The changes are in. Are they logical? Let's look at 4 examples.
For the purpose of the discussion let's consider power and damage as points.
1.) The most glaringly illogical change is the power decrease to Cave Troll. All the defenders are 7 points; plus all have some combo of 2 Armor. Donimir and Covenant are the exact same card, Ffion if you boost it also, Azar same deal but different configuration. So why the nerf? Makes no sense.
2.) Sewer raiders, 4 cost for 8 points: It's the exact the same card as Mahakam Volunteers, Wild Hunt Rider, Crow Messenger, and Hunting Pack, that are all 5 cost for 8. All share some prerequisite, none harder or easier than the other.
3.) Thirsty Dame, Onager, and Bare-Knuckle: each is 4 points, but the cost for B-K is 4 and the others 6. Each is actionable either by order or by virtue of an outside action. On deploy, TD can get you 1 to maybe 5 points depending on status possibilities, Onager has slightly higher possibilities if the board is really set-up, B-K can give as many as 13 points if you're coins are at max. Provided they stay on the board, the point possibilities in the next rounds favor B-K, then Onager, TD the lowest, but TD has the advantage of being at a higher power and so more difficult to remove. One could argue which is the better card. I think they're about even. Not sure why the first two cost 6 and B-K 4.
4.) The Vildkaarl nerf can actually be seen as a buff. The goal with Vildkaarl is for it to be damaged to get to 12 points. More than likely, it is in a self-damage deck. The change was perhaps to make it easier to destroy. The chances are that the deck player will just give it 2 damage immediately, making it easier for that player - a good self-damage deck has multiple ways to create such.
Just my opinion, being a negative Nicky again.
The "good" changes:
-eskel, lambert, circle of life, thirsty dame
the "ok, I guess" changes:
-ethereal, cutup lackey (at least out of context with the baffling number of the overall SY buffs this patch), demavend, Dao, Dennis, Nauzicaa Sarg, Slave Driver, Oxenfurt Scholar, Tempest, Onager, triss tele, geralt quen, turiseach skirm
the pointless, "who the hell wasted votes on this" changes:
-Filavandreal, hawker smuggler, regis bloodlust, cave troll
the "what the hell, why would this need a buff"? changes:
-coral, immortal cavalry, dun banner, vildkaarl, hidden cache, jackpot, fruits, fallen knight, sewer raiders, bouncers, brawler.
Reflections on December 2023 Balance Council Results
Most comments here are largely based upon conjecture: I don’t have extensive experience playing Gwent under the new changes. And many are based upon personal preferences: I want to like all factions equally; I want matches generally determined by meaningful player choices (both in deck building and in play) rather than random chance (especially draws and match-ups); I want variety in viable decks; I value creativity and originality.
My first reaction is “Finally!” Finally, a balance council that does more good than harm! Finally, a balance council that starts to look beyond the next meta! Finally, a balance council that does not revolve around Nilfgaard! Finally, a balance council that does not significantly buff already overpowered cards simply to match with other overpowered cards! Finally, a council that I believe will break the pattern of making changes, then undoing them! And I can write this even though only one change I supported was actually made.
But let me share my impressions of all changes from this council.
Power Increase:
Filavandrel – Definitely deserves a buff; although, in my opinion, not an interesting card and hence not a top priority.
Lord Riptide – Not a card that needed a buff, although I agree with the sentiments of Lerio and others that last balance council, by making Riptide unable to independently support the might status, cost the game some subtlety of strategy that is worth restoring. Certainly, this buff does not break anything.
Coral – In my opinion, this is by far the worst change of this council. I consider Coral already OP, playing well above the cost/provision curve. She is also very binary by supporting the highly draw-dependent discard package and by providing excessive tempo for the likes of Aerondight. And now she is beyond typical bronze removal range.
Etherial – While there is no harm in this buff, it is quite pointless. Etherial decks can no longer have sufficient consistency to be viable (which is a very good thing). But Etherial is a control or lose card – just not one with enough overload potential to become a major problem.
Hawker Smuggler – I’m not sure here – Smugglers were not bad cards before. I don’t think this change will result in overpowered decks (although carryover engines can be dangerous). But undoubtedly ST has a lot of bronze cards that more need and deserve a boost.
Immortal Cavalry – This is another buff I find questionable. 8 points for 5 provisions, with protection against damage pings and two shields for the likes of Roegner and Damned Sorceress seems a bit much.
Cutup Lackey – Lackey decks never worked. This change might be enough to tip them into viable range. I don’t think the buff is enough to impact any other archetype.
