Wait....Viper witchers are unchanged???

+
It is all about opinions, some think VW make the game more unstrategic, others think it adds more viable gamestyles. I'm in the latter but ultimately it doesn't matter; both sides are correct, no?

People can like what they like but I do think there is a right way for the devs to head and a wrong way in terms of making the game better for the most people. If you inject enough of these cards in the game and people lose more often to luck I am very sure people will stop playing over that. The population of the game is already pretty low as far as I can see.
 
People can like what they like but I do think there is a right way for the devs to head and a wrong way in terms of making the game better for the most people. If you inject enough of these cards in the game and people lose more often to luck I am very sure people will stop playing over that. The population of the game is already pretty low as far as I can see.

True, and people are used to not have much RNG in this game, and probably more people would drop if more cards like this are introduced in the game. And I agree that we don't need more cards with high RNG like this one, but I also think that VW should not be changed simply because of his quite unique ability. Let him stay as is but don't introduce anything similar like it. I'm of the opinion that there should be at least one card with quite unique playstyle, just don't make it OP. And I truly believe we all can agree that both VW nor Kambi are OP.
 
I get that you're a new player and don't have a lot of experience, but there's no way you could believe that. Viper witchers can win the game turn 1 if they hit your win condition and it's all based on luck. That's why they're so despised.

Nah, no single card is a win condition. 16 cards to be played. Not a single of those is a win condition. It's the combination of cards. If just 1 is your win condition, then you have some serious deck building issues. What if that card does not get drawn? Then you lost the game due to random drawing conditions, and perhaps should complain about that as well?

Perhaps abolish card drawing and let players select which cards they want at hand?

:smart:
 
True, and people are used to not have much RNG in this game, and probably more people would drop if more cards like this are introduced in the game. And I agree that we don't need more cards with high RNG like this one, but I also think that VW should not be changed simply because of his quite unique ability. Let him stay as is but don't introduce anything similar like it. I'm of the opinion that there should be at least one card with quite unique playstyle, just don't make it OP. And I truly believe we all can agree that both VW nor Kambi are OP.

I might disagree with you on Kambi. Maybe I can try harder playing around it if I just assume the other player has it but the times it has been used on me were absolutely devastating.
Post automatically merged:

What if that card does not get drawn? Then you lost the game due to random drawing conditions, and perhaps should complain about that as well?
Perhaps abolish card drawing and let players select which cards they want at hand?

:smart:

I apologize that I am jumping in here but I would really like to respond to this. You ask "What if that card does not get drawn?". Are you not aware that there are multiple ways in this game to ensure that you get the card you built your deck around? Royal Decree was buffed just recently. We've already mentioned Albrich and fisher king. Then there are multiple other tutors the game provides for just this reason. I've given other examples in this thread but what about Francesca? It's not uncommon for someone to build around using one or two powerful specials and then using them again with Francesca. I can go on and on. It's just a bad idea to suggest that players shouldn't build around specific win conditions. This has been around in the game for a very long time. Edit: Oh yeah Dana is a leader that can pull a huge card in literally every game. The game gives us these tools. There is nothing wrong with making decks centered on specific cards.
 
Last edited:
I have specifically said my issue is players taking cards out of someones hand or deck before they can even be played. I have played the game for a very long time and this game has lost a lot of really great mechanics when homecoming came about. I would love to see a lot more good mechanics come back and make the game more interesting. Not bad effects like these.

I disagree, I think such tactics belong in this game and makes is more interesting. Further you talk about strategies, but you want to remove a very interesting strategy like sabotage and disruption and interference with the opponents hand and deck. I think that's wrong.

I've found it alot of fun to play this way and then I hear about everyone who wants to remove Usurper from the game because it does not fit their strategy or deck. I'm trying to find a bit of common ground with you here, but you seem to be quite hostile about this topic.

I'm trying to explain a different viewpoint to you.

