First and Second suggestions proves to be worthy, I like it. Top man!
First and Second suggestions proves to be worthy, I like it. Top man!
The problem is that specials ON THEIR OWN are too weak. You dont want to go into last round, with cards that do 4-5 damage. The real question therefor becomes, why bother designing them, the answer is; to counter opressive engines. However, this is no longer a need, since it is possible to build a control deck with units alone. So as it stands now, specials realy dont have any place in this game.
1) Stone-papper scissors format can be considered unhealthy for the game. Why bother playing when you know you already lost, if you go specials/engines, or specials/pointslam.
2) It is uncompetitive, since you dont win by skill but with the deck you have or if you go first or second.
3) It is not fun, and doesent keep players engaged.
4) We have to remember that most players hated the initial lauch, where artifact decks were dominant. So whether you like the special decks or not, the real thing here is; Do you want the game to be better than it is now? If yes, then Specials have to go.
5) Alternative; Create wild-mode and remove casual, the game-mode should not exist in the first place as it is now impossible to loose a rank while playing.
1) Stone-papper scissors format can be considered unhealthy for the game. Why bother playing when you know you already lost, if you go specials/engines, or specials/pointslam.
2) It is uncompetitive, since you dont win by skill but with the deck you have or if you go first or second.
3) It is not fun, and doesent keep players engaged.
4) We have to remember that most players hated the initial lauch, where artifact decks were dominant. So whether you like the special decks or not, the real thing here is; Do you want the game to be better than it is now? If yes, then Specials have to go.
5) Alternative; Create wild-mode and remove casual, the game-mode should not exist in the first place as it is now impossible to loose a rank while playing.
Last edited:
- Second Edit: Amount of engines that remove in Gwent especially from Crimson Curse Expansion makes you wonder what is the need of Specials, as Engines can remove certain enemy unit(s). To move forward in the game, I personally think it is best we rid of Specials in its entirety BUT Artifact(s) can stay which they are not that much of a problem now or a slight better change for them in order to not play an entire deck of, or rely on just like Specials currently which is called "No Unit Deck". Engines are a better tool to remove things than that of Specials in this meta.
I don't think the game should put a limit on how many of a card type you can have. That just seems too restrictive for deck building.
The problem is artifacts themselves. Change them or remove them.
Specials have been a part of this game from the beginning. They are not the problem. Artifacts are the problem as their design has been flawed from the start.
The problem is artifacts themselves. Change them or remove them.
Post automatically merged:
Specials have been a part of this game from the beginning. They are not the problem. Artifacts are the problem as their design has been flawed from the start.
Some alternative brain storm ideas.
#1 What about all leaders getting {x} artifact removal charges per match? The imbalance seems the cost of artifact play vs cost of artifact remove. A unit-less removal mechanic would perhaps tip the removal end a bit and folks wouldn't have to disrupt their preferred archetypes to fit in artifact removal unless they wanted to go extra heavy artifact removal.
#2 Another thought was a battle moral mechanic that applies throughout entire the match. If a player has no points on the board for {X) turns, their opponent draws a card? Boosts hand? Some kind of reward/penalty for the army that has presence and the army that does not. This way players are free to pursue spells, artifacts only if they think they can still overcome the off set. Meanwhile those brave units marching into removal without any bodies attached to it get some help.
#1 What about all leaders getting {x} artifact removal charges per match? The imbalance seems the cost of artifact play vs cost of artifact remove. A unit-less removal mechanic would perhaps tip the removal end a bit and folks wouldn't have to disrupt their preferred archetypes to fit in artifact removal unless they wanted to go extra heavy artifact removal.
#2 Another thought was a battle moral mechanic that applies throughout entire the match. If a player has no points on the board for {X) turns, their opponent draws a card? Boosts hand? Some kind of reward/penalty for the army that has presence and the army that does not. This way players are free to pursue spells, artifacts only if they think they can still overcome the off set. Meanwhile those brave units marching into removal without any bodies attached to it get some help.
Slapping on artifact removal to everything to me shows how flawed artifacts are in the first place. It shouldn't be this all or nothing dynamic where you either have the removal or you don't. Either you destroy it outright or it runs you over. That's just dumb.
