Some opinions about "Lockdown"

+
Hello everyone. Since the NG hero ability "Lockdown" was reworked ( nerfed ) several months ago, I hardly saw anyone using this ability , and can't even find more than 5 videos about it after it war reworked. So I want to share my suggestion about this ability.

After the rework of Lockdown , I think this ability has changed essentially. In the past, this ability would cripple your opponent's hero ability throuhgout the game; but now you can only lock your opponent's hero ability in one round, which means your opponent can still use hero power after the round you use Lockdown if the match hasn't
over.

Thus, if you play Lockdown deck and win the first round without using your hero ability, then it's highly possible that you will win this match, since you can give up the second round and then use Lockdown in the third round, and your opponents will have little chance to win the third round without using their hero ability. However, if
you play Lockdown deck and lose the first round while your opponents haven't use their hero power , then there will be two common situation , while both of them are more likely to cause your defeat.
Situation 1 : in the second round you use your Lockdown ability since you cannot afford the risk to lose this round, and then in the third round your opponents will use their hero ability and make you difficult to win.
Situation 2 : in the second round your opponent successfully use their hero ability, and in order to win this round you use more cards to defeat your opponent. In the third round, you use your hero ability but only gain 6 more power than your opponent ; considering that you have less cards in your hand than your opponent in the beginning of the third round, it's still very difficult for you to win this match.
In conclusion, if Lockdown deck players don't win the first round without using their hero ability , then it's highly possible that they will lose this match.

I think that Lockdown has to be buffed. The simplist way to buff it is to increase its provision , or increase the power of the token summoned by this ability when your opponent's hero ability is out of charge. However, since the main style NG deck is to disrupt your opponents, I suggest changing the effect of Lockdown when your opponent's hero ability is out of charge into " banishing one of your opponent's card with highest provision in their hand" .

Please feel free to share your opinion with me, thanks.
 
Banishing a card from the opponent's hand to get (+1) card advantage is an absolute no-go.
What I would suggest would be a 1p increase, the ability to choose if the opponent's leader gets locked for the round or one spawns the tokens (the later change would be to play around charge leaders keeping their last charge to trade it for your entire leader) and the number of tokens should be increased from 2 -> 3.
 
Banishing a card from the opponent's hand to get (+1) card advantage is an absolute no-go.
What I would suggest would be a 1p increase, the ability to choose if the opponent's leader gets locked for the round or one spawns the tokens (the later change would be to play around charge leaders keeping their last charge to trade it for your entire leader) and the number of tokens should be increased from 2 -> 3.
Wondering why Banishing a card from the opponent's hand is a no-go. From my perspective, lots of single-use hero power can be viewed as generating a high provision card, in other words these hero powers will grant you (+1) card advantage in that round. Therefore , Banishing a card from the opponent's hand is just another way to grant you (+1) card advantage , so why can't it be possible ?
 
Banishing a card from the opponent's hand is definitely not something that should be added. Ever.

Banishing a card from the opponent's hand is just another way to grant you (+1) card advantage
It is very different from simply receiving an extra card yourself because it's actively and directly harming the opponent while benefitting you. You simply getting an extra card is not directly harming the opponent because it doesn't mess with their hand.

There is a reason why the only (as far as I remember) card that can remove a card from the hand (Kambi) does so for both players, and needs to be able to discard from its owner's hand first.
I'm sure there is also a reason why Auckes cannot lock cards in the opponent's hand anymore like he used to be able to years ago.
Affecting cards in the opponent's hand is a dangerous ability, and outright deleting a card from hand would be terrible. Especially if the card was banished and not just discarded.

People would be up in arms about such a change, and imo for good reason. I wouldn't use such an ability, either, as it would be just plain unfair.
 
Banishing a card from the opponent's hand is definitely not something that should be added. Ever.


It is very different from simply receiving an extra card yourself because it's actively and directly harming the opponent while benefitting you. You simply getting an extra card is not directly harming the opponent because it doesn't mess with their hand.