You can't seem to get your argument straight. First you say there is no luck in that which is completely untrue and then you say "if there was". Which is it? You are denying reality here. You have no idea which card you are banishing. The top card of the opponents deck is completely random. So saying this play doesn't banish a random card is 100% wrong. I've already agreed that RNG is built into card games. Now would you agree that too much luck would make the game boring? Would you want the outcome of a game to be decided by luck? Did you play this game back when create cards would pull the one answer to win the game? Did you think that was good for the game?

We agree.

1. The card is not random, it does the same thing every time.
2. The outcome can be very different

This is the same for many cards, and the reason I jokingly compare it to other cards that also have random outcome based on what has happened in the game. Gimpy that you mentioned also work in this way. It's outcome is random, based on if the opponent have copies of cards or not. It's just a different random outcome. I know, it's not the same thing, I'm just mentioning it, trying as I said to find some common ground.

What we don't agree on is how powerful a play Vipers is:
1. - I say it is not a match deciding factor
- You say it is a match deciding factor

2. - I say a single gold card doesn't decide the match, 16 (with variation) cards decide the match, among 25
- You say a single gold card (if banished) decide the match and was a win condition

Aside from Vipers, we seem to agree that some randomness is good and some variance is good. Do we also agree that a rich choice of strategies and play-styles is a good thing?

Then we disagree with "interference" (disruption, sabotage etc) which is based around opponent deck intervention. I think it is an interesting strategy and play style and great for the game, and you think, what? I think you can state that best yourself to avoid me putting words in your mouth based on what I think you meant by your statements.

This game has lots of win conditions. I really only care about the arguments themselves but if you want to compare who has played the game longer, knows more about, achieved higher ranks and such then I can do that as well. If you think a single card can't effect the outcome of the game then you're just wrong on that point.

I said what I said, knowing that you probably have alot more experience than me in this game etc etc. That doesn't make you right about the Viper Witchers and those kind of cards and strategies. And I respectfully disagree that a single card is a win condition. (what happens when you don't draw that win condition?)

They have absolutely effected who wins and loses. That is obvious.

They affect the game, and they can have an impact in the game yes, but they don't decide the match, and they are not a strong play, even if they banish a good card. It's a tactical choice, a disruption to later rounds. With only two Viper Witchers doing this assasination, you can take out maximum 2 cards out of 25. I use Cantarella, Tibor and more as well for the same purpose. What do you think about that? You must hate Cantarella?

So now you agree that vipers can destroy a win condition.

No. That I don't agree on. I don't think any single card is a win condition. I don't even think the top two provision gold cards is a win condition if those were theoretically banished by 2x Viper Witchers. The game is still there for the taking and possible to win without those cards.

I also don't think there should be a card which switches your opponents hand with their graveyard or anything similar.

You mean Lippy? I think that card is justified to have in the game, but perhaps it needs to be adjusted somehow. Higher provisions perhaps. I think they solved the worst issue with Lippy by ruining the Witcher Trio (for everyone).

Personally I think the game has alot more serious issues and card issues than Viper Witchers, and that those should be talked about instead. But I get it. Things like replaying gold cards 3 times, that's just not a priority, while Viper Witchers is? I guess all the cards that are never used and should have lower provisions are also not important. The Viper Witchers, just such an overpowered play that wins people games with a single card. Amazing.

But then we disagree on that as well. I don't think the board or cards won you the game when someone forfeit before the middle of the deciding round. It was the opponents forfeit that won you the round. People simetimes forfeit as soon as they see Usurper, or leader X or leader Y. Doesn't mean that leader won you the game. The opponent forfeit won you the game.
Post automatically merged:

I apologize that I am jumping in here but I would really like to respond to this. You ask "What if that card does not get drawn?". Are you not aware that there are multiple ways in this game to ensure that you get the card you built your deck around? Royal Decree was buffed just recently. We've already mentioned Albrich and fisher king. Then there are multiple other tutors the game provides for just this reason. I've given other examples in this thread but what about Francesca? It's not uncommon for someone to build around using one or two powerful specials and then using them again with Francesca. I can go on and on. It's just a bad idea to suggest that players shouldn't build around specific win conditions. This has been around in the game for a very long time. Edit: Oh yeah Dana is a leader that can pull a huge card in literally every game. The game gives us these tools. There is nothing wrong with making decks centered on specific cards.


