Poison rework idea.

[DziejopisWawel]

I came up with more flavourful and adjustable idea for poison.
Make "poisoned" status that has counter on its tag that indicates after how many rounds unit will die from it.
"Poison" ability would have number that would decrease "poisoned" status counter of targeted unit. (from base number 10 if unit had no "poisoned" tag)
For example: Unit with ability "poison 3" uses it on unit with no "poisoned" status. Targeted unit has now "poisoned" with 7 on its counter (10-3 as 10 is base number).
Next turn unit with "poison 6" uses it on the same unit which now has 6 on its "poisoned" counter (as 1 turn passed), so after another poisoning its counter reaches zero (6-6) and poisoned unit dies.

 

[MysticJoey]

Agree that poison needs a rework. Being able to have "infinite" value on cheap bronze cards is a huge issue. Poison is the biggest enemy of tall decks that ever existed.
But rather than it having to do with new numbers, i think it's better to have it interact with units strength, that way instead of only being able to purify it you could also play with it by boosting and damaging. That's not easy to balance, but lets try. For example:
- two applications can kill an up to 8 str unit
- three applications can kill an up to 15 str unit
- four applications can kill an up to 24 str unit
But then maybe purify becomes too strong against it, so maybe it should only be able to get rid of one instance of poison?
These are only some examples when it comes to numbers, because i do realize now you could also play around poison by playing your tall units later in the round, that's why i said this isn't easy to balance.

 

[EvanDavidson]

+1 poison seems way overpowered as is.

 

[thegogopunk]

I'd make poison work just like bleeds, atleast that way it makes sanse.

 

[jmoyano92]

Swarm decks are much worse than poison decks. Harmony is broken right now and elf swarm is clearly op if you don't have specific cards against these decks. Poison decks can be not fun to play against but at least their units have low base power so this archetype is not op by any means.

 

[dragoonzen]

Where was the poison complaint in Syndicate and harmony deck before MoO expansion?

 

[mazeebra]

Agree that poison needs a rework. Being able to have "infinite" value on cheap bronze cards is a huge issue. Poison is the biggest enemy of tall decks that ever existed.

So? Should tall decks not have a real threat? There are so many tall cards now that a simple destroy card has almost become ridiculous.

Poison is a very slow move, especially against non-tall units. And it can be countered by placement etc, but also with purify. A poison effect takes two moves.

Maybe an idea was to make poison even slower by "punishing" those units with even lower power than they currently have.

 

[mazeebra]

I came up with more flavourful and adjustable idea for poison.

Actually, poison in Gwent does not work like in the game at all. In the game, only tiny enemies die from poison. Gerald needs a real huge overdose to die from poison alone. in the Witcher 3, even with correct superior poison, I was not able to take out a strong enemy with poison alone..
Poison should work more like in the witcher 3. It should be like a permanent bleeding, which in the game it is.
It should be a 3 step process to kill units, not a 2 step process. 2 steps forces the opponent to HAVE to deal with it immediately, and break up their game too much, while allowing the poisoner to focus on their next moves.

So, you poison a unit, gives "poison 1" (half glass), and enemy lose 1 health per round. It slowly takes out low health units. You poison it again, "poison 2" (full glass), enemy lose 2 health per round. Only at this point should it be possible to destroy an enemy, by giving it an overdose or "poison 3" aka death.
This give the opponent a chance to react while playing out say their engines. It still gives the player using poison something, perhaps alot. But instead of 2 steps to take out a unit, 3 steps is necessary. Both steps 1 and 2 drains the poisoned units, and you may not even need to destroy.

If CDPR was really serious about poison, it could give certain units more or less resistance to poison, based on keyword types. in such a case, you could have flexible drain amounts on "poison 2", ranging from 1-3 depending on type of enemy, 1 being poison resistant enemies, 2 being normal and 3 being poison vulnerable enemies.

I think a 3-step mechanic with more flavour would be a better way to use poison than the kind of binary nature it has today.

In regards to the post above, it still allows tall unit removal, especially with spammy poison decks.

 

[MysticJoey]

simple solution is - 2 aplications do 8 damage, ignoring armor, it won't change anything in most situations, but it will prevent the most ridiculous ones.

 

[SpudCakes]

change the deploy units to order, this gives the opposition a chance to actually get cards out and possibly destroy the unit before they poison

Post automatically merged: Feb 16, 2020

and joey 2 applications 8 damage is the same as 2 regis bloodlust or 2 betsys which are ten provision cards so to me personally i think thats still crazy OP but currently they are doing 50% damage to any card.

 

[AMANiac21]

Simplest solution would be to remove Poison as a Deploy ability. Make it an Order ability. That way players can defend themselves. Also, Poison cards need to be more expensive on provisions. The Stratagem that delivers fangs of the empire is completely broken because they have several instakills.

Right now, on a unit basis lock and poison cost the same which is ridiculous. Poison needs to cost twice as much if it stays deploy and even if it flips to order, I'd argue it should cost more.

 

[mazeebra]

Poison might be too cheap for how it currently works (binary/not in a smart way), but order is hardly a good solution. I guess that's why they create formation for Northern Realms, just because order was so bad.

Order is a useful and good function, but NR as it was with ONLY order was pretty bad. Making poison ONLY order will be a bad solution to a bad problem.

Making it 3-stage with more flavour like I described above, would make it better in my opinion.