STR on a single body, but the card is nowhere to be seen (except in this so troublesome Handbuff deck)?
Those two piece Bronzes should not be 12 STR and I will give you a quick example why - Slave Infantry (which is another archetype in the game NERFED into the ground) - Slave Infantry gives you instant 3 bodies but it is only wort 9 points. 12 STR 2 piece Bronzes should have some condition before spewing all their points or should be tuned down a bit.
partci;n10594692 said:
Says the one who just made a thread asking for Sabbath to be doomed..lol.
I think like half the special card tags are dumb tbh. First of all it many have like 2-3 tags which i think it's silly and kinda defeats the point of these tags, especially when it comes to alchemy ingredients.
Secondly it's the item tag, because everything is an item tbh, why aren't the mushrooms an item? or Crow's Eye? why is Dragon's Dream an item but not Dimeritium Bomb? Isn't a gate an item?
I noticed Rock Barrage, the old Boulder, which was once Organic, now has no tag at all, isn't the Boulder an item aswell?
Why can "Clear Skies" remove Pit Trap? If Epidemic is organic, shouldn't Hailstorm also be organic?
Also why is Hanmarvyn's Blue Dream an alchemy? it should be a spell
Secondly it's the item tag, because everything is an item tbh, why aren't the mushrooms an item? or Crow's Eye? why is Dragon's Dream an item but not Dimeritium Bomb? Isn't a gate an item?
I noticed Rock Barrage, the old Boulder, which was once Organic, now has no tag at all, isn't the Boulder an item aswell?
Why can "Clear Skies" remove Pit Trap? If Epidemic is organic, shouldn't Hailstorm also be organic?
Also why is Hanmarvyn's Blue Dream an alchemy? it should be a spell
Last edited:
4RM3D;n10595232 said:
This.
But I still don't like tutors, they took away alot of the interactivity from Gwent, there are way too many point vomit decks out there right now and they are way too strong. It should always be "engines and setup > point vomiting". High point removal that instantly gets you decent value is part of the problem (viper witchers, tutored removal etc).
Iuliandrei;n10597652 said:
All valid questions and it just seems like they are painting themselves into a corner. The more cards that they release, the smaller that corner gets. Things like arena are a mistake imo, they will eventually have to do a huge overhaul to this whole game before balance becomes impossible. People are very frustrated with gwent atm, that corner is getting mighty tight.
partci;n10596052 said:
I recently tried to play Swarm Consume with Yennefer, it gave me a new light on how broken tutor with bodies are. When a deck that isn’t oriented towards swarming with low points bodies, generally bellow 5 points, can outnumber, or at least easily catch up, with a deck that aims at swarming with low value bodies, this is a sign that something is wrong.
I was playing with Arachas Behemoth, Arachas Drone, Celaeno Harpy, and Draug, Germain (…), and decks like Alchemy or Swapa’tael managed to catch up with me in terms of the number of cards on the board, which is insane considering none of those decks are really swarm decks, in return denying most of my Yennefer points.
Most tutors shouldn’t have bodies, this is even truer for create cards which just can play normal cards with one more points and one more body.
As for Mahakam Ale I agree, it shouldn’t be an Alchemy card, it’d force Alchemy to play with Swallow, which would increase the risk of being scorched rather than spreading points equally on the board, might also reduce the number of Alchemy cards in the deck, which would reduce the efficiency of Viper Witchers; which right now are ridiculously strong and probably should receive an additional nerf, because a hard removal bronze that can be in theory used 6 times is not a good thing for the game as it just hard counters every engine heavy deck way too easily, and makes locks useless.