There is a reason why the only (as far as I remember) card that can remove a card from the hand (Kambi) does so for both players, and needs to be able to discard from its owner's hand first.
I'm sure there is also a reason why Auckes cannot lock cards in the opponent's hand anymore like he used to be able to years ago.
Affecting cards in the opponent's hand is a dangerous ability, and outright deleting a card from hand would be terrible. Especially if the card was banished and not just discarded.

People would be up in arms about such a change, and imo for good reason. I wouldn't use such an ability, either, as it would be just plain unfair.
Agree.
The only other card being able to attack opponent's hand that i can remenber is the NG one that put highest unit strength to 1.
 
Banishing a card from the opponent's hand is definitely not something that should be added. Ever.


It is very different from simply receiving an extra card yourself because it's actively and directly harming the opponent while benefitting you. You simply getting an extra card is not directly harming the opponent because it doesn't mess with their hand.

There is a reason why the only (as far as I remember) card that can remove a card from the hand (Kambi) does so for both players, and needs to be able to discard from its owner's hand first.
I'm sure there is also a reason why Auckes cannot lock cards in the opponent's hand anymore like he used to be able to years ago.
Affecting cards in the opponent's hand is a dangerous ability, and outright deleting a card from hand would be terrible. Especially if the card was banished and not just discarded.

People would be up in arms about such a change, and imo for good reason. I wouldn't use such an ability, either, as it would be just plain unfair.
Thanks for sharing ideas. I agree that banishing a card from hands is really too overpowered.

But I still can't understand why there can be so many cards that can destroy units on battlefield , while discarding a card from hands will be a no-go.
I really don't see too much difference between them.
 
I really don't see too much difference between them.
Here's how I see it:

Cards in hand are resources that have not been used yet (kind of a reserve), whereas cards on the battlefield are resources that have already been used (deployed).

Removing from reserve is very different from removing from deployed resources, because resources in reserve have multiple ways in which they can be utilized.
That means removing from reserve hurts the opponent's ability to strategize, and therefore is much more severe than removing what the opponent has already made a decision on and played onto the board.

Cards on the battlefield are free game, but cards in hand are not, and should not be either. Kambi and Shilard can affect them, true, but they either affect both players' hands or do fairly easily reversible damage (whatever Shilard hits can be reset to its original base power or boosted back up).
 
Lockdown is a nice ability and definitely should be buffed. Maybe more provision + 2 charges for two rounds?
 
Well i really hated The extinct lockdown and i really dont want that back again.

But I agree The "New" lockdown should be buffed.

I think increase provision and also create One more token its "ok" since almost all the leaders plays to somethibk like 9-10 points.

I Also thinks should change something for those leaders which has charges. I remember People playing with lined pockets and use almost all the coins and let only One charge, so lockdown will vale only One point in The third round (Plus some possível coins generate by crimes cards).

The same goes to arachnas swarm
 
Actually, I would appreciate if leaders support a specific play style.

At his current state Lockdown is not competitive at all. I also heavily doubt that a provision buff. Operateur buff will help signicantly.
Furthermore, I also understand the Devs and many players considering Lockdown to be problematic

From my perspective I prefer leaders which support a specific play style. So what do we have for NG?
- Double cross: Assimiliate support
- Imperial Formation: Soldier support
- Enslave: Tactic support
- Imposter/Imprisonment: To a specific degree synergizing which some benefit from lock cards. Are often used as control tools.
- Tactical Decision: Support for top-deck, deck manipulation and benefit from draw (Snowdrop=

Taking a look at archetypes which lacking leader support, I would identify the following:
  1. Agent
  2. Aristocrats
I would suggest that Lockdown should be reworked totally. Please find below 3 suggestions
  1. Order: Purify an unit. If the target unit is allied give it vitality according to the total number of agents on the battlefield. If the target unit is opponent give it bleeding according to the total number of agents on the battlefield. Charges: 3

2. Dependent on which is the maximum (if draw it´s random) spawn and play the following card:
  • Whenever you have more allied aristocrats than played tactic cards and allied soldiers spawn and play Van Moorlehem Hunter
  • Whenever you have more played tactic cards than allied aristocrats and allied soldiers spawn and play Amnesty
  • Whenever you have more allied soldiers than played tactic cards and allied aristocrats spawn and play Peter Saar Gwynleve
Whenever you play an Aristocrat give him vitality (1). Increase the vitality by 1 if you already have an allied aristocrat or a unit in the opponent row with a negative status. Decrease the vitality by 1 if you have an allied soldier or you already played a tactic card this round.
 
