So after we entered the PTR we finally see all the cards and effects we were just thinking beforehand. And to keep the feedback-thread reasonable clean i will start here again
At first some numbers:
We have 497 cards in PTR. Out of this, 88 cards have either one melee/ranged tag or both (about 18%). There are 57 golds that have either one or both of these tags. So this are 11% out of total, or 65% of the card-pool with this tags.
22 cards (4%) have choice between melee or ranged effect, (not counting the soft choice because of reach 1 or 2). Out of the 22 cards 17 are golds (3% total, or 75% of this card-pool).
There are 48 cards with reach (10%) , some overlapp with melee/range. For the ease of complexity lets add them together. This mean we have 105 cards(21%) which benefits from the row placement in some way (+some special cards that just affects some row like frost). Add the percentage up to 25%.
One thing i am asking for is to cut the point "lets see in the final game if it works". We all see the final work in the PTR, just some bugfixes will occur or slightly changes to single cards, nothing more. So lets the disscusion begin.
At first, i dont see a reason, why the shown effects wouldnt work with 3 rows. I didnt saw a single effect, where 2 rows are better than 3 (balancing reason or any other one). In contrast it is even more difficult to have a good position against cards like G-Igni. I had one game against it and it was literally impossible to dodge that card in that game, caused by the lack of row to dodge. With 3 row i could avoid being grilled by the card (if i was thoughtfull about it). Even in theory, if i play a decent long round, i cant dodge this card, becaus emy row-stats going just to high.
On the other hand, i dont think we got meaningfull rows now. Take the number form above, only 25% cards were effected by rowplacement. And it is dicussion worthy for its one, if any of these cards really profit from their row placement in a way you could say "rows matter, now". in the games i played so far i (mostly) just evenly placed my units like in midwinter-Gwent, my opponents did the same. Some chosed the ranged row, to save their units from damage. Which didnt work because i could hit hem anyway. This would only work, if we have much more reach 1 units. In one game i faced a soldier-deck, which relies on melee row, butu evne there he placed the reach 1 soldiers front and all other behind. i never felt a drawback, if i had to play a card in a certain row. But thats what is "meaning" for me. When i start thinking: Do I or do I not play this card there. I get the ability but could get into a counter.
One thing i must admit i was wrong about, is the "full rows" problematic. I didnt play a game, where we reachd the row limit, mostly 7 cards each were at the field at a time.
At first some numbers:
We have 497 cards in PTR. Out of this, 88 cards have either one melee/ranged tag or both (about 18%). There are 57 golds that have either one or both of these tags. So this are 11% out of total, or 65% of the card-pool with this tags.
22 cards (4%) have choice between melee or ranged effect, (not counting the soft choice because of reach 1 or 2). Out of the 22 cards 17 are golds (3% total, or 75% of this card-pool).
There are 48 cards with reach (10%) , some overlapp with melee/range. For the ease of complexity lets add them together. This mean we have 105 cards(21%) which benefits from the row placement in some way (+some special cards that just affects some row like frost). Add the percentage up to 25%.
One thing i am asking for is to cut the point "lets see in the final game if it works". We all see the final work in the PTR, just some bugfixes will occur or slightly changes to single cards, nothing more. So lets the disscusion begin.
At first, i dont see a reason, why the shown effects wouldnt work with 3 rows. I didnt saw a single effect, where 2 rows are better than 3 (balancing reason or any other one). In contrast it is even more difficult to have a good position against cards like G-Igni. I had one game against it and it was literally impossible to dodge that card in that game, caused by the lack of row to dodge. With 3 row i could avoid being grilled by the card (if i was thoughtfull about it). Even in theory, if i play a decent long round, i cant dodge this card, becaus emy row-stats going just to high.
On the other hand, i dont think we got meaningfull rows now. Take the number form above, only 25% cards were effected by rowplacement. And it is dicussion worthy for its one, if any of these cards really profit from their row placement in a way you could say "rows matter, now". in the games i played so far i (mostly) just evenly placed my units like in midwinter-Gwent, my opponents did the same. Some chosed the ranged row, to save their units from damage. Which didnt work because i could hit hem anyway. This would only work, if we have much more reach 1 units. In one game i faced a soldier-deck, which relies on melee row, butu evne there he placed the reach 1 soldiers front and all other behind. i never felt a drawback, if i had to play a card in a certain row. But thats what is "meaning" for me. When i start thinking: Do I or do I not play this card there. I get the ability but could get into a counter.
One thing i must admit i was wrong about, is the "full rows" problematic. I didnt play a game, where we reachd the row limit, mostly 7 cards each were at the field at a time.
Last edited: