Thoughts on how ST could be shaken up

+
This post mainly addresses problems with the Elf pool and by that, specifically, with cards that currently function with swarm/Elves, not movement or CoN. There is nothing too problematic with the Dwarf bronze pool but a lot of this post does address them, simply because they do function in a very similar way to Elves. Movement and CoN archetypes are seemingly OK for the time being and this post doesn’t deal with directly. When referring to a different archetype, I have (hopefully) stated this. On a similar note, this post refers to control many times. By control I mean simply damage and not removal. Subsequent expansions and updates have blurred the lines on this issue and I feel it’s important that a difference is made for the understanding of this post.

This post comprises of 4 main points. The fifth and final part is a small summary of interactions that appears to be neglected or broken. I have tried to avoid mentioning specific cards and changes as the devs (obviously) have a much better handle on this than I do, and instead focus on wider problems and possible solutions that could give Elves, in particular, a sharper focus.

<Scooby Doo style flashback initiates>

Since Homecoming, the faction’s function has been control
i.e. damaging units by small amounts, with these small amounts of damage accruing the deeper (with the help of row punish) in a round you go. Homecoming replaced ST’s tribal identity with a much broader and all encompassing one. This changed was necessitated (or at least, I guess) by the fact that with a smaller of bronze pool of cards to draw from, different units of different factions could be mixed to offer a greater variety of play styles than in Beta. Players had the chance to mix and match their favourite cards and combine them with new leader abilities, which were no longer tied to specific cards. This approach worked well as Homecoming was fairly thin on the ground with engine decks. It did, however, make the game as a whole feel very binary and boring to play.

Inevitably the game progressed and more engine cards were introduced to improve the game experience and counter damage. In this natural progression, control was superseded by removal, as more and more factions needed to tech against engine decks with a control option. The value of control slumped as the value of removal rose, leaving ST with huge bronze pool of very similar cards of suspect value. What was lost during this transition was ST’s faction identity. With control being surpassed by removal and there being no incentive for the control (like Bloodthirst), the faction on the whole became listless. It is not to say the faction was weak but rather the meta outgrew the feasibility of faction’s design.

As more cards have been added, more archetypes have needed to be supported. Harmony, Swarm, Dwarves, Control (which has morphed into no-unit), CoN and now Spellatael have all been introduced, stretching the bronze pool to breaking point and leaving little room for archetype specific cards, as each bronze needs to have utility in other lists. Cards that might have been reworked have not been so because they are required to do so much heavy lifting. It is the sheer weight of these archetypes that is problematic for more interesting card design.

And that’s the problem, it’s not that these cards aren’t functional; it just feels very underwhelming when you have a choice of 5 dmg cards that do principally the same thing, and for what? There is no faction identity that benefits damaging cards, and no gold cards that synergize with this ability, except maybe Schirru, which, for a variety of reasons (armour for example) is wonky in the extreme. And, given its ability, should remain this way.

Powercrept control cards from Homecoming are not the only design flaw that has failed to be address. On a similar note, a great deal of cards that didn’t damage by 2, boosted by 2 instead. As spot removal has become more prevalent to combat engine decks, being able to boost a unit and it still being within removal range is utterly futile, especially as a lot of boosted ST units (be it being buffed in hand or on board) can be removed in 1 turn. There is nothing wrong with a faction being non-dependent on engines but at the very least, if a card boosts on the board or handbuffs by more than 1, split the boosts so the ‘long round faction’ has a chance to gain points. Its inherent strength (long rounds, small units) shouldn’t be countered in just one turn by removing a boosted card. These are fundamental problems in design that still haven’t been addressed. Added to this ST carries too many archetypes and is hampered by mechanics that make little sense its overall strengths. The purpose of this post is too point these out and suggest how they may be changed, and less so about individual cards. I have full faith in the devs coming up with awesome cards but worry about how they might find the time to implement deeper structural changes. Understandably, restructuring on this scale is a mammoth task and probably amounts to an expansion worth of work, at least, but a soft reset will benefit the faction in the long term. The game is still great, even to this day btw.

Increase Deathblow, charges and targeting of multiple units. This is perhaps the most glaring admission of them all. Why in faction that has so many damage cards is there almost no Deathblow? As mentioned earlier, given the archetypal diversity of the faction as whole, there is reasoning to having solid value damage cards but these damage cards need to have an incentivized reward for inclusion. Considering the amount of Elven units that can damage, this is the easiest way to improve the bronze core collectively. In their current state, choosing which bronzes to include for whichever reasons really only revolve around prov cost, as they all do a similar thing. There is no decision making to be made, which detracts from the fun of deck building. Deathblow could be applied in a number of ways. The most obvious choices would be DB archer, Milaen and Schirru. With the ability to destroy more than one unit at a time, Deathblow could operate on a system that has an incremental effect depending on how many units are destroyed. It would also throw up some interesting problems when deck building; e.g. Do you include a wide damage card such as DB Bomber to set-up Deathblow 2 for a DB Archer, or a Pitfall Trap or Toruviel for Deathblow 4 on Milaen? It could even be used for Schirru; e.g Deathblow 3, he doesn’t destroy himself. Really, the whole basis of Deathblow is extremely flexible (it could be summon, draw, boost, poison, veil..) and that incentivized reward system for control cards such as Elves is really lacking, both in terms of game play and game planning. These were rather hurried suggestions but while the ideas may be rough the principle is solid - these changes tie into the faction’s identity as a whole - payoff for damage, synergies between gold cards and bronzes, as well as potential small buffs for powercrept units that can hit 2 or more targets at once. Moreover, Deathblow is ideal for long round factions whilst still with obvious drawbacks in the short round.

For this system to be viable there will have to be changes made to certain cards, of course. Some cards may need order or some (traps) should trigger only when certain board conditions are met, but perhaps the cleanest way to achieve this would be to use charges. It would allow players to float damage (or boost for if thought viable) with each card gaining additional charges from units that appear on its row.

Remove handbuff but not Circle. Again, this is similar to my point about control and how, as a mechanic, does nothing for round or archetypal identity. In a faction of mainly deploy, non engine cards, having handbuff as such a fundamental part of ST makes little sense. Considering how many cards benefit from being boosted in hand, compared to the numbers of ways to handbuff a unit, it seems like an absurd waste of time and resource, particularly as ST is already juggling 6 or so archetypes. If ST were an engine faction then perhaps handbuff would fit better. Granted, certain archetypes (Movement) do benefit from handbuff but the costing of these engine pieces should be done solely on the merit of their prov cost/status and not with handbuff in mind. In short, handbuff makes balancing unnecessarily complicated and is detrimental to robust design. Outside of these engine interactions, I would argue handbuff achieves very little and goes against the grain of ST’s original design; going wide not tall and forcing removal heavy decks to target sub-optimally on deploy cards rather than engines. There is no wider strategy to buff anything other than engines (I’ll get to this). There is no overall game strategy behind it. It is just points for point’s sake and that is why it is flawed. Yes carryover is valuable but the mechanic itself is bereft of strategy. There are some good interactions with handbuff, being able to boost an immune card or proc Symbiosis seems like two good examples but the huge volume of it (7 cards, 1 leader) is way out of line with its need. There are, of course, 2 cards that utilize it (Skaggs and Aglais) and both do so in an incredibly stupid way. The problem with these 2 cards is they exist only in their own archetype. All mechanics; traps, poison, handbuff, should support a wide range of decks, not just one that aims to abuse blue coin. Fun as that may be, with such a strain on the card pool already, these cards by design have no utility outside of handbuff and is extra deadweight the faction has to carry. Both Aglais and Skaggs would function much better in Dryad or Dwarf decks, particularly as Dwarves are crying out for decent tall punish. If handbuff is really needed in certain archetypes then this could be added to any Deathblow effect. Deathblow has far greater utility because the cards are already designed to fulfill its function. For handbuff to become useful, more engines will have to be introduced.

And what about Schirru? Well, weird as it may sound, he is not really a handbuff card. The most reliable way of playing him with consistency and hitting that 5 point is with Council. The thought of using a low tempo card that can’t be tutored sensibly and that you might not draw, is, frankly, a waste of everyone’s time, including the Saboteur’s and the person who spent hours drawing it.



Bin Harmony. Get rid of Harmony. Yes, this is never going realistically happen and I do like harmony. Or rather, I like the theme of harmony but the way it functions is very dull and clunky. It seems strange for an archetype that was the faction’s saving grace could now be considered problematic. Before the card pool grew, Harmony did a great job of utilising cards in multiple lists but has now been superseded by CoN in terms of design. Now the card pool has grown, factions have become less reliant on multi-purpose bronzes. It seems perverse to invest time and energy into an archetype that functions as CoN poorer cousin. While the theme of Harmony is important to the faction as a whole, its design needs a rethink. There is no need for almost 2 identical decks in ST particularly as a lot of current Harmony cards can be reabsorbed into the card pool and these extra resources can be used to flesh out other archetypes. Gnomes absorbed into Dwarves, Elfs into Swarm and Dryads into CoN. Niche tags such as Beasts could function as control cards, similar to the brilliant Saber and Hawker as utility to artifact/trap. Removing an archetype must be a very complex and time consuming thing to do but it just seems deadweight. Perhaps the devs have other ideas (and of course know better) but I can’t see a way in which Harmony can be buffed to be on an even kneel with CoN. Harmony is just too clunky to equal CoN’s design and really feels like a millstone around ST’s neck. Scrap it. Take time on focusing on fleshing out other ideas in other archetypes and bring it back with a fresh focus. This soft reset approach will greatly benefit Harmony long term and save the designers constantly having to juggle provs, trying to make it work.

Expand the number of units that have interaction with Traps (!!). This may go against the general consensus but units that support traps should be increased. That is to say, means and methods introduced to steer traps away from no-unit lists. The reasoning for this is simple; introduced correctly; traps should be used as a mechanic and find utility in a wide variety of archetypes, offering different play styles and deck building options. Unlike handbuff, traps form a key cornerstone of ST’s identity, Dwarves and Dryads included. A small adjustment of how traps are implemented and some added units with Deathblow would tighten up the bronze pool immeasurably compared to handbuff, as small damage cards would be so much powerful. If traps are to be used as intended (there was a quote from Slama saying they should support archetypes) some serious restructuring is needed. Traps, in their current state, only function as an archetype that is to say because of prov cost (Gambit, Iorveth and Hattori) and design (Eldain) they are only used in Trap specific decks. If their costs were adjusted and they could be used as say; spawn a copy of a bronze trap on the bottom of deck or spawn/play a unit that synergized with traps on Deathblow (or not), they would be able to slot into a wider number of decks and be the mechanic as intended. There are many ways to encourage unit based trap decks that haven’t really been explored; better passive engines that encourage play early, damage traps that trigger only when certain unit concessions are met (be it by number of units on your side or the opponents) or traps that spawn a unit on Deathblow, such as a small powered token that buffs itself by 1 every time a trap is triggered during that turn. Different traps could even have different Deathblow effects with each faction in mind, such as random vitality or boosts, depending on how many units are in play. The design of cards, of course, will still need to be changed. Incinerating trap is not only bad because it’s a no-unit removal card, it’s bad because it doesn’t synergize with the long round strategy of Elven units and therefore has no utility in anything but a specific trap deck. It too, also prohibits good deck building with its prov cost. A weaker version at 4p (perhaps with a unit condition or Deathblow/Spawn) would fit into a great deal more decks that don’t lean entirely on Traps as the primary strategy. The same could be said of Eldain, an extremely poorly designed card that presents the exact same problems as Aglais; it is a blue coin abuse card that has created its own archetype because of the poor implementation of a mechanic. It is flawed without being broken, undoubtedly and should be changed for an ability that somehow encourages unit play. I’m not entirely sure how (and really want to avoid suggesting something) but with a bit of shaping him, and the rest of his trap loving brethren could potential serve as a mechanic across a wide range of decks and not just one and offer a richer variety of deck building.

Elves, too, need some restructuring of prov costs. There are far too many options around the 8/9 prov mark than is necessary and little choice at 10+. Some cards should have prov buffs (and perhaps abilities tweaked accordingly) to offer a greater variety around the 6/7 mark. Other cards should have their abilities buffed and prov cost nerfed in order to offer some solid options at 10+. Currently, the only real solid option for Elf decks is Vernossiel, which is auto-include in every Elf deck. As much as I love the card, it really detracts from the gaming experience when there is only 1 real solid option. As of yet Francesca doesn’t have Spellatael Elf support (and is proving to be a bit cumbersome tbh) and Ithlinne is so incredibly specific, she is entirely useless in all but one deck build around a mechanic that is stupid in the extreme. Perhaps she too will be changed to flesh out the reintroduction of Spellatael, currently she is redundant. There is also a huge number of Elfs at 4p that all function is much the same way. Rather, they function a bit differently but, as said, without a reason for damaging a unit by x, they are just as redundant to game strategy as each other. This has given deck building a really futile feel and cards are included primarily on prov cost due to the prov bottleneck at 8/9. A clearer strategy on costing is needed. It is not enough to juggle provs when the cards are not functioning as they could be. Cheaper design is not better design. Change some abilities (Deathblow, again!!!) and give the faction 2 or3 good options at 5p. Talking of 5p, again it seems odd that a faction that has virtually no tall removal has a condition in order to purify a defender, whilst NG has a 4p purify engine (used rarely in this way tbh) and an auto-include tall punish. Please change Sapper, either by removing his condition or reversing it. No tall punish for ST is bearable (although not understandable) but being further punished because of an unnecessary condition borders on the unfair, particularly in hybrid decks or decks that want to use other leaders except DA, it just closes deck building avenues for no particular reason. If need be Ida could be repurposed as a Spellatael card at 7provs, or Ida remains but Sapper redesigned for traps. There is no logic with purify in its current incarnation. I also still find it bizarre that Vernossiels Commando, an engine that comes down in removal range, has an extremely serve condition. It gets bricked by defender, which is maddening because defender is designed to protect these very engine cards. It remains a complete mystery why these issues haven’t been addressed. Please change the condition or at least re-couple it to something other than Vernossiel. She is rarely played anything other than last. PS should also be changed because of this. There is no need to spawn a Dryad Sentinel; its thinning ability has no wider synergy with Drayds of even a CoN deck. PS and Dryad Sentinel act as just another one of many bricks for VC and again prevent him from being used in anything other than DA. Change Sentinel to one of the many 4p Elves (Wardancer, BME) and give Elven decks some sort of some thinning. VC has far too many arbitrary conditions to be useful in anything but DA.