Dun Banner – This is another dangerous change I would not support. I don’t think Dun Banner becomes problematic with this boost, but Foltest/Banner/Pavetta decks have a very binary, answer-or-lose architecture that I do not want to see supported.
Power Decrease:
Demavend – Nice. The card can still generate good value (with protection/zeal), but loses some of its potentially broken engine value by coming within bronze removal range.
Regis: Bloodlust – After the developer’s change to Bloodlust, the card lost its binary, game – deciding power. In my view, it became a reasonable card that did play well above the cost/provision curve, but not by a decisive amount. And it came with significant, strategically interesting drawbacks. It is the type of card I would like to see used more, not less. Thus I oppose this change. But so long as it does not get further nerfed, I think the card is still OK
Radovid: Judgment – I suppose, compared to Roach, Knickers, etc., the nerf might be in order. But Radovid: Judgment does not have the same thinning value. While I don’t object to the nerf, I would not consider it necessary either. I think a nerf to King Radovid V might have better addressed the same issues.
Cave Troll – All defenders are somewhat binary as they add a layer of draw “skill” to remove or-lose-mechanics, but I would consider Cave Troll no worse than any other defender in this regard, and I hate to see the “symmetry” of 7-point defenders broken. The only real justification for this is Troll’s interaction with Witches Sabbath. But if this interaction is the problem, players should address the source of the problem (Sabbath) not the recipient. I would like to either see this change reversed, or all other defenders equivalently nerfed.
Frenzied D’ao – I see no justification for this nerf. The challenge of including rock barrages, coordinating D’ao with enough other constructs to allow it to play for above the cost/provision curve while avoiding bricks, and finding meaningful targets justifies its original cost.
Dennis Cranmer – This nerf is probably OK, but I never saw Cranmer as an issue. Kudos to any player able to set him up to obtain good value.
Vildkaarl – This change is a subtle buff, allowing Vildkaarl’s berserk condition to trigger with 2 rather than three damage pings – something much more easily achieved by SK. And Vildkaarl does merit a buff. I would have preferred a buff to go to Artis as that would have been both more interesting and more flexible, but the change to Vildkaarl does not preclude a future power buff to Artis.
Nauzicaa Sergeant – It is time for NG hate to subside enough to consider reason. Prior to this nerf, Sergeants played as 10 points for 6 provisions, which is pretty close to the standard cost/provision curve. Given they can only be played for this value after losing a round, they cannot be used in round one or in a 2-0 push. And generally, you don’t want lower-value bronze cards for round three. These are sufficient drawbacks. The only problem with Sergeants is the ease of copying them and their ability to trigger assimilate engines. And if these are truly issues, the correct approach is to address the source of the problem – the cards that copy soldiers and the assimilate engines themselves. I consider this an ill-judged nerf.
Slave Driver – Easy copying of bronze units is a problem, and one that ought to be addressed. Slave Driver deserved a nerf. That said, Slave Driver is the most innocuous of all the “copy a bronze” types cards as it has low tempo, requires a surviving card on the board to copy, and provides only a 1 strength copy. A good change, but why were Operator, Reaver Scout, Reinforcements, Vigo, Adalia, Tyrconnel, Arachas Queen, Pavetta, Lippy, Melusine, Sigrdrifa”s Rite, Freya’s Blessing, Shani, Assire, Truffle, Mobilization, et. al. not addressed first?
Oxenfurt Scholar – I don’t see the problem with this card. I guess it could have been a 13 for 4 in an extreme case, but this would be pure pointslam (no synergy or engine value) with severe deck building restrictions. On the other hand, it does support binary levels of deck polarization and a type of mindless play, so I don’t oppose the nerf.
Provision Increase:
Hidden Cache, Jackpot, Fruits of Ysgith – I don’t see that any of these leaders needed a change. In fact, I would prefer to see cards better balanced before leaders are addressed as that more easily allows leaders to be evaluated. And I think there are literally hundreds of OP cards that merit a nerf more than these leaders need a buff. But I think this type of change has a relatively harmless impact, so I am OK with it.
Temple of Melitele – This card was definitely OP in its first form, and a provision increase is the only way to deal with it. I like the change. Unfortunately, to become balanced, this card’s first form really needs another 3 or 4 provision increases. And by then the second form would be way overpriced. This appears to me to be one of those unfortunate cards that can only become balanced being killed.
Witches Sabbath – Sabbath is both OP and binary. I both support this nerf and another three of four on the same card.
Magic Compass – With a variety of very different options, Compass can be strategically interesting. It also seems to be very clunky, binary, and potentially OP. I think the nerf is appropriate.
