Why shouldn't they be doomed? What is the use of undoomed scenario in the graveyard that you can't even use?
If you change assire you might aswell change lippy
good point but giving a scenario doomed feels like a weird solution imo. it might in retrospect be the better option though.
anyway I very much agree with the sentiment that scenarios shouldnt be replayed, just like any 10p+ card in the game except skellige, which I hope will also be adjusted in that regard.
So what's your point after all? Do you think it's overpowered to replay them? I can tell you it clearly isn't.
Well Lippy Scenario is still a thing. And honestly, playing it double is a lot of fun, and not even close to being OP. I think that double scenarios are alright for the time being, as long as it is not the best deck by significant margin.
Also, double ball is no way OP In the current meta, as it fails in the long round against most factions, including monsters wild hunt and symbiosis. Having last say is crucial in order to win.
Also, double ball is no way OP In the current meta, as it fails in the long round against most factions, including monsters wild hunt and symbiosis. Having last say is crucial in order to win.
That's because the current Meta is full of broken decks. Doesn't mean replaying scenarios up to 3 times isn't an issue.
I dont see the issue i'm sorry. If the iteraction is balanced, as metioned above, why is replayability an issue? It is an interesting concept unlike boost/damage/destroy decks.
Um I would suggest being able to play your most expensive faction card in R1, R2 and R3 is not a balanced interaction.
Plus I suspect the release of oneiromancy is going to benefit any deck that was heavily draw dependent such as triple scenario SK.
But hey, SK and the game at large has bigger problems right now than triple scenario decks.
The devs really need to utilize the doomed tag better. Even if there are bigger issues at the moment being able to consistently play 14 provision cards multiple times a match doesn't make sense. Tutoring options starting to get out of hand adds to this problem.
I considered this too but the more I thought about it the more I disliked this solution. You can do some fun stuff like playing an important tactic multiple times with Assire even if she's not used for it right now. Removing so many options from her just because of one interaction being OP doesn't sit right with me.
The real problem is not with replays, it’s the cards being replayed.
I my opinion, Gwent has a couple dozen “win condition” cards that are far better than almost any other cards in almost any situation. Blueboy Lugos or Treant Boar or The Beast are all super nice cards, but playing them 3 times is not a problem because there are then equivalently nice cards that don’t get played. Leveling card abilities would not only improve balance, it would increase variety and creativity in both deck building and card play.
I my opinion, Gwent has a couple dozen “win condition” cards that are far better than almost any other cards in almost any situation. Blueboy Lugos or Treant Boar or The Beast are all super nice cards, but playing them 3 times is not a problem because there are then equivalently nice cards that don’t get played. Leveling card abilities would not only improve balance, it would increase variety and creativity in both deck building and card play.
Okay, but lets reintroduce Caretaker into the game, rework Assire and perhaps Lippy, so they can't shuffle artifacts into the deck. Increase provision cost of problematic scenarios or make them weaker, so that they are on par with other scenarios in this game (As example, the rework of Trebuchet indirectly diminished the value of Siege, but there are other ways to do it, like decreasing the power level of the unit spawned by the scenario). We ultimately achieve Balance, which favour both group of players, that are for and against replayability.
Players that like the interaction will have to pay a cost equivalent to the value they get. Players that don't like the interaction won't have to complain about it being OP. Sure, they probably wont like it, but it isn't a valid argument that justfies removal of a unique interaction.
Last edited:
I strongly disagree. Double ball is still a thing and we saw how much it was used in Open 2. "Double Ball is a Tier 2 or Tier 3" is not true. If it is weak, I don't think that many players would have brought it for Open 2 and almost every single time NG was banned even if the other option was ME double waters (before ST massacre).
That's kinda obvious. A red coin double ball, and its over for you. It doesen't mean that double ball is OP on average. Just look at the stats for Tactical decision, 46.5% winrate. OP indeed.
If it really was Tier 1, then Tactical Decision, Imposter and Lockdown, which are the most common leaders you use for this deck, would have a way better winrate. The only real strength of this deck is red coin abuse which sometimes makes it extremely frustrating to play against, but not per se overpowered. Another thing I noticed is that many decks on tournaments like Open aren't exactly top tier.
You think that replaying a 13 provisions card isn't OP ? Of course it's unfair. Assire and Lippy don't need a change. TH e problem is not replaying something from graveyard, it's plying OP cards 2 or 3 times, and winning only with one card...
Masquerade is very oppressive for certains decks ( Monsters, or anything putting tall units), one round of it by game is more than enough for me .
It's definitely not overpowered (this would mean it consistently achieves great results against many other meta decks) and there's proof of that. There will nearly always be a counter to every single strategy, you can't just take the greedy line and think you get away with it all the time. Monsters have their counters and bad match-ups as well as Nilfgaard does. While Ball is oppressive for MO, swarm is devastating for the majority of NG decks. As for the gold replay, I wouldn't be sad if that got removed, but I don't think it will which is also fine. I've never played Double Ball for a long time myself because it's way too unreliable and not versatile enough.
It's exact the same outcome when you give the doomed tag to scenarios or change Assire in this case. And what it 'feels' like doesn't matter at all. The Gwent community talks to much about their feelings. But this is just their subjective view on things ( I don't like this card, please nerf it...bla bla bla). When you will talk about card changes, then you need objective criteria, you need facts. And fact is that changing Assire into only putting units back is not the solution of this problem, you get another outcome when you change her. Because the problem is the second scenario and not a too strong Assire. By changing her, you nerf her without any reason (for example: you can't put Invocation or Shupe or other good specials back in the deck). And giving doomed to scenarios solvs the problem without any furhter impact on the game.
By the way, the real topic about scenarios is: Why do scenarios and the binary artifact removal system exist?