Lastly is really an idea how Movement might be expanded upon in future updates. Considering that there have been a number of failed attempts at implementing an offensive damage variant on moving opponents units (Saboteur, Sentry’s melee ability, Trophy Catch, Rock Slide, Sammun...MAB is good for its damage, rarely for movement) it seems that scrapping that idea altogether and starting with something anew would be worth considering. Currently movement is only considered between rows but should also be considered when moving from battlefield to deck or from hand to deck, like the beta days. Would make for a nice thematic inclusion and again, offer deck building options to help flesh out movements design a bit. It would also make a nice option at 5p, which has no good Elf choices. Officer would be prime for this because his current ability has no thematic connection and his Bonded completely unnecessary. The Bonded tag has no utility in an Elf deck (Dwarfs with NJ could probably use a little more Bonded) and is a hindrance to the card’s ability rather than the boon intended. If no new expansion of the movement idea is planned, it would also be nice, purely from a thematic perspective[R1] , if Dryad Matron’s ability was and she was redone with a vitality/veil interaction for CoN decks. At the very least remove bonded, it is another example of very poor design implementation. Finally, I know it’s new but Scribe’s design should be looked at. I feel it should boost itself every proc of its counter (perhaps incrementally; 1, 2, and 3). What it may lose in ceiling, it gains in being trickier to remove.


[R1]
 
A lot to unpack here. Too much, one might say, especially since I disagree with most of it. I do think adding more Deathblow to ST bronzes is a great idea, to point of making it something akin to MOs Death-wish. I think it would instantly alleviate a lot of the issues with the hopelessly powercrept "damage a unit by 2/3" cards that fill the bottom of the elf card pool.

But I don't think Handbuff needs to be removed. I don't consider Skaggs and Aglais stupid just because they only work in one archetype. There's definitely a place for cards that can be used in EVERY deck, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with cards that require a certain build to work. Does it need more support? Hell yeah. The invigorate buff was a good start, but only a start.

Harmony does not need to be scrapped. It's a great archetype that adds to the lore and is fun to play. It's not "clunky" and whether or not it's "equal" to "CoN" (which you keep mentioning throughout your post and by which, I'm guessing, you mean Nature's Gift...) is just your personal opinion. Nature's gift is great, but flooding your board with treants might not be everyone's cup of tea, etiher. What it [Harmony] needs is for the provision cost of some of the cards to be [FINALLY] readjusted to account for the removal of MEcho Waters interaction. After all it's only been... what? A year and a half?

Traps... ehh, I guess there could be more units that interact with traps, but is that the priority? Probably not. Traps as an archetype is different enough and strong enough to stay without a rework right now, imo.

As for the high end elves, yes, Verno could use a friend, but the strength of the archetype lies in mid-range : Isengrim, Yaevinn, Aelirenn. Ithlinne and Fran aren't part of the archetype, and once again, not every cards needs to be a part of every archetype. Eldain is another example of a 10p elf that can be very strong. Do elves really need another legendary to support Verno? I'm not so sure. Fixing powercrept cards such as Milaen and the bronzes will go a long way.

The problem with movement is that everything hinges on one single card: the Sentry. One could also argue that the leader ability is a bit underwhelming. Address those two things, and the archetype will be able to stand on its feet.
 
Don't like the harmony suggestion. Gnomes aren't dwarves and shouldn't be treated as such.
 
well i start to read it but in the beggening i see the term "CoN" i dunno what the f*** is that. So for me, read a long text in not my native language and with some terms where only the OP can know what is it its not pleasure.

Thats was my 5 seconds
 
Yeah, Natures gift. I have no idea why I wrote "call of nature". I can offer no reason
Post automatically merged:

A lot to unpack here. Too much, one might say, especially since I disagree with most of it. I do think adding more Deathblow to ST bronzes is a great idea, to point of making it something akin to MOs Death-wish. I think it would instantly alleviate a lot of the issues with the hopelessly powercrept "damage a unit by 2/3" cards that fill the bottom of the elf card pool.

But I don't think Handbuff needs to be removed. I don't consider Skaggs and Aglais stupid just because they only work in one archetype. There's definitely a place for cards that can be used in EVERY deck, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with cards that require a certain build to work. Does it need more support? Hell yeah. The invigorate buff was a good start, but only a start.

Harmony does not need to be scrapped. It's a great archetype that adds to the lore and is fun to play. It's not "clunky" and whether or not it's "equal" to "CoN" (which you keep mentioning throughout your post and by which, I'm guessing, you mean Nature's Gift...) is just your personal opinion. Nature's gift is great, but flooding your board with treants might not be everyone's cup of tea, etiher. What it [Harmony] needs is for the provision cost of some of the cards to be [FINALLY] readjusted to account for the removal of MEcho Waters interaction. After all it's only been... what? A year and a half?

Traps... ehh, I guess there could be more units that interact with traps, but is that the priority? Probably not. Traps as an archetype is different enough and strong enough to stay without a rework right now, imo.

As for the high end elves, yes, Verno could use a friend, but the strength of the archetype lies in mid-range : Isengrim, Yaevinn, Aelirenn. Ithlinne and Fran aren't part of the archetype, and once again, not every cards needs to be a part of every archetype. Eldain is another example of a 10p elf that can be very strong. Do elves really need another legendary to support Verno? I'm not so sure. Fixing powercrept cards such as Milaen and the bronzes will go a long way.

The problem with movement is that everything hinges on one single card: the Sentry. One could also argue that the leader ability is a bit underwhelming. Address those two things, and the archetype will be able to stand on its feet.

