Suggestion Usurper

[Pacifixer]

I haven't read all the threads about Usurper, so i apologize if i'm stealing someone's idea

Personally i really despise Usurper. He is as anti-fun as it gets, anoying to play against and boring to play.
His mere existence limits design freedom for future leaders and archetipes. Even now he can create seriously unfare matchups for his opponents and for himself as well.

My suggestion:
Provisions: 16
Charge: 3
Order: Transfer all Statuses from a unit to a diferent unit.

This change would make him more fun while still beeing somewhat lore friendly. I believe he would also be more balanced/balance-able.
Ability to steal positive statuses like Vitality or Resilience forces opponents to play around it,
giving negative statuses like Doomed or Poison to enemy units or preparing and moving them to more suitable target gives lot of space for new strategies and combos.
Small changes to Rainfarn and Enforcers might also make him great leader for Spying archetipe (...whenever a Spying unit appears on the opponent's side...).

 

[Alexander_Volgin]

Yes, anything but what Usurper currently is.

 

[Hassene_Gadacha_As]

I liked the original usurper. It's still the same 50-50 philosophy, but it was never frustrating going aginst one.

 

[Draconifors]

Can't say I like the sound of this. But then again, I'm opposed to any overhauls of Usurper's ability.

 

[andrei0x309]

If you can't play without the leader's ability I think you should not play at all, leaders should be just for aesthetic purposes I rather have a balanced game that focuses on cards rather than leaders.

After all, it's a card game, not an RPG.

 

[FG15-ISH7EG]

Sounds far too strong and versatile to me.

That concept basically means that you can't lock anything from NG at all, and if you do, Ursurper will just give that lock back to you.

That ability would make every single status dangerous and risky to play against NG.
And the worst of those is poison. Being able to freely redistribute poison is nuts.

Also I like his current ability.

 

[Alexander_Volgin]

If you can't play without the leader's ability I think you should not play at all, leaders should be just for aesthetic purposes I rather have a balanced game that focuses on cards rather than leaders.

After all, it's a card game, not an RPG.

Some cards due to their provision costs are only viable for certain leaders. Scorch or Schirru, Griffins, vildkaarl, Dagur, Glustyworp. The philosophy of this game is that each leader should contribute with something unique in terms of deck-building. If we couldn't use our leaders, or if they were mediocore, then all of us would be playing the same-mid range value decks with no real synergy. And this is a very boring design.

The problem with Usurper is that developers cannot nerf the provision cost of OP leaders, without making them unplayable. That's why no one in the current meta plays Gernichora, since it has the same provision cap as Usurper. This is also why we see less Eithne than in previous two seasons. These two leaders rely on cards that require leader-setup. You basically have to expect that each outcry from the community to nerf leaders, by changing their provision cap, is a step closer to their grave. Dont worry, soon Usurper will be a tier 1 deck, with other midrange-no synergy required shupe nonsense. And I doubt that any of you that like Usurper as he currently is, will like how to game continues to unfold.

To put it short. Usurper has killed many leaders already, it's time to hang him on Millennium Square.

 

[4RM3D]

That's why no one in the current meta plays Gernichora, since it has the same provision cap as Usurper. This is also why we see less Eithne than in previous two seasons.

Playing Gerni (and AQ) against Usurper hurts in particular because you are not able to use your leader's synergy and, on top of that, your leader is more expensive (thus wasting more provisions). Eithne only has the former issue. In the latter, she is actually the most efficient leader and I would even reckon she is more favorable versus Usurper because of this, even without the leader synergy.

 

[Alexander_Volgin]

Playing Gerni (and AQ) against Usurper hurts in particular because you are not able to use your leader's synergy and, on top of that, your leader is more expensive (thus wasting more provisions). Eithne only has the former issue. In the latter, she is actually the most efficient leader and I would even reckon she is more favorable versus Usurper because of this, even without the leader synergy.

I cannot say how Eithne currently performs, since it struggled heavily against a Human-Usurper in the past. Some good choices in this meta are igni and Schirru, which require leader setup. It is difficult to play these cards against Usurper (in the current meta) because he kills/locks all of your cards that are engines for that particular set-up. (Yes you can use Aard or tainted Ale, but after playing Aard a decent opponent can see what you are trying to achieve, and try and counter it.)

This puts us to the original conclusion, that given the Eithne's high provision cost, we may see tendencies that the leader will play elfs in the future, e.g. a midrange value deck with some control options, (neutral cards) and possibly Shupe.

 

[Hassene_Gadacha_As]

If you can't play without the leader's ability I think you should not play at all, leaders should be just for aesthetic purposes I rather have a balanced game that focuses on cards rather than leaders.

After all, it's a card game, not an RPG.

If can't play with against a leader or using a leader than change game. Leaders are part of the gameplay and there is no excuse if I get hard countered before even starting the bloody match.

You have plenty of other games if you do not like this mechanic and the fact that leader dependant decks are a thing

 

[andrei0x309]

If can't play with against a leader or using a leader than change game. Leaders are part of the gameplay and there is no excuse if I get hard countered before even starting the bloody match.

You have plenty of other games if you do not like this mechanic and the fact that leader dependant decks are a thing

That's pretty ironic considering that Usurper is a leader also.
But don't fret about me I have 100+ wins with many leaders and I am on track for 1k wins with Usurper.

As I said relying too much on the leader is a mistake that's why you have an arena. Leaders are more a distraction, they are there just for those ppl who like the story and "lore", for me, I guess the game is better without them.

 

[Hassene_Gadacha_As]

That's pretty ironic considering that Usurper is a leader also.
But don't fret about me I have 100+ wins with many leaders and I am on track for 1k wins with Usurper.

As I said relying too much on the leader is a mistake that's why you have an arena. Leaders are more a distraction, they are there just for those ppl who like the story and "lore", for me, I guess the game is better without them.

Saying relying too much on a leader is a mistake it's like saying relying too much on crouching in a call of duty game is a mistake. We are not talking about an extra feature, but about a basic mechanic of the game. There are already decks and techniques that punish those that rely too much on leaders, having one that desables it completely it's like having a weapon that prevents enemies to reload in a shooter, would you say it's a mistake to rely on reloading?

Usurper is not a punishment is a die cast everytime. I do not use a leader dependant deck anymore and I destroy them every time, is that a healthy mechanic in the game in your opinion? He is rubbish but the whole point is to make sure that the opponent is even worse just against you.

Does this sound fun to you? Your experience is useless in this conversation, we are not debating loosing or winning, but something that is annoying and not fun, and that is at the base of game design.

 

[Alexander_Volgin]

That's pretty ironic considering that Usurper is a leader also.
But don't fret about me I have 100+ wins with many leaders and I am on track for 1k wins with Usurper.

As I said relying too much on the leader is a mistake that's why you have an arena. Leaders are more a distraction, they are there just for those ppl who like the story and "lore", for me, I guess the game is better without them.

That's kinda funny, because the arena is going to be changed in the future, where leaders are going to be selected from the very begining. - (Source: This week Gwent) It shows that the overall majority of players like the idea that a leader should be the center of your deck-bulding. An idea that might actually fail, since Usurper will probably dominate the selection, since there are no restriction to Usurpers provision in the Arena.

Developers shot themselves in the foot by expanding provision system to include leaders. You cannot play 'OP' leader dependent decks that only have 160 provision, against Usurper. The outcome and the way the game will unfold is basically decided from the begining, given the chance of encountering Usurper, which is not how the game should feel. This means that Usurper is a mjor constraint on the deck-building and the variety of playable leaders. If Usurper is redesigned, leaders can quickly be balanced with a swift provision change, without making them completely unplayable in presence of Usurper.

 

[4RM3D]

It shows that the overall majority of players like the idea that a leader should be the center of your deck-bulding.

While players may think that, you cannot draw that conclusion based on the desire to select the leader first in arena. When selecting from three cards, you want to select the one that fits your deck best by gaining the most value and for that you need information about your leader. This has nothing to do with Usurper and his ability to lock your leader.

 

[Pacifixer]

It's really baffling to me that some people defend Usurper, in his current state, he's unsustainable and will inevitably be changed/tweaked/reworked. On the other hand, i'm glad there are some like-minded people who can see that Usurper's unbalanced design is doomed.

