So being able to completely deny a card, making awkward plays to avoid something good from getting discarded and whoever uses Kambi benefiting from it.....is totally okay? Yeah, no.
How many TCG/CCG have you played before GWENT?
These types of games have disruptive strategies; it's in their DNA. You can argue that GWENT should strive to be of a different dynamic in its genre but that would eliminate part of the fun.
Things aren't always supposed to go the way you've planned them and that's part of the fun; it also contributes to the longevity/intricacy of the game.
A CCG/TCG is not solitaire. You're playing the wrong type of game if you think otherwise
None before Gwent. Well if you think it's fun to completely deny a play without any counters whatsoever then i don't know what to tell you.
You can't expect your plan to be streamlined just as your opponent can't expect theirs to be neither. If it were streamlined, every game would be rinse/repeat. And where's the interest or longevity in that?
RNG doesn't need to be directly built into cards to prevent games turning into rinse/repeat. When it's built directly into card mechanics it doesn't make the game play more intricate or exciting. It makes it frustrating and annoying.
Also, your comments make it sound like this game isn't streamlined. With a given deck once you see a match-up enough times you know what has to be done to win it based on the coin flip result and nuances of the match-up. Unfortunately, given the way most mechanics have become so pass/fail the variance from draws and mulligans don't make it more intricate or exciting either. They make it more frustrating and annoying.
Kambi exhibits both problems, to some extent. It's not out of bounds to point to this and raise issues with it. There is a difference between doing this and claiming it's overpowered, however. It's at best a meme card and far from overpowered when it's recognized or planned for ahead of time. Granted, it could conceivably be played at a random point in a round in an attempt to get a lucky break. This aspect falls under problem #1 mentioned above.
It can be argued that every game is streamlined; even chess has its patterns/strategies that are widely used and recognized by the more dedicated playerbase. And chess is amongst the upper echelon of games in terms of intricacy.
So we can say that streamlining is relative. What is more streamlined? Playing your side of the board to make sure the blocks fit like in tetris or having to consider what the other side of the board might do and play your cards while trying to find a balance between your strategy and theirs? Which of these two scenarios yields the more outcomes? The latter does.
Kambi is a meme card indeed. That should raise questions for the people complaining about the card on whether this game is really for them.
Last edited:
1) Kambi is based on RNG.
2) Kambi has a huge variance.
3) Based on RNG and variance, Kambi can provide a huge benefit for one player who is playing Discard, while completely screwing over (the finisher of) the opponent's strategy.
With this huge amount of RNG and variance, it makes no sense to claim that this card is fine or well-balanced or the right amount of provision points. A card like this doesn't belong in a strategy game.
A bit off-topic:
2) Kambi has a huge variance.
3) Based on RNG and variance, Kambi can provide a huge benefit for one player who is playing Discard, while completely screwing over (the finisher of) the opponent's strategy.
With this huge amount of RNG and variance, it makes no sense to claim that this card is fine or well-balanced or the right amount of provision points. A card like this doesn't belong in a strategy game.
A bit off-topic:
So true. It seems like the RNG is built in for rinse/repeat prevention, so that you may pull of a win due to RNG in a situation that you would normally lose in a true strategy game. That's simply wrong for a strategy game. Preventing rinse/repeat in a strategy game should be done by allowing for many different viable strategies. That's a bit of work. For example having many different archetypes, three rows and card abilities that can differ for all three rows...
The thing is that there isn't really a counter for this card though. I'm perfectly okay with trying to predict what my opponent will play or have my game-plan be screwed over by locks or removal but completely discarding a card from my hand? I don't understand how you think this card is okay or why you get so defensive about it. There needs to be a set way to play around a card like Kambi because the ability is highly dependent on what you currently have in your hand vs. their hand. It's absolute nonsense. You realize in some instances it can completely nullify your leader and grant the user card advantage? Like that's broken, no matter how you put it. If you look at the card from a value stand-point it is very underwhelming. In my opinion though, it is more disruptive than anything Nilfgaard has at their disposal.
Also, it's annoying as hell for you to basically say: "this game isn't for you," when I've been playing Gwent since Closed Beta. So stop those comments because they literally add nothing to the conversation.
Last edited:
That's the point. You pay a price as well, especially when you have bad luck and Kambi is not on your hand but in the deck, waiting to come out at the worst moment...
Ability-wise, Kambi is very disruptive. Is it broken? Maybe but for me it isn't. Now for gameplay, as i have stated Kambi heavly relies on draw sequence or hand cards position and affects both players. If the user has the optimal hand Kambi is very beneficial but with bad hand cards Kambi ends up bricking hard or the user is forced to play in an awkward sequence just to have a Kambi target. So if others consider Kambi broken at least he is at the high risk high reward category unlike other "broken" cards in the game wherein you just play them and boom, you win.
Very much agree with these sentiments. Gwent was originally marketed as a strategy card game, and that made it different from most of its rivals. It used to play that way too, but at some point along the way CDPR decided they'd rather have a more "fun", more casual game, than a serious strategy game. Perhaps for financial reasons, perhaps because they just saw it as easier to make. In any case, it looks like they have no intention of reversing their course now.
Last edited:
Sometimes I wonder if people really know what RNG stands for. No card could be less RNG than Kambi. On the contrary it is a highly strategic card.
- Both players lose a card.
- Kambi and your hand has to be carefully set up to be useful
- It is a card that works against the boring (and often times only) strategy of keeping the best card for last. Now people can't be safe as a bank anymore to get their last card through. Awesome!
- Both players lose a card.
- Kambi and your hand has to be carefully set up to be useful
- It is a card that works against the boring (and often times only) strategy of keeping the best card for last. Now people can't be safe as a bank anymore to get their last card through. Awesome!
I guess you would have to be okay with not having a counter for everything your opponent plays. We have enough counters in the game in terms of removal right?
I don't use Kambi but I've had it used against me on select few occasions; in some instances it did its job and in others it bricked. I never saw it as a broken mechanic to begin with and I'm completely ok with it.
Here's the thing: I was a rather dedicated MtG player for several years where targeted discard is very much a thing. You can look at a player's hand and do away with whatever poses the biggest threat to your deck. Coming from that background, Kambi is not a detrimental card. It's also not threatening enough to see it often as it requires a fair bit of luck to pull off the play. Broke Ciri said it: "high risk, high reward". These type of cards don't see a lot of competitive play because of their RNG-based nature.
I disagree. Kambi has some RNG and a high variance. First of all, you cannot change the order of cards in your hand. This is the sole reason Kambi can exist in the first place and it's also enough reason to just change the card altogether. To get value out of Kambi you need to make sure you have a discard target at the right side of your hand. However, you draw cards from the right side. This means there is a slightly higher chance to discard a good card from the opponent's hand at the start of round 3. Hitting the sweet spot is more RNG that it is a tactical decision.
Hint number one that no Random Number Generation is involved.
Hint number two that no Random Number Generation is involved.
No, it means that right from the moment you prepared your hand with Kambi you have to read your opponent's gameplay. Kambi is of no value, if you play it as randomly as you picture it to be played. Which brings us to the third hint, that no Random Number Generation is involved.
What? For my answer I assume RNG means player randomness for you (which it doesn't, RNG is about introducing randomness through a game, for example by giving a card, I forgot the name, sorry, a chance to deal 0-10 damage)? Then you're wrong. If you don't read your opponent, you yourself make it a 50/50 chance. It's your strategic thinking that gets more value out of Kambi.
Beta Gwent Kambi was genius in design and meme value. Kambi in HC is just another stupid RNG card along with many others. It can basically give card advantage to the best leader of the game (Bran). Skellige has far more reliable golds, so it's not meta enough to annoy many ppl.
I guess you can counter it if you have some prophetic skills and play like when you face a round 3 Henrietta, by wasting your finishers / best golds first, which is a good way to lose value and lose anyway.
I guess you can counter it if you have some prophetic skills and play like when you face a round 3 Henrietta, by wasting your finishers / best golds first, which is a good way to lose value and lose anyway.
Last edited:
When people talk about RNG in games it's more than just the random numbers. Card draws is an inherent RNG aspect of CCGs, for example, yet no numbers are involved, unless you talk about the number of bad cards you just drew.