I just had a third idea, trying to marry artifacts to units.
#3 Artifacts have "controlled unit" conditions attached to them. Either to play or to maintain on their side of the board. Lore wise, I think this makes sense as powerful artifacts would not be unguarded. An artifact with no controlled units in support of it could be taken by the opponent or never played in the first place. This would create incentive for targeted removal (can I clear or diminish row enough to take artifact?) as well as caution when it comes to playing artifacts. Artifacts become more interact-able in this fashion as well as more burden some to play proactively if unit support is required to go with artifacts.
Same idea, but a bit more specific and potentially more punitive in terms of risk. More specific because a controlled unit point value requirement can be tuned at a more granular level than binary-adjacent-to-unit. Potentially more punitive because an opponent taking an artifact is pretty steep penalty versus it just being dead on the board. I guess it depends on the desired risk/reward scale for artifacts. Within the fine details of each artifact's controlled unit requirements, I suppose it could vary from card to card. Some could require adjacent, others just a total power level on your side of the board. In terms of looting your opponents "exposed" artifacts, I think yes and no could both work. "Not loot-able" meaning artifact is just dead on the board. Steal-able or loo-table artifacts, would definitely be in the spirit of RPG's. I imagine part of the unpleasant sensation most of the players are discussing on this issue comes from staring down an opponents unit-less board half with all this shiny loot on it. You mean I can't grab that stuff? All the RPG instincts and experience cries foul. But no denying the more steal-able artifacts are, the more carefully they will be played. And if it protection from artifact theft comes from units? Well...
Even though I hate no unit decks with all my soul, I'm totally against putting an kind of hard cap on special or artifact cards. The only solution I can think of is design specials and artifacts in such a way that they are inneficcient if played without units on your side of the board.
For example:
Alzur's Thunder
Damage a unit by 3. If you control a Mage, damage a unit by 5 instead.
Or:
Summoning Circle
Zeal. Order: Play a unit from your deck whose Provision Cost is less than or equal to Summoning Circle's Charge count, then remove all Charges. Charge: 1. Every allied turn, on turn start, gain 1 Charge for each adjacent Mage.
This way you give the opponent some breathing room before you can start removing his units, you also give him the chance to counter your strategy and you also encourage the building of thematic decks. Its a win-win-win.
For example:
Alzur's Thunder
Damage a unit by 3. If you control a Mage, damage a unit by 5 instead.
Or:
Summoning Circle
Zeal. Order: Play a unit from your deck whose Provision Cost is less than or equal to Summoning Circle's Charge count, then remove all Charges. Charge: 1. Every allied turn, on turn start, gain 1 Charge for each adjacent Mage.
This way you give the opponent some breathing room before you can start removing his units, you also give him the chance to counter your strategy and you also encourage the building of thematic decks. Its a win-win-win.
Agree. Slots and quota limits doesn't feel right. I'd much rather wait as long as required for a well thought out re-design that allows artifacts to greatly enhance your strategy when combined with units but is virtually powerless (or even punitive?) without them.
Kind of disappointed I can't seem to get any feedback, positive or negative on the idea of
if player does not play a unit for {X} turns, opponent draws a card
The goal being there is a penalty for having no army on your side of the battle line.
Well, personally, I think there is something to this idea. After all, in a battle, weapons rarely fight independent of their wielders.
Also, I just faced another unit-less deck -- not a particularly satisfying match.
Beating a no unit deck isn't fun when you achieve it by discarding your own units, such as in the case of denying Harold The Cripple for example.
That depends, some weapons even sing you a song from time to time or talk to you:
On Topic: Why I have to agree it is a pain to play against decks with low units, I'm just glad a playstyle like that exists and it isn't a particularly strong one (or I have yet to meet a good no unit deck/player).
Heh. Ay, indeed, but such arms are quite uncommon -- and dashed annoying, once they start jabbering (nearly as wearisome as Chosen Ones, on about their quests).
Well, those are Bastard swords, just staying true to their name
I need to play this game again, I'm already laughing just thinking about the scenes.
Always worth revisiting the Bard. He's a smashing chap -- though it is rather bad luck to be he!
Ahem. . . ay, back on topic.