My problem with handbuff is the sheer volume of it when there is so little pay-off. it could be argued (quite rightly) that buff/carryover is enough to justify its existence but imo st shouldnt be propped up by a mechanic that has no longer term synergy (as with deathblow) with its predominantly damage dealing bronze core. In order for it to be universally useful (outside of buff/carryover) the bronze core should have more engines and skaggs and aglais reworked so there is more nuance and less pointslam. Until these things happen, it will remain on the fringes of the game like so many more mechanics that have gone before. I suppose the crux of the point is why bother if it's not going to be utilized in a better way in a only 1 deck (or 1 style of deck)

Dont really think NG (Harmony - what the fuck is wrong with me?) needs to be scrapped entirely and of course it wont happen but there are obviously still some issues with it. like you said, it hasnt been good since double waters and that was an inherently broken design of playing 2 cards in 1 turn. my issue is, if it has only been good because of this one interaction there are some obvious design flaws. if the devs still cant get it right (and there have been lots of opportunities and attempts to do so), perhaps having a total rethink of how it functions would be a better idea. there is no shame in removing it and having another try, particularly as NG functions in a similar way and hasnt proved so cumbersome.

You miss the point of my argument about traps. they shouldnt be an archetype, that is the point. they should be provided with the tools to function as a mechanic to support archetypes. until their costing of units at 8/9 is lowered and abilities toned down in line with these changes, plus an obvious change to eldain, they will never be able to support a dwarf on dryad deck. it is my same argument for handbuff. decks shouldnt be defined by their mechanics and exist solely on the basis of them. the lead point for creating a solid viable archetype is and always will be the bronze core and the incremental synergies it has with its golds (a synergy can be stopped or stunted) , not a win con that can appear like a bolt from the blue on last card.

you wouldnt play isengrom or aelerinn in an elf deck? doont think ive understood this properly

yeah, no problem with movement and you have a point with sentry. it was more of an idea that was in beta and it ties very well to the movement theme. would be nice if sentry would find utility for his melee ability somehow though
 
Last edited:
Harmony does not need to be scrapped. It's a great archetype that adds to the lore and is fun to play. It's not "clunky" and whether or not it's "equal" to "CoN" (which you keep mentioning throughout your post and by which, I'm guessing, you mean Nature's Gift...) is just your personal opinion. Nature's gift is great, but flooding your board with treants might not be everyone's cup of tea, etiher. What it [Harmony] needs is for the provision cost of some of the cards to be [FINALLY] readjusted to account for the removal of MEcho Waters interaction. After all it's only been... what? A year and a half?

Having recently finished my Harmony mastery, I found the deck I built to be enjoyable and fun to play. Far more than Nature's Gift which, in hindsight, was a real grind and would've been completely ineffective in many games without Gord as a finiisher.

However, my Harmony deck relied heavily on three non-Harmony units for one of it's "win conditions": Cat Witcher Mentors, Gaetan, and Gezras. Ideally, play a bunch of bronze Harmony units to the melee row, drop a CW Mentor at the left end, move them to ranged with Gaetan when the Mentor's adrenaline kicks in, drop Gezras and pray your opponent doesn't have Yrden... But you could often get by with two of the three cards.

There are too few actual Harmony-tagged units to make a worthwhile deck on their own without that sort of support. You can only reliably win a single round with Harmony tags if you draw Percival, Saskia, Waters and have your leader charge. With only 1 relict, 1 treant, 1 dragon, 1 gnome, and NO dwarves sporting Harmony tags it's hard to get enough benefit from the Harmony tags of a few bronzes for two competitive rounds.

Harmony would be a decent archetype if they actually supported it and tagged some units with Harmony. It's hard to do that when you only have 12 units to work with, 5 of which are all Dryads. I see Harmony as the ST equivalent of MO's Thrive, which has nearly double the number of cards available for it's archetype.
 
My problem with handbuff is the sheer volume of it when there is so little pay-off. it could be argued (quite rightly) that buff/carryover is enough to justify its existence but imo st shouldnt be propped up by a mechanic that has no longer term synergy (as with deathblow) with its predominantly damage dealing bronze core. In order for it to be universally useful (outside of buff/carryover) the bronze core should have more engines and skaggs and aglais reworked so there is more nuance and less pointslam. Until these things happen, it will remain on the fringes of the game like so many more mechanics that have gone before. I suppose the crux of the point is why bother if it's not going to be utilized in a better way in a only 1 deck (or 1 style of deck)
There are other units, though. They're just too few and too powercrept to be playable. Mahakam Defender is an engine, and Wardancer is the handbuff control-ish card. Both of those need to be buffed, and maybe the smuggler could become a 5p card instead of 6, but I don't think it's imperative to add more engines directly synergizing with HB for the fear of making it OP and then watching it get nerfed dead. If anything, I'd rather they added another control card that placed somewhere between the Wardancer and Skaggs in terms of impact, and maybe some utilitiy. All in all, the number should be on par with NRs "inspired" functionality. I don't think a rework of Skaggs and Aglais is necessary.
Dont really think NG needs to be scrapped entirely and of course it wont happen but there are obviously still some issues with it. like you said, it hasnt been good since double waters and that was an inherently broken design of playing 2 cards in 1 turn. my issue is, if it has only been good because of this one interaction there are some obvious design flaws. if the devs still cant get it right (and there have been lots of opportunities and attempts to do so), perhaps having a total rethink of how it functions would be a better idea. there is no shame in removing it and having another try, particularly as NG functions in a similar way and hasnt proved so cumbersome.
Hehe, you went from calling Nature's Gift "CoN" to calling Harmony "NG." And I would disagree here and say that it's been decent since Saskia's tag. All it needs are some provision tweaks, most importantly Waters should not be 12p. Oak should not be 13p. Hawks should probably be 4p. Etc. I wouldn't call what they devs have done with Harmony since the murderous nerf "lots of attempts to do so." More likely, it's been an afterthought ever since.
You miss the point of my argument about traps. they shouldnt be an archetype, that is the point. they should be provided with the tools to function as a mechanic to support archetypes. until their costing of units at 8/9 is lowered and abilities toned down in line with these changes, plus an obvious change to eldain, they will never be able to support a dwarf on dryad deck. it is my same argument for handbuff. decks shouldnt be defined by their mechanics and exist solely on the basis of them. the lead point for creating a solid viable archetype is and always will be the bronze core and the incremental synergies it has with its golds (a synergy can be stopped or stunted) , not a win con that can appear like a bolt from the blue on last card.
I didn't really miss the point. I disagreed with it. I think traps as support are already useable, but because of their low tempo and mechanics, even with the flipping ability added, they are very situational, and therefore better suited for "internal" archetype synergy.
you wouldnt play isengrom or aelerinn in an elf deck? doont think ive understood this properly
You did not. I said Isengrim, Yaevinn and Aelirenn are the strength of the archetype, to illustrate why Verno is [arguably] the only currently existing Elf 11+p card.
Post automatically merged:

Having recently finished my Harmony mastery, I found the deck I built to be enjoyable and fun to play. Far more than Nature's Gift which, in hindsight, was a real grind and would've been completely ineffective in many games without Gord as a finiisher.

