A Suggestion for Row Identity

[Draconifors]

Some things must be permanent and unchanging like swordsmen fighting in front row, because it just makes sense.

And what would happen if an army consisted of swordsmen only? There would be multiple lines of swordsmen, naturally.
The same logic can be applied to the battlefield in GWENT. Just because a warrior uses a sword doesn't mean (s)he needs to be in the front lines -- and neither do archers or other ranged units need to be in the back every time. Wouldn't make sense if they did.

----

As for rows having set effects vs. cards having row-based effects, I think both options have their pros and cons. The former I have no experience with but I like the idea.

 

[Vedamir]

And what would happen if an army consisted of swordsmen only?

It'll be ok, because we have 9 cards of row restriction (that can be removed actually), and u have just 10 cards in ur hand. U can play almost all of them in one round. Of course, there can be cards, that bring another ones from deck or generate new cards, so in this case we really need to remove row restriction as it was in CBT/OBT, when u could have rows full of generated creatures (like in monsters). And it was ok even for 3 rows system. Why cannot we have this now with even lesser rows? I don't see a problem here.
Even if we keep row restriction, people just must create their decks wisely, for do not overfill their row. There can even exist a new tactics, when u overfill enemie's row for do not allow him play something else there. It can be very fun and it will punish stupid decks full of just melee or ranged cards.

 

[Draconifors]

That's not what I meant, at all. You just took that one sentence out of context.

---

Anyway, I still like the suggestion in the OP, if only because it was fun to come up with the little "descriptions".

 

[Vedamir]

That's not what I meant, at all

Did u mean that there must be more swordsman rows, if army is big? Of course it can be in reality, but it's just a card game, where everything is simplified. There is no sense to imagine more melee rows in this game. And even in this case, only one row can fight with another. There is always a frontline of melee-fighters. There cannot be another lines. But in most cases, battle of melee-fighters are not row-based. It's just a heap of fighting men, where u differ sides by color of clothes. So, in all cases there is just one line or just one heap of melee-fighting.

 

[Fimbulthrym]

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.

In my opionen you loose depth at deckbuilding, because of all cards agile, you dont have to focus at melee or ranged, besides effects. In the worst case scenario you loose some points, by not placing them optimal. You can basically place most of the cards everywhere.
Row locks on the other hand just force you do have a look at this problem, beause in worst carse you cant play a card at all AND have a big weakspot if your rows are overcrowded

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

I think, that the two sides in this discussion have different definitions of "meaning". For me it is "impact", lorewise as well as gameplay. So if you choose a wrong row (in deckbuilder beforehand) you lose. So if your deck isnt flexible enough, you have a big disadvantage against some decks (depend on meta). This is more the strategic approach.
You on the othe rhand want that flexibility right at a coremechanic, where you dont have to pay the price by "weaken" your deck. You want some right-now decisions, more like a tactician.
So the question is, what do we want more? A strategy- or a tactic-game?

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.

Just a good example of what i call impact. You win or lose, just because it isnt unimportant, which row you play cards. But if you can avoid this easily, this impact vanishes completely as well as the meaning of it.

Back to Starter-suggestion: I dont think a row effect should be set in the row itself. I am agree at the point, that this would be improve the meaning of row, but not as much as you think it would. You just buff your average point per round, thats all. Besides that, you still have to balance engines and many others cards, because 2 armor isnt nothing and in worst case the meta just shifts from removal to engine, because you cant kill engines anyway. But if balanced correctly it would be still an improvement to now, but also still less effective in the regard of "meaning" (in my sense) then row-locks.

Btw i think you need much more than 66% of all Bodycards to be row locked, top have good impact for the game

 

[Guest 4368268]

Like the direction of the idea. Doesn't exactly have to be implemented like that, but since they've cut an entire row from the game coming up with distinct differences for the remaining two is something that really ought to happen. They wanted Gwent to represent two armies going to war and in light of that having rows be a key element to your strategy fits really well. Furthermore since many (myself included) feel that the game feels too bare bone fixing rows is something every faction will directly profit from. Fleshing out each faction individually takes time but general changes such as these can be done swiftly and precisely