While players may think that, you cannot draw that conclusion based on the desire to select the leader first in arena. When selecting from three cards, you want to select the one that fits your deck best by gaining the most value and for that you need information about your leader. This has nothing to do with Usurper and his ability to lock your leader.

I have to disagree. It's not true that this has nothing to do with Usurper, it's the exact opposite. This is a proof of how important leaders and provisions are.
I thing that decks should be build around leaders, they should be important part of the game and not just some accessory.

 

[Alexander_Volgin]

While players may think that, you cannot draw that conclusion based on the desire to select the leader first in arena. When selecting from three cards, you want to select the one that fits your deck best by gaining the most value and for that you need information about your leader. This has nothing to do with Usurper and his ability to lock your leader.

If I have the option to select Usurper in the arena, then the decision is a no-brainer. I will choose him as my chances of winning is unmatched compared to any other leader choice.

1) I disable any potential deck-leader synergy of my opponent, such that if the opponent selected cards based on leader synergy, such as DJ townsfolk, or Meve trebuchet, in order to maximise points, this strategy falls apart when the player encounters Usurper.

2) I will choose the best stand-alone engines, that require minimum leader interaction, which in turn will manifest my advantage.


Edit: I'm sorry I think i missed your point. That is true, I cannot infer that majority of players think that the leader should be the center of the deckbuilding, but that the players prefer transparency in terms of leader selection such that they are able to select cards that fits their leader selection best.

 

[4RM3D]

I have to disagree. It's not true that this has nothing to do with Usurper, it's the exact opposite. This is a proof of how important leaders and provisions are.
I thing that decks should be build around leaders, they should be important part of the game and not just some accessory.

You missed the point. Fortunately, someone else explained it well (after making the same mistake):

Edit: I'm sorry I think i missed your point. That is true, I cannot infer that majority of players think that the leader should be the center of the deckbuilding, but that the players prefer transparency in terms of leader selection such that they are able to select cards that fits their leader selection best.

---

It's really baffling to me that some people defend Usurper, in his current state, he's unsustainable and will inevitably be changed/tweaked/reworked. On the other hand, i'm glad there are some like-minded people who can see that Usurper's unbalanced design is doomed.

Usurper has a very interesting design precisely because he is unconventional. There are two important aspects to him. First of all is the role of reversal. Playing him is actually not what requires the most strategy, it's playing against him and making your deck work without its leader. This could be perceived by some as an interesting challenge and a break from the usual auto-pilot gameplay rather than something to be annoyed about.

Finally, there is the role of the meta-buster a.k.a. the anti-meta hero. Cards, combos and mechanics can be individually balanced, but it's far more interesting to let the meta balance itself, as long as no deck or combo is unbeatable. There will also be popular decks and some have a very strong game plan. So, counter decks* will be created to combat this. And when these decks become too popular, they themselves will be countered by yet another deck. For this to happen, the game needs the tools to counter anything (but not everything**). Well, some leaders are very threatening, especially when they can decide the flow of the game. And so, Usurper is born to answer the call. It's not even about him being popular, but rather about the fear of facing him and making sure your deck has alternative ways to win. A competitive deck is rarely a one-trick-pony.

* To clarify, with counters, I don't just mean "aggressive" counters, like locks and removal, but also natural counters, like playing point slam against removal or engines against point slam.

** No deck should be able to counter everything, but they should at least have the means to counter anything they perceive as a threat. Because of this, some players will run artifact removal, while others rather take a(n extra) lock, for example. This also depends on the meta.

 

[Pacifixer]

Usurper has a very interesting design precisely because he is unconventional. There are two important aspects to him. First of all is the role of reversal. Playing him is actually not what requires the most strategy, it's playing against him and making your deck work without its leader. This could be perceived by some as an interesting challenge and a break from the usual auto-pilot gameplay rather than something to be annoyed about.

Finally, there is the role of the meta-buster a.k.a. the anti-meta hero. Cards, combos and mechanics can be individually balanced, but it's far more interesting to let the meta balance itself, as long as no deck or combo is unbeatable. There will also be popular decks and some have a very strong game plan. So, counter decks* will be created to combat this. And when these decks become too popular, they themselves will be countered by yet another deck. For this to happen, the game needs the tools to counter anything (but not everything**). Well, some leaders are very threatening, especially when they can decide the flow of the game. And so, Usurper is born to answer the call. It's not even about him being popular, but rather about the fear of facing him and making sure your deck has alternative ways to win. A competitive deck is rarely a one-trick-pony.

