Limit Sweers to a Maximum Number of Copies

[Yykkla]

Limit Sweers to a Maximum Number of Copies

After playing the new Nekker Consume archetype for a while, I've felt compelled to make this post because I could find nothing on the subject.
So Nekkers has always been the cornerstone of any consume deck, but Sweers shuts them down entirely.

Consider this - the net value of Nekkers tends to increase in rounds 2 and 3. From experience I reach a value of around 8-12 in round 2, and 10-14 in round 3.
Let's say a non-round 1 Nekker has a mean value of 11. This means that if Sweers is played in round 1, every Nekker he removes is worth 11 points.

This means that if Sweers is played on round 1, where most copies are likely to be made, and he removes 6 copies, he singlehandedly swings for an effective value of 66, plus any remaining strength Sweers has.

There's no way to play around Sweers. You either put Nekkers on and boost them and they get removed, or you never put Nekkers on at all, both of which result in a great likelihood of losing the match. Additionally, Decoy or Emhyr allow Sweers to be reused.

That isn't really the point of this post either - defending Sweers by proposing a tactic to circumvent him is irrelevant - the fact that Sweers can shut down a specific archetype singlehandedly yet finds mediocre value against any other deck is the issue, especially since Sweers is NG specific, it makes it a bit unfair to other decks.

My suggestion for a rework would be for Sweers to send a maximum of 2 copies of a unit to the graveyard rather than all copies, as well as Sweers' base power changed from 9 to 8.
This means 2 Nekkers can be unavoidably removed, but you have the chance to either lock Sweers or Kayran him to prevent any more Nekker killing. If you don't lock or kill Sweers then, Decoy can be used to remove another 22 effective points, both of which are both still huge swings.

I believe this to be more fair - considering he retains single-play value into the 20s and retains what he originally did.

Thoughts?

 

[4RM3D]

Every since the dawn of NG, Sweers hasn't seen much play because there are only a few decks where he can actually make a difference and most of these decks aren't even regularly played, until now. Nekkers have made a comeback with the help of Slyzards. Sweers and Nekkers have been around forever, but now that Nekkers have become popular once again, it was bound to happen that someone would mention Sweers. The classic consume deck didn't solely rely on Nekkers to win. Any deck that uses a one-trick-pony runs the inherent risk of crashing into a rock while only carrying scissors.

The power swing you've mentioned with Sweers is an unique case because of the interaction with Nekker Warriors, which isn't fair to solely attribute to Sweers. You don't want to normalize cards just because of these unique scenarios. Take, for example, Scorch. If you run Scorch against (3) Spotters or (3) DB Protectors, it's pretty much game over. This is not because of Scorch, but because of the risk the opponent took playing those cards.

Now, you've got a card (Sweers) that is mediocre in most cases, but in one situation it can destroy an archetype (Nekkers). What this means is that both the card and the archetype are unhealthy. This might need to be fixed, but nerfing Sweers is not the proper solution to this problem.

 

[NlelithZ44]

^ ditto.

 

[ResoundingBuahaha]

I think Sweer is fine...if the deck only have only one win condition and get countered it's probably not the problem of Sweer. Such counter can also be substituted by Peter, Auckes, Margarita, Mandrome or whatever lock & weakening effect so nerfing Sweer won't actually solve it

 

[Yykkla]

Thanks for the input. It was necessary to get opinions that were not my own.

On that note, how would you recommend dealing with Sweers when playing Nekker Consume? I have no viable solutions.

 

[ResoundingBuahaha]

Thanks for the input. It was necessary to get opinions that were not my own.

On that note, how would you recommend dealing with Sweers when playing Nekker Consume? I have no viable solutions.

Well a more realistic advice is not put everything into nekker, with a tool this easy to disrupt you gotta prepare a second win condition. I'm not really having a lot experience in monster but consume archetype should offer more than just nekker, like Archanas Behemoth & Harpy. The gold & silver are pretty good stand alone as well. It is hard to bounce back if a deck so devoted to nekker get countered but again not impossible if the deck is not ONLY about nekkers.

 

[Khreygond]

even if your deck is solely about nekkers, then you can just empower your remaining nekker and finally use the Elder and Adrenaline Rush to go into the next round with 25 - 30 points at least. So yeah, pretty much, don't make it all about Nekkers. As pointed out to me as well, decks that rely on one type of card can get so easily shut down once that particular card is gone, that's the deck's fault. Arachas Behemoth used to be and still is a really good card

 

[StrykerxS77x]

Yykkla

I disagree. Sweers needs to exist because there aren't many ways to counter the Nekker decks.