Fair enough, but I think if a single card is a win condition and players are so desperate to play it, that they will do anything, then there is probably something wrong with that particular card, and perhaps it needs to be adjusted.

I'm no expert, and there are so many ways to play, so yes, you might be right that there are decks that rely on a single card, probably there are. But if those single cards are that powerful, then as above.

Francesca double playing a gold special card is in my opinion the most questionable leader ability out there, and should be looked into. If you don't win the first round, then there is no counter to that move, which is probably not a good thing for the game.

Actually, I've played a Francesca deck like that, and I actually banished what I thought was that particular special card, using the Vipers. But then I was Usurper as well, so she would not have been able to play it twice. Despite that, the player did not give up, and they kept playing. I don't remember the outcome of the game, but I'm pretty sure the other player made a good effort and played a strong game without the "win condition" card.

I respect that alot. I actually felt bad for the other player, banishing what seemed like the absolute core card. But they kept going, and that I respect alot.
 
Last edited:
I disagree, I think such tactics belong in this game and makes is more interesting. Further you talk about strategies, but you want to remove a very interesting strategy like sabotage and disruption and interference with the opponents hand and deck. I think that's wrong.

Yeah I know you disagree. It is a bit funny though that you claim to love different tactics but recently made a thread complaining about how the phoenix hatching deck feels wrong to you. You can actually build to counter that deck. You can't counter viper witchers. They just randomly banish your cards.

I've found it alot of fun to play this way and then I hear about everyone who wants to remove Usurper from the game because it does not fit their strategy or deck. I'm trying to find a bit of common ground with you here, but you seem to be quite hostile about this topic.I'm trying to explain a different viewpoint to you.

I don't mind someone disagreeing or enjoying something that I think is bad for the game but you have said some things that are flat out objectively not true. I made this thread to discuss this topic so I will continue as long as I have something that I want to say. We seem to have very very different views here. I don't think Usurper is good for the game either but I feel like the devs will figure that out in time or just keep his provision cost so bad he will never be competitive which appears to be a common balancing tactic of theirs. I made this thread because they just did a big NG rework and somehow didn't change one of the worst offenders.

We agree.
1. The card is not random, it does the same thing every time.
2. The outcome can be very different

I don't know why you and the other guy insist on splitting hairs when my point is very obvious. The cards banishing effect is random. I have said that plainly many times so I don't know why there is so much confusion on it. Yes its outcome is dependent on RNG. That has been my entire point. Why are we still talking about this?

This is the same for many cards, and the reason I jokingly compare it to other cards that also have random outcome based on what has happened in the game. Gimpy that you mentioned also work in this way. It's outcome is random, based on if the opponent have copies of cards or not. It's just a different random outcome. I know, it's not the same thing, I'm just mentioning it, trying as I said to find some common ground.

These two cards couldn't be more different. Gimpy's out come is NOT based on RNG. You play it and you know exactly how much value it is going to give you. How are we still discussing this?

We have already agreed that some RNG is built into the game itself through card draw and match ups and what cards his the board for your removal to hit. That is NOT the same thing as having an RNG effect when the card is played.

What we don't agree on is how powerful a play Vipers is:
1. - I say it is not a match deciding factor
- You say it is a match deciding factor

it objectively has been a deciding factor and there is no logical way to say that it can't be. Single cards decide games all the time. There are matchups when you absolutely have to have a certain card to win the round. I don't know how you can possibly deny this.