I would like to see lockdown go away as it is and be changed into that helps with spying. Make it like SY pirate's cove but have it spawn a seditious aristocrat with 2 charges or something
 
Here's how I see it:

Cards in hand are resources that have not been used yet (kind of a reserve), whereas cards on the battlefield are resources that have already been used (deployed).

Removing from reserve is very different from removing from deployed resources, because resources in reserve have multiple ways in which they can be utilized.
That means removing from reserve hurts the opponent's ability to strategize, and therefore is much more severe than removing what the opponent has already made a decision on and played onto the board.

Cards on the battlefield are free game, but cards in hand are not, and should not be either. Kambi and Shilard can affect them, true, but they either affect both players' hands or do fairly easily reversible damage (whatever Shilard hits can be reset to its original base power or boosted back up).
Thanks. I got your point. Even though I still doubt that disgarding a card from hand is always more severe than removing units from battlefield, since lots of units will show more value as they stay in battlefield longer , and usually removing units from battlefield will disrupt your opponent's strategy as well.
 
Last edited:
Rework of Nilfgaard Lockdown ability:

Order: Disable opponent's leader ability for duration of the round. If your opponent's leader has no Charges left or is on Cooldown, give Spying to an enemy unit, Spawn a Seditious Aristocrat on a row. Charge: 2. Provision: 15
 
Rework of Nilfgaard Lockdown ability:

Order: Disable opponent's leader ability for duration of the round. If your opponent's leader has no Charges left or is on Cooldown, give Spying to an enemy unit, Spawn a Seditious Aristocrat on a row. Charge: 2. Provision: 15
Isn't this significantly more problematic than the original (locking their leader for all 2 relevant rounds AND getting additional value) ?
In fact I would say that this would be the most overpowered leader ability since the beginning of homecoming.
 
Rework of Nilfgaard Lockdown ability:

Order: Disable opponent's leader ability for duration of the round. If your opponent's leader has no Charges left or is on Cooldown, give Spying to an enemy unit, Spawn a Seditious Aristocrat on a row. Charge: 2. Provision: 15
So you're practically getting old Lockdown (considering that currently almost anyone goes for a round 2 bleed) with benefits and a higher provision bonus.:giveup:

Honestly at this point Lockdown needs a entire Rework and until that happens they might could increase the Provision bonus to 16.
 
Not everyone at the same time, it gets hard to respond :)

@Pounc3e: This would only make it the new "2-0 or go home" leader. The only viable change imho would be to implement a choice of spawn or lockdown like someone allready suggested, to balance this against multible charge leaders like LP or even Onslaught.

Could be a nice niche strategy but I'm still convinced that the whole concept of negating the leader with leader is good in a singleplayer PvE like original witcher gwent but very bad/boring/binary (pick one) in a PvP game.
 
Isn't this significantly more problematic than the original (locking their leader for all 2 relevant rounds AND getting additional value) ?
In fact I would say that this would be the most overpowered leader ability since the beginning of homecoming.

Not really, as you only get additional value IF second condition is met. They would just be locking without the second condition and can choose to either lock second round or not and save it for third round IF it goes badly for them. This ability rework of lockdown looks to be better imho.
 
I would propose something like: “Disable opponent leader ability for 4 turns or spawn an operative on your melee row. Charges 2.”

The charges give more flexibility to actually impede an opponent in a meaningful way. The operative option prevents an opponent from manipulating charges to effectively deny value to this leader.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom