A Suggestion for Row Identity

[4RM3D]

In the past, many suggestions have been made to make rows matter. It's time to look at why these suggestions exist in the first place. The easiest answer is that, at the moment, rows lack identity. However, most, if not all, of those suggestions required reworking a lot of cards or adding more (complex) mechanics to the game. Can't we implement something (relatively) simple which creates a whole new way to play the game? Yes, we can.

My suggestion is that both rows receive a permanent row-effect. All units played on the melee row get +1 strength and all units played in the ranged row get +2 armor. The rationale is that the melee row is for point slam and the ranged row for engines (or other units you want to protect). This would give rows a distinct identity and it would actually matter where you play your units. For example, versus a removal heavy deck, you may be inclined to play more units on the ranged row.

PS. This suggestion does mean that there needs to be a one time rebalancing. Fortunately, this can be done on a large scale, instead of needing to tweak all cards individually.

 

[Draconifors]

Melee: "Your soldiers are eager to fight, and adrenaline gives them a bit of extra strength."
Ranged: "Not everyone wants to be on the front lines -- for a variety of reasons ranging from caution and strategising to cowardice and a lack of experience -- and instead choose to gain a defense boost from being shielded by their comrades."

What I mean by the above is that this suggestion would make sense.

 

[rrc]

In the past many, suggestions have been made to make rows matter. It's time to look at why these suggestions exist in the first place. The easiest answer is that, at the moment, rows lack identity. However, most, if not all, of those suggestions required reworking a lot of cards or adding more (complex) mechanics to the game. Can't we implement something (relatively) simple which creates a whole new way to play the game? Yes, we can.

My suggestion is that both rows receive a permanent row-effect. All units played on the melee row get +1 strength and all units played in the ranged row get +2 armor. The rationale is that the melee row is for point slam and the ranged row for engines (or other units you want to protect). This would give rows a distinct identity and it would actually matter where you play your units. For example, versus a removal heavy deck, you may be inclined to play more units on the ranged row.

PS. This suggestion does mean that there needs to be a one time rebalancing. Fortunately, this can be done on a large scale, instead of needing to tweak all cards individually.

IMHO, this is never going to be implemented, for a couple of reasons:
We already have shield which is like an alternate version of Armour. I don't think Armour is going to be back as long as we have shields. And giving free shields to any unit on row will be super OP and broken that it would be a nightmare to balance the game.
In the last dev stream Ostry kind of indicated that more and more units will have row locks (or row specific abilities) which gives the impression that CDPR's vision of giving rows meaningful is totally different.
Also, any units getting +1 on row will be broken on so many levels; formation will become totally non-sensical as this is exact opposite of what Formation is. And will make NR's Inspire as free.
Also, if rows have passive ability on units played, all row locking will need to be removed or reworked.

But a slightly different variation may be viable. What if there is a Ghost artifact on melee row which gets +1 whenever you play a unit on melee row? Not the units getting +1, but an immune points getting added to the player whenever they play a unit on Melee row? Similarly, whenever a unit gets played on ranged row some passive ability on the board and not on the unit? Something like that; not affecting the actual units directly?? What do you think?

 

[4RM3D]

formation will become totally non-sensical as this is exact opposite of what Formation is.

It's true that my suggestion would have worked better before the NR patch. Regardless, row-locking units is not the way to give rows identity or meaning. When the row identity came up in another thread, I also mentioned that the best example is Formation.

There are two ways to give rows identity. Either by introduction a global mechanic, like I have suggested, or by adding dual row abilities to cards, like with Formation. The issue with the latter is that it requires reworking all cards. Just having Formation is not enough. Every factions needs a similar thing. And while I would prefer the latter, I rather take the former if it's more realistically feasible, which also means scrapping Formation.

 

[Archan6el]

As far as I know, row identity has always meant that cards have different abilities for different rows. This makes perfect sense, because that makes the game truly tactical in the way you choose to play each card. Dumbing this down by making one global row-specific effect for all cards is really bad and simply unacceptable to me. Talking realistically feasible? Well, apparently it was realistically feasible to introduce a whole new faction (SY) that nobody asked for. When is it realistically feasible to bring (back) the good stuff and the changes that people are actually asking for (armor included)?