However, my Harmony deck relied heavily on three non-Harmony units for one of it's "win conditions": Cat Witcher Mentors, Gaetan, and Gezras. Ideally, play a bunch of bronze Harmony units to the melee row, drop a CW Mentor at the left end, move them to ranged with Gaetan when the Mentor's adrenaline kicks in, drop Gezras and pray your opponent doesn't have Yrden... But you could often get by with two of the three cards.

There are too few actual Harmony-tagged units to make a worthwhile deck on their own without that sort of support. You can only reliably win a single round with Harmony tags if you draw Percival, Saskia, Waters and have your leader charge. With only 1 relict, 1 treant, 1 dragon, 1 gnome, and NO dwarves sporting Harmony tags it's hard to get enough benefit from the Harmony tags of a few bronzes for two competitive rounds.

Harmony would be a decent archetype if they actually supported it and tagged some units with Harmony. It's hard to do that when you only have 12 units to work with, 5 of which are all Dryads. I see Harmony as the ST equivalent of MO's Thrive, which has nearly double the number of cards available for it's archetype.
I agree to a point about the need for more tags, but at the same time I don't think we should overdo it, or indeed try to cram every Harmony tag in existence into a deck. Half the fun is sequencing, mulliganing and playing unique tags to max proc your harmony cards. So to me, adding another Harmony card or two is ok, but I'd rather see some provision buffs first, then maybe a playable human that doesn't need to be on the board turn one, and go from there.
 
Last edited:
There are other units, though. They're just too few and too powercrept to be playable. Mahakam Defender is an engine, and Wardancer is the handbuff control-ish card. Both of those need to be buffed, and maybe the smuggler could become a 5p card instead of 6,
Well this was alluded to in my post;
In short, handbuff makes balancing unnecessarily complicated and is detrimental to robust design
Why is it necessary that both Wardancer and Defender have to be handbuffed? There is no point, both could function perfectly well if designed inline with other similar engines or deploy cards and would be better and more playable for it. Its a mechanic for a mechanics sake.

And I would disagree here and say that it's been decent since Saskia's tag. All it needs are some provision tweaks, most importantly Waters should not be 12p. Oak should not be 13p. Hawks should probably be 4p. Etc. I wouldn't call what they devs have done with Harmony since the murderous nerf "lots of attempts to do so."

In the grand scheme of changes ST has received since Harmony nerf, I would call redesigning a leader specifically for Harmony, redesigning Saskia twice and a number of small prov buffs to some bronzes lots of attempts, and, by your admission, its still not right. The problem with Harmony is how it works. You have to sequence and draw Harmony cards with ordinary bronzes that have unique tags. Added to this, in order to balance you need to buff/nerf both Harmony (a system that cannot be calibrated) and cards that form cornerstones of other lists that have wider ramifications on other archetypes. Perhaps it can be solved with prov changes (I remain skeptical) but has clearly been a problem considering Harmony has only been viable from an overpowered interaction, which was changed over a year ago. If its still no working on a par with NG, scrap it and take it from scratch. There are enough archetypes and play styles already in ST, and Harmony can be brought back when ready.
I didn't really miss the point. I disagreed with it. I think traps as support are already useable, but because of their low tempo and mechanics, even with the flipping ability added, they are very situational, and therefore better suited for "internal" archetype synergy.
There is no argument to be made if youre ok with dedicated trap decks. The point of these changes would be to stop lists with traps being so polarized and stop, what is a very cool mechanic, being marginalized from the game, aside from the odd crushing included for row punish
You did not. I said Isengrim, Yaevinn and Aelirenn are the strength of the archetype, to illustrate why Verno is [arguably] the only currently existing Elf 11+p card.
Post automatically merged:
I have no issue with the Elf core, its one of the factions saving graces but I cant see the argument for not having another option at 10+ because cards at 8 at still currently strong. It could even be a slot to incentivize devotion. Elf decks already have that deck building condition with cards like Yae'vinn, Isengrim and Aelerinn and this would throw up some interesting deck building considerations.
 
Well this was alluded to in my post;
In short, handbuff makes balancing unnecessarily complicated and is detrimental to robust design
Why is it necessary that both Wardancer and Defender have to be handbuffed? There is no point, both could function perfectly well if designed inline with other similar engines or deploy cards and would be better and more playable for it. Its a mechanic for a mechanics sake.
Why is it "necessary"? Why is anything necessary? Why does Isengrim need elves on the board in order to gain value? Why does commando only work if there are elves on the board? Why does Eldain need traps? Why does mahakam guardian need dwarves on the row? These are all cards that were meant to work within certain archtypes and not others. Should they all have been designed to work in every deck? The trouble with Wardancer and Defender is that they are COMBO cards performing WORSE within their intended archtype after eating up provision from that second card or a leader, than some (a lot of) stand-alone cards. That's why they need to be buffed. It's not because handbuff as a mechanic or an archtype is inherently "bad."
In the grand scheme of changes ST has received since Harmony nerf, I would call redesigning a leader specifically for Harmony, redesigning Saskia twice and a number of small prov buffs to some bronzes lots of attempts, and, by your admission, its still not right. The problem with Harmony is how it works. You have to sequence and draw Harmony cards with ordinary bronzes that have unique tags. Added to this, in order to balance you need to buff/nerf both Harmony (a system that cannot be calibrated) and cards that form cornerstones of other lists that have wider ramifications on other archetypes. Perhaps it can be solved with prov changes (I remain skeptical) but has clearly been a problem considering Harmony has only been viable from an overpowered interaction, which was changed over a year ago. If its still no working on a par with NG, scrap it and take it from scratch. There are enough archetypes and play styles already in ST, and Harmony can be brought back when ready.
No, I would not call it "lots" still. Saskia was only changed "once" as far as Harmony was concerned, because until she got the tag, she had nothing to do with the archtype (or anything else, really). There were no provision buffs to harmony bronzes. And my admission was that it's "decent," as in "not Tier 1, but good enough to get to Pro rank with," which is more than some other ST archtypes can say. Also, once again, it's FUN TO PLAY. Saskia aside, the biggest boost was from the witcher unique tag, which to me shows how little Harmony needs to really get back up.
There is no argument to be made if youre ok with dedicated trap decks. The point of these changes would be to stop lists with traps being so polarized and stop, what is a very cool mechanic, being marginalized from the game, aside from the odd crushing included for row punish
I've used the Serpent in other decks. I've used the horn. I've used the crushing trap. There's the scout and the hawker. I wouldn't mind adding some sort of trap interaction to Sapper to have another unit that does, but to me that's not a priority. I think traps are "decent."
I have no issue with the Elf core, its one of the factions saving graces but I cant see the argument for not having another option at 10+ because cards at 8 at still currently strong. It could even be a slot to incentivize devotion. Elf decks already have that deck building condition with cards like Yae'vinn, Isengrim and Aelerinn and this would throw up some interesting deck building considerations.