Mutagenerator – Mutagenerator is a hard card to evaluate, being very dependent upon both deck design and draw. I am happy to see this kind of binary junk nerfed, even if it is over-nerfed.
Tempest – This strikes me as a pointless, even counterproductive nerf. Tempest would generally only be used in Wild hunt or Rain decks. In wild hunt, it breaks devotion and is hard to justify even if it plays for 6 provisions. Rain decks are far from top tier and have enough other ways to generate rain that Tempest does not contribute significantly to a deck. But raising the cost of Tempest does reduce creative deck building options (based upon thinning) with other archetypes that probably won’t ever produce a meta level deck, but that could be playable and interesting. I hope to see this nerf reverted, but I doubt enough players care enough about Tempest for this to ever happen.
Thirsty Dame – Dame was (and remains) one of the engines that simply generates too much value, creating remove-or-lose situations that are very binary, as well as promoting the type of removal heavy decks that are uninteractive in that they leave nothing on the board to interact with. Because it is both binary and creates unpleasant styles of play, I am happy to see Dame nerfed to oblivion. 10 provision cost might actually “fix” the card.
Onager – Like Dame, Onager generates too much engine value with the same consequences as Dame. But it is even worse. Its engine value is removal, not boost. It is not vulnerable to tall-punish. And it can play with high tempo is multiple charges have been built up before it is played. This is another card I am happy to see killed. A one-provision nerf is not sufficient, but it is a start.
Provision Decrease:
Inspired Zeal – I think a nerf to this leader is probably in order, but I still prefer to adjust leaders after the cards are better balanced.
Chapter of Wizards – Ok buff. I think NR mages does need a bit of a boost, but I would much prefer to see that accomplished by buffing weak cards in the archetype (even if this takes several balance council cycles) than by buffing one of the more OP cards. And Chapter of Wizards does play for too much value in a single card – even without the possibility of Dwimveandras.
Triss: Telekinesis – 10 provisions is probably about the right cost for Triss. Even with this buff, I doubt she will see much meta play, but that is because there remain too many overpowered cards in the meta.
Geralt: Quen – This buff should help another underperforming card. But I recommend that future buffs to adrenaline-based decks should occur in the weaker adrenaline cards.
Fallen Knight – I think this is a bad target for a buff. Much like Thirsty Dame, it carries too much engine value. The only justification for this is that the Firesworn archetype is under performing. But the correct solution is to boost the underpowered base cards, not high-impact, already overpowered cards like fallen knights (especially when these cards can be used to create lock-immune, engine overloads).
Circle of Life – at 5 points for 4 provisions, this card is still weak. But with carryover and removal potential, the card might be playable. A well justified buff.
Tuirseach Skirmisher – I don’t like SK’s discard package. It is too draw dependent and ridiculously high tempo when draws are good. I do not want it encouraged or buffed. I would have favored a nerf instead.
Sewer Raiders, Casino Bouncer – In themselves, these are relatively harmless buffs (although thinning cards from other factions should then get equal buffs). But I do think there are much more meaningful targets for buffs available. And SY has probably received too many buffs in a single patch.
Bare-Knuckle Brawler – This is the one change I voted for. SY needs unlimited, one-coin spenders for many cards like Casimir, Evelyn, and Boris. For playable flexibility, it is important such cards can be created by Eventide Plunder. This reverts a previously ill-conceived change and reopens a “spendthrift” archetype.
The changes are in. Are they logical? Let's look at 4 examples.
For the purpose of the discussion let's consider power and damage as points.
1.) The most glaringly illogical change is the power decrease to Cave Troll. All the defenders are 7 points; plus all have some combo of 2 Armor. Donimir and Covenant are the exact same card, Ffion if you boost it also, Azar same deal but different configuration. So why the nerf? Makes no sense.
2.) Sewer raiders, 4 cost for 8 points: It's the exact the same card as Mahakam Volunteers, Wild Hunt Rider, Crow Messenger, and Hunting Pack, that are all 5 cost for 8. All share some prerequisite, none harder or easier than the other.
3.) Thirsty Dame, Onager, and Bare-Knuckle: each is 4 points, but the cost for B-K is 4 and the others 6. Each is actionable either by order or by virtue of an outside action. On deploy, TD can get you 1 to maybe 5 points depending on status possibilities, Onager has slightly higher possibilities if the board is really set-up, B-K can give as many as 13 points if you're coins are at max. Provided they stay on the board, the point possibilities in the next rounds favor B-K, then Onager, TD the lowest, but TD has the advantage of being at a higher power and so more difficult to remove. One could argue which is the better card. I think they're about even. Not sure why the first two cost 6 and B-K 4.