Your argument is pretty legit, but i have to disagree again. Playing Usurper is in vast majority of matches precisly what you're describing as "the usual auto-pilot gameplay", however playing against him can sometimes really be "an interesting challenge ". I'm usually able to beat or match him by simply altering my gameplan, but that isn't something specific to Usurper, i'm doing that in almost every single match. So even though he is unique and "brings something unconventional to the table", he doesn't really bring anything, he takes something away. Sometimes it doesn't matter, sometimes it makes the match more even and skill focused, but sometimes it makes the match just unfare. Not every leader is big "pres to win" round 3 finisher, some leaders (Arachas) are the core of the deck and without them there is no deck, you can not alter your gameplan, because without your leader you have maybe one decent combo that might help you contest a round and that is just not enough, considering that half of your deck is now semi-bricked. Also some leaders reward building the deck around them (Ardal, Dana, Cleaver), by loosing them you don't just loose one of your win conditions, but also provisions that you had to spend on not-so-good cards.


Meta changes all the time and i think that specific leader should not be an answer to currently strong deck. Such situation would just limit players freedom. We have cards like Yrden, Blue Dream or White Frost to threaten those "too strong" meta decks.

 

[Archan6el]

Usurper has a very interesting design precisely because he is unconventional. There are two important aspects to him. First of all is the role of reversal. Playing him is actually not what requires the most strategy, it's playing against him and making your deck work without its leader. This could be perceived by some as an interesting challenge and a break from the usual auto-pilot gameplay rather than something to be annoyed about.

You make it sound interesting with "reversal" and seem to insinuate that against Usurper you need more strategy to make your deck work. That's simply nonsense. You play strategically against every opponent, but when it's not Usurper you also need to think about the opponent leader-deck synergy and your own leader-deck synergy to make the best strategic play. That is definitely less auto-pilot than playing with or against Usurper. Usurper reduces strategic options via leader in a game and that is objectively, simply by the number of strategic possibilities, a less interesting challenge and an unbalanced one at that. Let's introduce a leader that automatically removes all abilities from cards. Also an interesting challenge?

Finally, there is the role of the meta-buster a.k.a. the anti-meta hero. Cards, combos and mechanics can be individually balanced, but it's far more interesting to let the meta balance itself, as long as no deck or combo is unbeatable. There will also be popular decks and some have a very strong game plan. So, counter decks* will be created to combat this. And when these decks become too popular, they themselves will be countered by yet another deck. For this to happen, the game needs the tools to counter anything (but not everything**). Well, some leaders are very threatening, especially when they can decide the flow of the game. And so, Usurper is born to answer the call. It's not even about him being popular, but rather about the fear of facing him and making sure your deck has alternative ways to win. A competitive deck is rarely a one-trick-pony.

Great theory. And the result? The current counter-meta that has balanced itself so well and that everybody loves.

 

[4RM3D]

[1] You make it sound interesting with "reversal" and seem to insinuate that against Usurper you need more strategy to make your deck work.
[2] That's simply nonsense.
[3] You play strategically against every opponent, but when it's not Usurper you also need to think about the opponent leader-deck synergy and your own leader-deck synergy to make the best strategic play.

In [1] you repeat my statement, to disagree with it in [2], only to make my case in [3], defeating your own argument.

Anyhow, I just said that playing against Usurper could be challenging depending on how much your deck depends on your leader. Every deck (opponent) requires different tactics and some decks require more brain power than others.

Great theory. And the result? The current counter-meta that has balanced itself so well and that everybody loves.

That's not the fault of Usurper, though. I rather play against Usurper than yet another DJ or Foltest deck. Incidentally, I personally dislike Ardal too.

At the moment, the meta is too skewed and I think that this will happen again with every faction overhaul. It's not even about any faction becoming too strong, but about players wanting to try out something new and thus gravitate towards the overhauled factions, creating an unnatural shift in the meta.