 

[partci]

Has ever came to your mind that people started to include Sweers because of Nekkers? Cause before that he was rarely seen and if so, it was mostly in Mill Decks?

 

[Yykkla]

Has ever came to your mind that people started to include Sweers because of Nekkers? Cause before that he was rarely seen and if so, it was mostly in Mill Decks?

Clearly, that's why I made this post.

 

[StrykerxS77x]

Clearly, that's why I made this post.

So you think that Sweers shouldn't be useful for the one thing that people actually want to use it for?

 

[Kerset]

Is this for real? You just need to look at things from both sides. Nekker warrior is value 7 bronze card and you wish Sweers to be value 8 SILVER card which have exactly opposite ability? Nekker warrior creates 2 cards in your deck, while Sweers would just remove 2 of them? Do you really want nilfgardian to waste his silver card slot just to get 1 point advantage against your bronze card, then use another silver(decoy) to deny your second bronze warrior (this time gaining just 7-3 points).

 

[4RM3D]

You just need to look at things from both sides. Nekker warrior is value 7 bronze card and you wish Sweers to be value 8 SILVER card which have exactly opposite ability?

But if you are going to use that argument, then what about something like Clear Skies, a simple bronze, reverting Golden Weather? It's not that I am disagreeing with you; I am just curious.

 

[Lyserus]

Thanks for the input. It was necessary to get opinions that were not my own.

On that note, how would you recommend dealing with Sweers when playing Nekker Consume? I have no viable solutions.

ALL decks that fly around few bronze cards and exist only because of those cards, are destinied to carry the risk of running into the mighty of Sweer.

You don't have to worry about sweer at all if your deck is well structured

 

[Yykkla]

So you think that Sweers shouldn't be useful for the one thing that people actually want to use it for?

I expected some flame for this post because people have this particularly unhealthy way of taking things personally - but it sounds like you're actually agreeing with me in that Sweers needs a rework to be less of a dive niche and more useful across the board.

Is this for real? You just need to look at things from both sides. Nekker warrior is value 7 bronze card and you wish Sweers to be value 8 SILVER card which have exactly opposite ability? Nekker warrior creates 2 cards in your deck, while Sweers would just remove 2 of them? Do you really want nilfgardian to waste his silver card slot just to get 1 point advantage against your bronze card, then use another silver(decoy) to deny your second bronze warrior (this time gaining just 7-3 points).

1 point advantage? Are you sure you even read my entire post?

You actually make it sound quite reasonable because currently a silver card (Sweers) effectively negates an infinite number of a bronze card (Nekker Warriors) - which to me seems like poor design. It's this that I'm claiming is the problem - which is only exacerbated by Nekkers. Full on 1:1 balance across the game is not possible, especially since cards like Geralt and Triss exist. Golden Weather as mentioned above is countered by Clear Skies. Even with Clear Skies, you only clear the Gold Weather once, then you need another Clear Skies for another Gold Weather. Some factions have stronger aspects altogether, and fall off in other sections.



So I don't really understand - Nekker Warrior's entire purpose is to create new copies of cards to use, and why would you create copies that you can't or won't use? Especially since Monsters has always had mediocre draw power. But enter the Slyzard allowing you to play a card consistently, and suddenly the deck becomes a problem for everyone, and the idea of inverse thinning is very unpopular. So maybe Sweers is only good because it's an automatic counter to any number of Nekker Warriors, a fairly innocuous Monster engine card.

Spella'tael relies on spells (specials). Certain Skellige relies on sending things to the graveyard and back to board. Nilfgaard Spies relies on spies. Nekker Consume relies on Nekkers. So it's okay to have a card that removes all Nekkers from deck, but not a card that destroys all spells, or resets all units to original base power, or remove all spies from deck? I find that a bit hypocritical.

4RM3D probably said it best in the first response in that "What this means is that both the card and the archetype are unhealthy." Cards such as Unseen Elder are long due a rework because of how inferior they are compared to cards like Emhyr or Bran, in which then maybe cards like Nekker wouldn't be so crucial to having a "meta-capable deck" for consume. Even currently, against the supposedly 'OP' Nekker Consume, the matchup tends to favour decks like Nilfgaard Spies or Spella'tael.


----


By the way, my intent in this thread was not to specifically argue to limit Sweers' ability to a specific maximum of two copies, that was just an example/suggestion - it was renamed by moderator and used as topic title and moved to suggestions. Maybe 3 copies, maybe 4 copies - just not all copies. My idea was to generate discussion about Sweers.