2. - I say a single gold card doesn't decide the match, 16 (with variation) cards decide the match, among 25
- You say a single gold card (if banished) decide the match and was a win condition

Yes and I'm not sure why you are confused here. The number of gold cards means nothing on this topic. Can you seriously not think of a game where you needed Gerald of Rivia or something similar in the final round or you would lose the game? This just isn't debatable.

Aside from Vipers, we seem to agree that some randomness is good and some variance is good. Do we also agree that a rich choice of strategies and play-styles is a good thing?

I'm all for lots of different strategies. I'm also probably not against the phoenix hatchling deck lol.

Then we disagree with "interference" (disruption, sabotage etc) which is based around opponent deck intervention. I think it is an interesting strategy and play style and great for the game, and you think, what? I think you can state that best yourself to avoid me putting words in your mouth based on what I think you meant by your statements.

I believe all I have said so far is that a player should not be taking cards out of your hand or deck. You should have the chance to at least draw and play your card. I don't think those are good mechanics for the game and if the devs insist on keeping them then there should be very very few of them.

I said what I said, knowing that you probably have alot more experience than me in this game etc etc. That doesn't make you right about the Viper Witchers and those kind of cards and strategies. And I respectfully disagree that a single card is a win condition. (what happens when you don't draw that win condition?)

You build your deck so that you draw it either every game or nearly every game. That's been done many many times. It's what tutors are for.

They affect the game, and they can have an impact in the game yes, but they don't decide the match, and they are not a strong play, even if they banish a good card. It's a tactical choice, a disruption to later rounds. With only two Viper Witchers doing this assasination, you can take out maximum 2 cards out of 25. I use Cantarella, Tibor and more as well for the same purpose. What do you think about that? You must hate Cantarella?

You seem to keep flip flopping on this point. I gave you a clear example like renew on glustywarp and your response to me is "yeah and?". Exactly how many clear examples of win conditions being banished do I have to give you before you admit that you are wrong? Again I prefer the game having as few of these cards as possible if any so I'm not a fan of Canterella either.

I do not like the summon effect on Tibor. Before homecoming you got the card in hand which made it much more fair play to the opponent. AT LEAST though your card is on the board instead of being banished from the game.

No. That I don't agree on. I don't think any single card is a win condition. I don't even think the top two provision gold cards is a win condition if those were theoretically banished by 2x Viper Witchers. The game is still there for the taking and possible to win without those cards.

The player having the ability to keep playing and trying to win doesn't change the point that they can either definitely lose from the card being banished or be much more likely to lose from the card being banished. The point is that it's RNG that takes your best play. That's BS even if you want to live in denial that win conditions exist.

You mean Lippy? I think that card is justified to have in the game, but perhaps it needs to be adjusted somehow. Higher provisions perhaps. I think they solved the worst issue with Lippy by ruining the Witcher Trio (for everyone).

No Lippy is what you build around yourself for your deck. I was giving an example of something that you shouldnt be able to do to your opponent.

Personally I think the game has alot more serious issues and card issues than Viper Witchers, and that those should be talked about instead. But I get it. Things like replaying gold cards 3 times, that's just not a priority, while Viper Witchers is? I guess all the cards that are never used and should have lower provisions are also not important. The Viper Witchers, just such an overpowered play that wins people games with a single card. Amazing.

But then we disagree on that as well. I don't think the board or cards won you the game when someone forfeit before the middle of the deciding round. It was the opponents forfeit that won you the round. People simetimes forfeit as soon as they see Usurper, or leader X or leader Y. Doesn't mean that leader won you the game. The opponent forfeit won you the game.

I think it's important to talk about bad mechanics so the devs hopefully don't keep doing the same thing. Somehow you think it's ok to banish gold cards with RNG but it's not ok to find ways to copy interesting gold cards. Not very consistent.

The opponent never would have forfeit if it wasn't for that play. Obviously.
 
Last edited:
I think it's important to talk about bad mechanics so the devs hopefully don't keep doing the same thing. Somehow you think it's ok to banish gold cards with RNG but it's not ok to find ways to copy interesting gold cards. Not very consistent.

The opponent never would have forfeit if it wasn't for that play. Obviously.

Yes, I think so. And there is absolutely no guarantee that 2x vipers will banish a gold card. And no, I don't think playing a gold card 3 times is ok, especially for 16 extra provisions.

And the opponent would have never forfeit if you didn't have Usurper or Eldain as leader either. The forfeit won you the game, not the leader, or the vipers.
 
Yes, I think so. And there is absolutely no guarantee that 2x vipers will banish a gold card. And no, I don't think playing a gold card 3 times is ok, especially for 16 extra provisions.

I haven't actually played this deck yet so can you break down for me where the 16 provisions number is coming from?

As I said before I don't have nearly as much of an issue with this because it is counterable. If you come across this deck a lot in ranked you can simply build a counter deck for it. On top of that you can build a deck that can straight up out point it as well. I had to bring this up because you seemed to be acting like the champion of different tactics. Finding a way to make multiple copies of a strong gold card is a pretty interesting tactic. You don't like it because it feels cheap right?

And the opponent would have never forfeit if you didn't have Usurper or Eldain as leader either. The forfeit won you the game, not the leader, or the vipers.

Yeah when someone forfeits you win the game. That's kind of how it works. I played the card and got the win.
 
The real issue of Viper Witchers is the "banish" part. Just rework it to:

Viper Witchers (Witcher)
Power: 4
Provisions: 6
Deploy: Reveal the top card from your opponent's deck then give it poison.

I hope they will rework Cadaverine too so that NG poison would be an archetype in the future.
 
Yeah when someone forfeits you win the game. That's kind of how it works. I played the card and got the win.

..and I got the win just because I played Usurper as a leader..
Post automatically merged:

The real issue of Viper Witchers is the "banish" part. Just rework it to:

Viper Witchers (Witcher)
Power: 4
Provisions: 6
Deploy: Reveal the top card from your opponent's deck then give it poison.

So your proposal is, "reveal the top card and do nothing". I'd never use the vipers again. I guess that's you guys goal here, nobody using the Vipers.
 
Ow, they are? Now thats some usefull info here. Was going to install Gwent to look at the new patch, can skip that now.
Thanks, OP.

If it's any consolation the game is better after the patch. I still suggest trying it. Vipers aren't that prevalent. I just wanted to see them be a good card instead of what they are.
 
So your proposal is, "reveal the top card and do nothing". I'd never use the vipers again. I guess that's you guys goal here, nobody using the Vipers.

Are you a newbie? First of all if the top card for example is Speartip, when the opponent plays it, you instantly gain value when using another poison card. Secondly, revealing the top card gives useful information. Lastly, it opens up the poison archetype
 
Are you a newbie? First of all if the top card for example is Speartip, when the opponent plays it, you instantly gain value when using another poison card. Secondly, revealing the top card gives useful information. Lastly, it opens up the poison archetype

And there you have the RNG element which is talked about so much in this thread. What if it is a neckar and not a speartip?

Vipers would become a useless card. And poison is not really that common a play with Nilfgaard. The most powerful poison faction is ST.

6 provisions just to put poison on a random unit? Poor value.
 
And there you have the RNG element which is talked about so much in this thread. What if it is a neckar and not a speartip?

Vipers would become a useless card. And poison is not really that common a play with Nilfgaard. The most powerful poison faction is ST.

6 provisions just to put poison on a random unit? Poor value.

4 (body) + 1 (reveal) + 1 (poison) = 6:6. Poor value, where?
 
Professional has absolutely no RNG in it's effect. You target a card and you get some damage or destroy it. There is no RNG at all in that play. You know exactly what is going to happen when you play it.
I start to see where you come from. Random is only random, when it affects you. You didn't think for a second how random the outcome is for the opponent. He has no clue that Prefessional will come. It's guessing at best.

Incorrect. When you play professional you know exactly what is going to happen when it's played. There is no RNG in that play.
You don't play the card and its effect works. It only works under conditions that you can't control. A card must be a multiple of 3. You can't predict which card it will be.