4.) The Vildkaarl nerf can actually be seen as a buff. The goal with Vildkaarl is for it to be damaged to get to 12 points. More than likely, it is in a self-damage deck. The change was perhaps to make it easier to destroy. The chances are that the deck player will just give it 2 damage immediately, making it easier for that player - a good self-damage deck has multiple ways to create such.
Just my opinion, being a negative Nicky again.
1. Agreed. This change creates undesired inconsistency.
2. Again, agreed.
3. No. It is fair to compare Dame and Onager, (and for that matter, Fallen Knight, Fleder, Ancient Foglet, and Messenger of the Sea). All are potentially multiple point per turn engines that generate far too much value too easily. But Brawler is not an engine -- he is a spender. He only gains value by expending resources that are generally worth points anyway. And compared to other spenders, at one coin per point of value, he is inefficient.
4. I would argue that this change is perfectly reasonable -- as a buff. I doubt anyone really intends it as a nerf.
Actually he is, he has intimidate keyword
Overall those changes seem like an output of some poor random number generator. I think it's about time for me to finally take a break from Gwent for some time.
A few head scratchers, especially cave troll since Sabbath is clearly the problem. But it 's not the worst change we've seen.
The only glaring omission is probably NG Battle Stations, that card offers too much for what it costs. Then there's MO Deathwish. MO is my main faction but I think the archetype is just a bit overtuned at the moment. Arachas Queen and giant toad, at the minimum need to be nerfed.
Reflections on December 2023 Balance Council Results
Most comments here are largely based upon conjecture: I don’t have extensive experience playing Gwent under the new changes. And many are based upon personal preferences: I want to like all factions equally; I want matches generally determined by meaningful player choices (both in deck building and in play) rather than random chance (especially draws and match-ups); I want variety in viable decks; I value creativity and originality.
My first reaction is “Finally!” Finally, a balance council that does more good than harm! Finally, a balance council that starts to look beyond the next meta! Finally, a balance council that does not revolve around Nilfgaard! Finally, a balance council that does not significantly buff already overpowered cards simply to match with other overpowered cards! Finally, a council that I believe will break the pattern of making changes, then undoing them! And I can write this even though only one change I supported was actually made.
3. No. It is fair to compare Dame and Onager, (and for that matter, Fallen Knight, Fleder, Ancient Foglet, and Messenger of the Sea). All are potentially multiple point per turn engines that generate far too much value too easily. But Brawler is not an engine -- he is a spender. He only gains value by expending resources that are generally worth points anyway. And compared to other spenders, at one coin per point of value, he is inefficient.
4. I would argue that this change is perfectly reasonable -- as a buff. I doubt anyone really intends it as a nerf.
Yeah, I have to disagree with you on Bare-Knuckle buddy and I'm not as enthusiastic as you on some of the other changes. I usually agree with you but not on everything this time. Also, I voted for Ethereal, and someone used it against me quite effectively today. Works fantastic with drones. Wow, you put a lot of time and thought into your post. Awesome!
Reflections on December 2023 Balance Council Results
I want matches generally determined by meaningful player choices (both in deck building and in play) rather than random chance (especially draws and match-ups); I want variety in viable decks; I value creativity and originality.
I didn't have time to respond to all of your well-thought-out post yesterday. Sorry. I wanted to say that I also value creativity and originality. I think it's awesome when someone develops a unique strategy and I like doing the same. I can't wait until I have all the cards to have even more flexibility. However, I don't think draws and matchups will ever not be part of this game. It's a card game, not chess. Luck will always be a significant factor. It's also a reason I'm not a fan of the balance council. Beyond functionality, I see no reason for change. I know the developers added it because they want to keep the game fresh, but it just isn't. The cards will always be the same cards, with no new ones. I see the changes so far as mostly biases based on what decks people don't like to play against. I said a few months ago, the playing field is equal regardless of whether there are changes or not. Though it is not chess, imagine if the value of the pieces on a chess board changed monthly because some players think pieces have too much sway in the game. For example, the queen has too much power so let's limit her movement to only half the board, or pawns are just pawns so let's increase their value somehow. I don't want to screw with my decks every month because the costs of cards have changed, I want to use creativity and originality to develop new combinations and have the satisfaction when they work. I can't imagine being a chess fan and piece movement changes every month or some other garbage. I'd quit playing. I just concluded my first year of Gwent. I love the game. I find the monthly balance council changes annoying and may not participate in them in the future. Hopefully, I don't lose interest in the game.