 

[StrykerxS77x]

I expected some flame for this post because people have this particularly unhealthy way of taking things personally - but it sounds like you're actually agreeing with me in that Sweers needs a rework to be less of a dive niche and more useful across the board.
.

I don't know why you think I am taking your post personally. Just responding with what I think.

I do not agree that Sweers needs a rework. It's perfectly fine that some silvers are more niche and are only really good against certain decks. You didn't come here just because you dont like the design of Sweers and want it to be better. You came here because Sweers was countering your deck.

 

[partci]

... (Sweers) effectively negates an infinite number of a bronze card (Nekker Warriors) - which to me seems like poor design...

This infinite number of one particular card from all the existing Bronzes in the game. For a card that in 99% of the cases can put 1 to 2 (sometimes not a single one) Bronze Card in the GY.

Useful? Yes.

Risky? Hell yes.

Overpowered? Check your deck first.

Poor design? Have you seen Serrit? Pavetta? Vabjorn? Dare I say Geralt? How often do you see Swallow, Juta, Xarthisius or CoC? Epidemic?

And your problem is Sweers, which got NERFED the last patch to WEAKEN himself by 1 for each copy of a card you have in your deck (so if he get rid of 7 Nekkers he is what, 2 STR Silver?), cause he is countering yet another (yours in particular) preposterous carryover meta deck.

Please.

 

[4RM3D]

Golden Weather as mentioned above is countered by Clear Skies. Even with Clear Skies, you only clear the Gold Weather once, then you need another Clear Skies for another Gold Weather.

Yeah, but Golden Weather doesn't stack, unlike Nekker Warriors, meaning you can only ever trade one bronze for one gold card.

Poor design? Have you seen Serrit? Pavetta? Vabjorn? Dare I say Geralt? How often do you see Swallow, Juta, Xarthisius or CoC? Epidemic?

Poor design of one card, doesn't justify poor design of (or interaction with) another card.

 

[4RM3D]

By the way, my intent in this thread was not to specifically argue to limit Sweers' ability to a specific maximum of two copies, that was just an example/suggestion - it was renamed by moderator and used as topic title and moved to suggestions. Maybe 3 copies, maybe 4 copies - just not all copies. My idea was to generate discussion about Sweers.

Updated the topic title.

 

[Yykkla]

I don't know why you think I am taking your post personally. Just responding with what I think.

I do not agree that Sweers needs a rework. It's perfectly fine that some silvers are more niche and are only really good against certain decks. You didn't come here just because you dont like the design of Sweers and want it to be better. You came here because Sweers was countering your deck.

Apologies for taking your words out of context. But you are totally correct, I came here because Sweers was countering the engine of a deck without any way around it.

This infinite number of one particular card from all the existing Bronzes in the game. For a card that in 99% of the cases can put 1 to 2 (sometimes not a single one) Bronze Card in the GY.

Useful? Yes.

Risky? Hell yes.

Overpowered? Check your deck first.

Poor design? Have you seen Serrit? Pavetta? Vabjorn? Dare I say Geralt? How often do you see Swallow, Juta, Xarthisius or CoC? Epidemic?

And your problem is Sweers, which got NERFED the last patch to WEAKEN himself by 1 for each copy of a card you have in your deck (so if he get rid of 7 Nekkers he is what, 2 STR Silver?), cause he is countering yet another (yours in particular) preposterous carryover meta deck.

Please.

This 'one particular card' that was clearly designed to work with Nekkers in mind from the start. The way I see it, this was how Monsters was always intended to be, and Slyzard enabled Nekkers to show. Hence my entire argument is Sweers is unnecessarily strong against Nekkers. Maybe you disagree with me here and that's understandable. But that is my argument.

I never claimed Sweers was overpowered either. I fully acknowledge his mediocrity elsewhere. But since I only play Monsters, this is a relevant topic to me.

Again, my point is Sweers just happens to work too well against Nekkers specifically. You should be forced to play almost all your removals and locks to achieve this, and not just one card.

Sweers was always this potent against Nekkers, but because Nekkers were so vulnerable to lock or compression prior to Slyzard, it was irrelevant to talk about Sweers, because playing a disruption card was more useful against other factions. Now that a single target disruption is not as effective, Sweers is next in line.

If you do not agree with changing Sweers for these reasons, I would challenge you to pilot a Nekker-free consume deck to at least 3.5k MMR. Then I would praise you as a god. Even if you did, your W/R would surely be tragic.