 

[FG15-ISH7EG]

The issue with the latter is that it requires reworking all cards.

I doubt that it would be that much different with this suggestion. Not all cards can be easily adjusted to such a change and a lot of cards have to be rebalanced.

Instead, if just a large number of cards would get this row identity as a FormationB, that could be balanced much easier and would have the same effect. (Just give the Keyword to all cards, were it works without problems)

 

[Alexander_Volgin]

How about vitality front row, which triggers at the end of NEXT turn. Ding your unit just leveled.
2 Armor will kill Crach. So he needs to be reworked; to damage through armour.

 

[Fimbulthrym]

As far as I know, row identity has always meant that cards have different abilities for different rows.

Just no. Row identity means, that you feel a real difference if you play a card in melee or ranged. And i mean a real difference, not only to choose an effect for. If you have a deck, where you fell like "thats a melee deck, and i will lose, if my opponenis anti melee".
You could achieve that goal with many different approaches dual effects, row locking or row effects for example. Your definition is much to excluding
I dont know the "formation", can someone give me a short summary?

 

[FG15-ISH7EG]

I dont know the "formation", can someone give me a short summary?

Placed on melee row gain Zeal, placed on ranged row boost by 1.

 

[Vedamir]

My suggestion is that both rows receive a permanent row-effect. All units played on the melee row get +1 strength and all units played in the ranged row get +2 armor. The rationale is that the melee row is for point slam and the ranged row for engines (or other units you want to protect). This would give rows a distinct identity and it would actually matter where you play your units. For example, versus a removal heavy deck, you may be inclined to play more units on the ranged row.

I don't like it, because it's just still not logical to play swordsmen on ranged to protect them. Swordsmen must not stay on ranged ever, if they cannot throw their swords like snipers. The best and logical solution here is to make 66% of cards row-locked (33% melee, 33% ranged and 33% flexible). Their abilities (passive or active) must work only on the certain row. So every card must have a sign of it's row as it was in CBT/early OBT and all Witcher games. It'll be a real Home Coming. Melee cards can have a sign of sword, ranged cards can have a sign of arbalest or, better, a bow (more universal), flex cards can have a sign of two arrows.

Flex cards can be in bigger numbers at ST faction as it is a most mobile faction (as it was earlier). Flex - is card which can act as in melee so in ranged with different abilities. Flexible can be flyers, spyes, special agents and other universal units.
It's simple and logical decision as I see. Why invent something else? Just make game logical.

 

[Alexander_Volgin]

We already have row-lockeds cards, so I think that the main idea behind the initial suggestion is that row-locked cards dont give rows more meaning.

Lets take an example; In a case where an engine can be put either front or back row, e.g a flexible card, we could choose to either give it protection by playing it in the back, or play aggresive by activating a point during the next turn, by placing hte card in the front.

This makes very good sense, since by placing an engine on front row, we could try and bait a removal, or if we are expecting that the opponent is running a heavy-removal deck, and therefor placing all our engines on back-row.

Second thing is that it gives the game more depth in terms of deckbuilding, since we also have to consider the limited space on back row, possible row effects etc. And thus prioritize front-row cards as well in an engine based deck.

Post automatically merged: Aug 12, 2019

What if there is a Ghost artifact on melee row which gets +1 whenever you play a unit on melee row? Not the units getting +1, but an immune points getting added to the player whenever they play a unit on Melee row? Similarly, whenever a unit gets played on ranged row some passive ability on the board and not on the unit? Something like that; not affecting the actual units directly?? What do you think?

I just read this suggestion, and I think its what actually will work the best. Great idea mate! (It is something that wont need any balancing, and can be implemented right away).

 

[4RM3D]

The best and logical solution here is to make 66% of cards row-locked

Row-locked cards are not the solution; it doesn't give rows meaning, nor does it give players any meaningful choices.

 

[Vedamir]

We already have row-lockeds cards

It's not true, because we can play any card at any row.
What u say may be is more comfortable in some ways, but it's still not logical. There is no sense to put mages in a front, if they don't cast Igni or Aard for example. Rows is only about troops positioning. Troops can be melee, ranged or flexible. It's battle of armies. I still cannot accustom seeing how SK's swordsman from ranged hits another ranged unit. It's so wild and abnormal. There is no sense.

 

[Alexander_Volgin]

It's not true, because we can play any card at any row.
What u say may be is more comfortable in some ways, but it's still not logical. There is no sense to put mages in a front, if they don't cast Igni or Aard for example. Rows is only about troops positioning. Troops can be melee, ranged or flexible. It's battle of armies. I still cannot accustom seeing how SK's swordsman hits from ranged another ranged unit. It's so wild and abnormal.
There is no sense.

SK Greatsword was designed this way because of balancing reasons. Mages - have you seen artwork for Fringilla Vigo and Keira Metz? Either way there are still cards that that make sense, lore wise, to be put either front or back. And it will give the game more depth in terms of an extra effect, which we have to decide on, whenehver we place a card.

Also I dont think that Radovid or Henselt will mind to sacrafice his mages by playing them in the front. Remember, 'Battles are won or lost by the commanders, not by sorceresses'.

 

[Vedamir]

Row-locked cards are not the solution; it doesn't give rows meaning, nor does it give players any meaningful choices.

It gives rows meaning. And it is a solution. Row-locked card must cost lesser in provision then flexible one. It can be a part of some tactic in deck building to build more dangerous deck. And row-locked cards are just about 66% as I said. 33% are flexible. It's quite enough, I think.

Post automatically merged: Aug 12, 2019

Also I dont think that Radovid or Henselt will mind to sacrafice his mages by playing them in the front.

If they don't cast Igni, of course not. In ranged they can cast fireball. But if they cast Igni they cannot stand behind. Geralt is casting Igni and it's a warrior - everything is ok here for melee positioning.

 

[Draconifors]

It gives rows meaning.

It really doesn't. All it does is remove the choice of where to play cards -- and that's why, in my opinion, it isn't a solution either.

The only "meaning" it gives to rows is "the row where I have to play my melee/ranged cards". That isn't a real meaning, not in the sense that's sought.

 

[croloris]

I lean towards more cards being made similar to Forest Whisperer (Melee: give an enemy unit poison Order: Ranged Give an allied unit a shield) and Treant Boar (movement between rows with dmg/heal ability.) These card are useful and have multiple effects based on rows.

 

[Vedamir]

It really doesn't. All it does is remove the choice of where to play cards -- and that's why it isn't a solution either.
The only "meaning" it gives to rows is "the row where I have to play my melee/ranged cards". That isn't a real meaning, not in the sense that's sought.

This gives meaning in terms of sense. Warriors with swords and axes just must not be played in ranged. There must not always be a choice. Too many choices is too complicated. Why do u want make all cards flexible? Where is a sense here? Think of another things. U can make more interesting mechanics for cards to make more choices in game. Why it necessarily must be row positioning? Some things must be permanent and unchanging like swordsmen fighting in front row, because it just makes sense. There is no other choices. Just no choices here. U have choices here in deckbuilding and u have choices in a sequence of card's play. U must not play all ur melee at once. And u have 33% of flex cards. It's more than enough for positioning choices.

I lean towards more cards being made similar to Forest Whisperer (Melee: give an enemy unit poison Order: Ranged Give an allied unit a shield) and Treant Boar (movement between rows with dmg/heal ability.) These card are useful and have multiple effects based on rows.

Some people are already told that they often forget to place a card in a right way. This can cost u a game. If there any card will be flexible, It'll be too complicated game (as it already is). 33% of flexible cards is quite enough to remember. And, if there be a row sign on the cards, it'll be very hard to forget to place a flexible card properly.

 

[Alexander_Volgin]

Some people are already told that they often forget to place a card in a right way. This can cost u a game. If there any card will be flexible, It'll be too complicated game (as it already is). 33% of flexible cards is quite enough to remember. And, if there be a row sign on the cards, it'll be very hard to forget to place a flexible card properly.

Thats exactly the point. Seasonal players want more complexity.

And no, it wont serve as an entry barrier for new players, as there are several decks out there that may range in terms of beginner skill level required, to pilot.

 

[Vedamir]

Thats exactly the point. Seasonal players want more complexity.

Complexity must not be in positioning. Complexity as I said can be born in better card mechanics. Almost every card can be an engine, that generates points automatically by different triggers. It'll be much better decision, than placing swordsmen in ranged. It just stupid, can't u see it?