Look, if the devs decide to give the elves another legendary, I'll be all for it. The point here was, presently, the elves problems aren't their golds. The bronzes are what need to be fixed first, because the golds are already good.
 
Why is it "necessary"? Why is anything necessary? Why does Isengrim need elves on the board in order to gain value? Why does commando only work if there are elves on the board? Why does Eldain need traps? Why does mahakam guardian need dwarves on the row? These are all cards that were meant to work within certain archtypes and not others. Should they all have been designed to work in every deck? The trouble with Wardancer and Defender is that they are COMBO cards performing WORSE within their intended archtype after eating up provision from that second card or a leader, than some (a lot of) stand-alone cards. That's why they need to be buffed. It's not because handbuff as a mechanic or an archtype is inherently "bad."

No, I would not call it "lots" still. Saskia was only changed "once" as far as Harmony was concerned, because until she got the tag, she had nothing to do with the archtype (or anything else, really). There were no provision buffs to harmony bronzes. And my admission was that it's "decent," as in "not Tier 1, but good enough to get to Pro rank with," which is more than some other ST archtypes can say. Also, once again, it's FUN TO PLAY. Saskia aside, the biggest boost was from the witcher unique tag, which to me shows how little Harmony needs to really get back up.

I've used the Serpent in other decks. I've used the horn. I've used the crushing trap. There's the scout and the hawker. I wouldn't mind adding some sort of trap interaction to Sapper to have another unit that does, but to me that's not a priority. I think traps are "decent."


Look, if the devs decide to give the elves another legendary, I'll be all for it. The point here was, presently, the elves problems aren't their golds. The bronzes are what need to be fixed first, because the golds are already good.
I disagree with the statement that the elves problems aren't their golds. It is both their golds and their bronzes. Golds like eleyas, milaen, and toruviel are not good enough to warrant their provisions cost
 
Why is it "necessary"? Why is anything necessary? Why does Isengrim need elves on the board in order to gain value? Why does commando only work if there are elves on the board? Why does Eldain need traps? Why does mahakam guardian need dwarves on the row? These are all cards that were meant to work within certain archtypes and not others. Should they all have been designed to work in every deck? The trouble with Wardancer and Defender is that they are COMBO cards performing WORSE within their intended archtype after eating up provision from that second card or a leader, than some (a lot of) stand-alone cards. That's why they need to be buffed. It's not because handbuff as a mechanic or an archtype is inherently "bad."
Most bronzes (well most cards) have some condition but not all are conditional on you playing a card (or leader charge) to make them work. That is why these 2 cards are bad. This is particularly bad for engines because often you can lose 1 turn of boost. Commando has a passive effect. it is reliant on board state and although bad in design, it doesn't require an additional card or charge to be played first. Moreover it has no dependency on draws for your handbuff cards as well. The very fact they are COMBO cards is their inherent problem. If this unnecessary extra step was removed and they were linked to board state, they would be far better, provided the condition was reasonable, which in the case of Commando, isn't.
No, I would not call it "lots" still. Saskia was only changed "once" as far as Harmony was concerned, because until she got the tag, she had nothing to do with the archtype (or anything else, really). There were no provision buffs to harmony bronzes. And my admission was that it's "decent," as in "not Tier 1, but good enough to get to Pro rank with," which is more than some other ST archtypes can say. Also, once again, it's FUN TO PLAY. Saskia aside, the biggest boost was from the witcher unique tag, which to me shows how little Harmony needs to really get back up.
Saskia was changed twice. Once entirely and subsequently tweaked after they realised how bad she was. Sorry but that is 2 bites of the apple. And buffs to bronze cards (and the Witcher tag which youve admitted was a big boon to the archetype) are also a buff to Harmony, too, which demonstrates part of the problem of balancing it and, in-turn, part of the reason why 1 year down the line, its still not on a par with other board engine decks. I get that its fun to play and that people like it. My only gripe that it has proved difficult to bring it to a level of NG or Thrive because they have inherently better designs. There can be no harm in returning to the drawing board if still proving difficult to get right.
I've used the Serpent in other decks. I've used the horn. I've used the crushing trap. There's the scout and the hawker. I wouldn't mind adding some sort of trap interaction to Sapper to have another unit that does, but to me that's not a priority. I think traps are "decent."
My point about being a supporting archetype is not tied to the fact if they are used currently. There are, albeit rarely outside of trap decks. My point is if changed (and in particularly with Deathblow in mind) they can be a valuable commodity in all ST archetypes. Even without Deathblow, a restructuring of their prov costs and - in some cases - abilities is needed so they can function as unit based lists.
Look, if the devs decide to give the elves another legendary, I'll be all for it. The point here was, presently, the elves problems aren't their golds. The bronzes are what need to be fixed first, because the golds are already good.
I agree but its not a problem with their golds, per se. Its a problem (in a loose sense) with the lack of another option at 10p, which could and should at some point be addressed because it still feels that you have to include Vernossiel, particularly as the Deadeyes and DA are such a crutch on which to build a successful Elf deck.
 
Most bronzes (well most cards) have some condition but not all are conditional on you playing a card (or leader charge) to make them work. That is why these 2 cards are bad. This is particularly bad for engines because often you can lose 1 turn of boost. Commando has a passive effect. it is reliant on board state and although bad in design, it doesn't require an additional card or charge to be played first. Moreover it has no dependency on draws for your handbuff cards as well. The very fact they are COMBO cards is their inherent problem. If this unnecessary extra step was removed and they were linked to board state, they would be far better, provided the condition was reasonable, which in the case of Commando, isn't.
No, not all, but a lot of them are. I just gave you the examples in the previous post and there are a lot more. The fact that these two cards require specifically pre-boost to realize their value potential doesn't make them bad. It's a condition like any other, just different. Once again, their problem is not the Handbuff mechanic, but the fact that they are not balanced properly to account for the extra resources you have to spend to make them work. Once that's taken into account and their potential output increased accordingly, they will be "good." For example, if they increase boosted Wardancer damage to 5, it will become a good card without the need for some massive rework. Making a boosted defender boost adjacent cards instead of self or giving him a "shield" like in the card art may do the same.
Saskia was changed twice. Once entirely and subsequently tweaked after they realised how bad she was. Sorry but that is 2 bites of the apple. And buffs to bronze cards (and the Witcher tag which youve admitted was a big boon to the archetype) are also a buff to Harmony, too, which demonstrates part of the problem of balancing it and, in-turn, part of the reason why 1 year down the line, its still not on a par with other board engine decks. I get that its fun to play and that people like it. My only gripe that it has proved difficult to bring it to a level of NG or Thrive because they have inherently better designs. There can be no harm in returning to the drawing board if still proving difficult to get right.
Saskia was changed twice, but the first change had nothing to do with Harmony and in fact did nothing for the card at all. Only when they gave her the Harmony tag during the second change did it improve the archetype, so that's the only change that's relevant to this discussion. These buffs to bronze cards you keep mentioning are not relevant, and the witchers are only relevant because of the unique tag. The only thing illustrated here is that the devs killed Harmony when they did and didn't care about it since. It wouldn't be difficult to bring it to the level of Assimilate and Thrive, if it received half the support it needed. Once they recalculate the provisions and add a couple of tags (and, you know, an ST version of the Blightmaker) Harmony will break into top tiers.
My point about being a supporting archetype is not tied to the fact if they are used currently. There are, albeit rarely outside of trap decks. My point is if changed (and in particularly with Deathblow in mind) they can be a valuable commodity in all ST archetypes. Even without Deathblow, a restructuring of their prov costs and - in some cases - abilities is needed so they can function as unit based lists.
This is very vague and nebulous to me and frankly I see no benefit in messing with the traps. If your idea was to ADD some sort of hybrid support traps to the pool, I could maybe get behind that, but asking for a trap rework just because you don't like the archtype seems iffy.
I agree but its not a problem with their golds, per se. Its a problem (in a loose sense) with the lack of another option at 10p, which could and should at some point be addressed because it still feels that you have to include Vernossiel, particularly as the Deadeyes and DA are such a crutch on which to build a successful Elf deck.
I mean, yeah, you have to include Verno in an elf deck. She's an elf that synergizes with the Deadeyes, which are the core of the elf archetype. It sounds like you're looking for multiple elf archtypes, which we'll probably get another high end card to support the new "elf magic" thing, so your wish will then soon be granted. I still wouldn't expect to include a high-end magic elf legendary into an actual "elf" deck, but I guess we'll see.

p.s. [Anyone else not missing the option to give red points, or is it just me?] Edit: it's back now, so nevermind I guess...
 
Last edited:
No, not all, but a lot of them are. I just gave you the examples in the previous post and there are a lot more. The fact that these two cards require specifically pre-boost to realize their value potential doesn't make them bad. It's a condition like any other, just different. Once again, their problem is not the Handbuff mechanic, but the fact that they are not balanced properly to account for the extra resources you have to spend to make them work. Once that's taken into account and their potential output increased accordingly, they will be "good." For example, if they increase boosted Wardancer damage to 5, it will become a good card without the need for some massive rework. Making a boosted defender boost adjacent cards instead of self or giving him a "shield" like in the card art may do the same.
]
Yes, its a condition that is unnecessary costly and clunky. A decision that makes the card bad in comparison to other cards that has their power tied to board state. Why should you have to expend a leader charge, or worse still, a card, to make them functional when they could be perfectly functional with a passive condition? Yes it is a condition, but a very bad one, that makes their costing even more complicated and the card unusable except with certain leaders and/or in combination - with extra prov costs - for very slow tempo, highly priced bronze cards, which are dependent on being drawn as well. If Wardancer was buffed further it would be better but you still have to account for the cost of including specific, low tempo cards to buff it (which makes deck building awkward and costly) and/or for the cost of a leader charge, which forces the card to be including in a minority of deck builds. Yes, the card would see more play in Invigorate if buffed but better cards dont mean better design. The card is unnecessarily burdened with an unreasonable mechanic to cost and one which requires you to expend valuable resources in order to do so. This was in my original post; In short, handbuff makes balancing unnecessarily complicated and is detrimental to robust design and this is the exact problems these 2 cards suffer from. I don't quite get your last example with defender but if ive understood correctly, this may have also been mentioned in my post; if a card boosts on the board or handbuffs by more than 1, split the boosts so the ‘long round faction’ has a chance to gain points. Its inherent strength (long rounds, small units) shouldn’t be countered in just one turn by removing a boosted card. With an Order, to share boosts among units would be a better design of handbuff that synergizes with Elves, but still, in order to achieve the sizable amount of handbuff you need, you will still have to include extra cards to do so. Again, any extra incentive for playing handbuff is offset by its huge drawbacks of design (draws, expending charges or cards) and extra provision costs (inclusion of extra cards to function), making the cards very hard to balance, particularly for bronzes which are designed as value cards to support the high risk/high reward strategy of golds.
Saskia was changed twice, but the first change had nothing to do with Harmony and in fact did nothing for the card at all. Only when they gave her the Harmony tag during the second change did it improve the archetype, so that's the only change that's relevant to this discussion. These buffs to bronze cards you keep mentioning are not relevant, and the witchers are only relevant because of the unique tag. The only thing illustrated here is that the devs killed Harmony when they did and didn't care about it since. It wouldn't be difficult to bring it to the level of Assimilate and Thrive, if it received half the support it needed. Once they recalculate the provisions and add a couple of tags (and, you know, an ST version of the Blightmaker) Harmony will break into top tiers.
The change to bronzes is completely relevant. Harmony relies on the strength on its bronzes cards to work in unison with Harmony. Its one of the reasons why changing bronzes is so problematic for Harmony because it has wider repercussions on other archetypes. Re: WItchers; the reason is not WHY the tag is relevant, the issue is the tag IS relevant. This was a buff and an intentional one, too.
Well, thats one point of view but if the devs really didnt care about Harmony why would they have made any changes? You may feel they werent enough and youd probably have a point but, as you yourself has admitted, there were some concessions to making Harmony better. On this basis, the argument that they dont care is not true.
What is most probably true is that they dont have a big enough team to make changes quick enough or/and they are still trying to figure out how to bring it back in a better way. If this is the case (and they feel that buffing certain cards will not have the desired affect) then, I for one, wouldnt object to them scrapping it and redesigning it from the ground up. Of course, I have no idea is that is feasible and I suspect it isnt.
This is very vague and nebulous to me and frankly I see no benefit in messing with the traps. If your idea was to ADD some sort of hybrid support traps to the pool, I could maybe get behind that, but asking for a trap rework just because you don't like the archtype seems iffy.

I mean, yeah, you have to include Verno in an elf deck. She's an elf that synergizes with the Deadeyes, which are the core of the elf archetype. It sounds like you're looking for multiple elf archtypes, which we'll probably get another high end card to support the new "elf magic" thing, so your wish will then soon be granted. I still wouldn't expect to include a high-end magic elf legendary into an actual "elf" deck, but I guess we'll see.
Perhaps I havent explained my reasoning on this one clearly, I admit that. But the idea itself far from nebulous in my eyes. The reasoning I advocate this change is to give Elves an option of a different play style. The archetype is so reliant on Deadeyes that it feels that deck building choices are forced upon you. It is possible to build an Elf trap with some traps but the cost of golds for cards that synergise with traps are cost prohibitive, meaning that you are still dependent on the gold core of Isengrim, Aelerinn, Vernossiel, Ele'yas and can exclude other Elves (Iorveth, Hattori, Eldain) from inclusion. This is not solely based on cost, of course. Their abilities only support no-unit play. The idea I outlined is to rework these cards so they support a truly hybrid style of play; This may go against the general consensus but units that support traps should be increased. That is to say, means and methods introduced to steer traps away from no-unit lists. The reasoning for this is simple; introduced correctly; traps should be used as a mechanic and find utility in a wide variety of archetypes, offering different play styles and deck building options. Further on I mention: better passive engines that encourage play early, damage traps that trigger only when certain unit concessions are met (be it by number of units on your side or the opponents) or traps that spawn a unit on Deathblow, such as a small powered token that buffs itself by 1 every time a trap is triggered during that turn, as possible solutions. Not to mention how they might work with Deathblow. If one of two of these trap golds were reworked into (purely an example) spawning a (or perhaps 2) token(s) that functions as a mini-scout then, design withstanding, people might be encouraged to swap them out for a Yaevinn or an Isengrim and integrate them in a truly hybrid deck. But as things stand, their design means that they will only ever be used in pure traps decks. One of the most hated and badly designed ST archetypes because, much like handbuff atm, only functions on the back of badly design gold cards (Eldain and Skaggs/Aglais). Archetypes have to exist on the back of their bronze cards and if handbuff or trap bronzes aren't doing any heavy lifting, these mechanics can only be supported by late pointslam golds.
 
Last edited:
Yes, its a condition that is unnecessary costly and clunky. A decision that makes the card bad in comparison to other cards that has their power tied to board state. Why should you have to expend a leader charge, or worse still, a card, to make them functional when they could be perfectly functional with a passive condition? Yes it is a condition, but a very bad one, that makes their costing even more complicated and the card unusable except with certain leaders and/or in combination - with extra prov costs - for very slow tempo, highly priced bronze cards, which are dependent on being drawn as well.
No, it isn't. It's just a different archtype that uses a specific mechanic to create value. The archtype that is built on cards that boost units in hand (away from potential damage and removal) and those that [should] turn this boost, received at the cost of low tempo, into EXTRA value. The problem now is that the cards are not properly balanced, arguably except Skaggs and Aglais themselves, so the archtype underperforms. There is absolutely no proof that it's inherently bad, that balancing these cards is "unnecessarily complicated" or "huge drawbacks" or any of that other nonsense. You just have an idea about how cards should work in Gwent, and you're kind of stuck on it, unable to visualize archtypes that are different from this jack of all trade ST you're trying to create. That's the opposite of "shaking things up."
If Wardancer was buffed further it would be better but you still have to account for the cost of including specific, low tempo cards to buff it (which makes deck building awkward and costly) and/or for the cost of a leader charge, which forces the card to be including in a minority of deck builds.
Yes, and all of those things can be done. It's not rocket science.
Yes, the card would see more play in Invigorate if buffed but better cards dont mean better design. The card is unnecessarily burdened with an unreasonable mechanic to cost and one which requires you to expend valuable resources in order to do so.
Once again, it's called a condition. There's nothing unique about it.
This was in my original post; In short, handbuff makes balancing unnecessarily complicated and is detrimental to robust design and this is the exact problems these 2 cards suffer from.
See above.
I don't quite get your last example with defender
The example is simple. Instead of just unexciting growing taller at the rate of 1 point per turn as it does now, the Defender would boost 2 adjacent units by 1 each.
The change to bronzes is completely relevant. Harmony relies on the strength on its bronzes cards to work in unison with Harmony.
What "Harmony bronzes" were changed? Let me answer it for you: none, except the miner LOSING its Harmony tag. Changes to general ST bronzes are IRRELEVANT. Do you still now see why? You're basically arguing "They gave the Vanguard 1 point boost and Harmony is still not tier 1. Therefore, Harmony is terrible and must be scrapped!
Its one of the reasons why changing bronzes is so problematic for Harmony because it has wider repercussions on other archetypes. Re: WItchers; the reason is not WHY the tag is relevant, the issue is the tag IS relevant. This was a buff and an intentional one, too.
No, it was not a buff to Harmony, much less intentional, lol. There's like nothing more obvious. ST witchers were ALL created for the Movement Archetype. The fact that it helped Harmony because of the unique was probably not mentioned in a single production meeting.
Well, thats one point of view but if the devs really didnt care about Harmony why would they have made any changes? You may feel they werent enough and youd probably have a point but, as you yourself has admitted, there were some concessions to making Harmony better. On this basis, the argument that they dont care is not true.
OK, I could say they don't "like" Harmony as much as some other archtypes by way of trying to explain why these basic, rudimentary changes that have been obvious since that Harmony nerf have not been implemented in over a year, but I went with "don't care." But I have to admit that Harmony is now in a better place than a few months ago, largely due to [intended] Saskia change and [unintended] witchers. So, thanks are in order I guess.
What is most probably true is that they dont have a big enough team to make changes quick enough or/and they are still trying to figure out how to bring it back in a better way. If this is the case (and they feel that buffing certain cards will not have the desired affect) then, I for one, wouldnt object to them scrapping it and redesigning it from the ground up. Of course, I have no idea is that is feasible and I suspect it isnt.
If they don't have a big enough team to remove a couple of provisions from the price of Waters of Brokilon for a year, I'm probably not going to hang around long enough for them to be scrapping and redesigning Harmony. Not that such a redesign is needed or wanted.
Perhaps I havent explained my reasoning on this one clearly, I admit that. But the idea itself far from nebulous in my eyes. The reasoning I advocate this change is to give Elves an option of a different play style.
Like I said previously, there's probably Elf magic support incoming for that playstyle. Other than that, There's already plain elves and trap elves. Movement involves a number of elves. How many more elf playstyles/archtypes are you looking for? ST does not equal just elves. Why are you not asking for 5 different dwarf archtypes? Or dryads?

To sum up, since we're starting to go in circles: I think deathblow would be great if added to more ST units. I think Handbuff is an interesting mechanic and could be made viable with minimum support, mostly adjustments of the bronzes. I think Harmony is a great archtype that definitely does not need to be scrapped. It's already strong and with minimal changes can return to competitive status. I think traps are fine as is, but if more "utility" traps are added that may work, would have to see specifics.
 
Top Bottom