That really makes no difference in this discussion.
I must disagree on this. Card position in deck is ALWAYS random, if you didn't put something on top. So saying that banishing the top card of the library isn't random is kinda not true.
As said thousands of times already, it doesn't matter what randomness may be involved in deck preparation prior to the match. The card itself has one specific job, not a random job. Just as Professional (to keep at this example, although there are literally hundreds of cards that share the same procedure) has one specific job. And no, you can't say, which card you will hit for both.
Randomness, btw, is a complicated thing. Say, VW would just banish a card from the deck. That's highly random, as it is unpredictable which card it will hit. The first, the 24th, you have no idea. VW banishes the top card, which reduces the chances severely (1 instead of 25 cards). I know that people have issues following it and don't see the logic behind it. Still it's a fact.

As a player facing those decks, instead of playing them, let me please tell you -and hopefully you will accept an experience report- that VW doesn't threat me at all. If it would banish a card on my hand like Kambi, that would be a threat. Professional however is a threat. I can't predict if or when it will be played. Should I give vitality to my 11str unit? Or to my 3str unit? What about that 9str unit? Oh, I used vitality on it, but now the opponent damages it by 1 and plays G:p. And that is just assuming G:p is even on their hand. But in fact I have no clue. It is totally random for me.
 
Viper Witcher basically assassinates the top unit in the deck without the opponent having to take an actual point loss or be able to play less cards.
 
I start to see where you come from. Random is only random, when it affects you. You didn't think for a second how random the outcome is for the opponent. He has no clue that Prefessional will come. It's guessing at best.

What the opponent expects here is irrelevant. We are talking about card effects that are or aren't RNG.

You don't play the card and its effect works. It only works under conditions that you can't control. A card must be a multiple of 3. You can't predict which card it will be.

Well first off you can control it to some extent. All you have to do is have the small pings through your other cards or leader to make it happen. I already explained this point to mzeebra. I am not saying that there isnt RNG in the card draw or that your plays arent also dependent on your match up. That is RNG that is built into the game. We are talking about RNG built into the card effects themselves. Take Gascon for example. The board state and matchup has nothing to do with what he does. His effect is 100% RNG every time he is played. That is the RNG that I am talking about. When you drop a viper turn 1 it is going to hit a random card. That is a fact and that is not the same as dropping an archer that is going to do 2 damage. You already know the effect and what you are going to get from it.

As said thousands of times already, it doesn't matter what randomness may be involved in deck preparation prior to the match. The card itself has one specific job, not a random job.

You are completely missing the point. No one is saying the card changes abilities every game. It always banishes the top card. The point here is that the card it hits is always going to be a random card that just HAPPENS to be at the top. This is very simple.

As a player facing those decks, instead of playing them, let me please tell you -and hopefully you will accept an experience report- that VW doesn't threat me at all. If it would banish a card on my hand like Kambi, that would be a threat. Professional however is a threat. I can't predict if or when it will be played. Should I give vitality to my 11str unit? Or to my 3str unit? What about that 9str unit? Oh, I used vitality on it, but now the opponent damages it by 1 and plays G:p. And that is just assuming G:p is even on their hand. But in fact I have no clue. It is totally random for me.

If you are worried about professional you simply build a deck that doesn't play big units and professional will only get 6 or maybe 9 value. There is nothing you can do about a card that banishes something right out of your deck.
 
This right here is exactly why I care so much to talk about viper witchers. The idea to inject more of this stuff into the game is horrible. That would only make the game worse and I'm willing to bet far more players would hate it like I would. I play card games to actually develop a strategy and play it. Not watch my opponent get rid of my cards before I can use them.

Then I recommend you to never ever try MTGa. Average black-blue deck destroys your hand, plunder your deck, demolish your graveyard and if you don´t concede soon enough, it will even maybe delete your photos at Instagram. :D
 
Top Bottom