If Call of the forest was power crept by Royal Decree then why ST keep using it over Decree?
You're also not right about devotion. Evolving cards aside, some archetypes support it to the point it's actually worth to go that way (MO, SY, SK)
You're also not right about devotion. Evolving cards aside, some archetypes support it to the point it's actually worth to go that way (MO, SY, SK)
Any consensus on the next BC?
I don't like to revert previous made changes, but i agree that Compass and Siege could use a revert and Reavers a power buff.
Ofcourse our armchair-fingerpointing-to-the-devs days are over and balancing is difficult. Although the devs made some horrible choices as well like those bandits/bonded package, awful imo, just as a lot of the SY and ST changes (salamandra lackeys, arena andrega, savy hucksters, heist, hattori, pendant etc etc.) and then i am not even looking at the toxic ones here or at Radovid Judgment instead of Calanthe.
Still not sure what to do about the other Reavers card, Highland Warlords or Thirsty Dames. Also i like to buff the SY whores and ST precision strike, Milaen, Pendant and Hattori, but also Wardancer, Blue Mtn Elite, Panther and there are just not enough slots. There are many others oc like Angry Mob, Lyrian and Keadweni cavalry, Lyrian Pikeman, Menagerie Keeper, Wyvern, Wraith, Axe-wielder, Axeman, Brokvar Archer etc without looking at the special cards even.
For now my picks:
power+
Cutup Lackeys ***
Fringilla Vigo **
Reavert *
power-
Sigvald ***
Carroballista **
Highland Warlords *
provision+
Hidden Cache ***
Compass **
Siege *
provision-
Milaen ***
Serrit **
Crownsplitter Thug *
*Rivian Pikeman not Lyrian.
I don't like to revert previous made changes, but i agree that Compass and Siege could use a revert and Reavers a power buff.
Ofcourse our armchair-fingerpointing-to-the-devs days are over and balancing is difficult. Although the devs made some horrible choices as well like those bandits/bonded package, awful imo, just as a lot of the SY and ST changes (salamandra lackeys, arena andrega, savy hucksters, heist, hattori, pendant etc etc.) and then i am not even looking at the toxic ones here or at Radovid Judgment instead of Calanthe.
I agree, I removed it from my BC.
Still not sure what to do about the other Reavers card, Highland Warlords or Thirsty Dames. Also i like to buff the SY whores and ST precision strike, Milaen, Pendant and Hattori, but also Wardancer, Blue Mtn Elite, Panther and there are just not enough slots. There are many others oc like Angry Mob, Lyrian and Keadweni cavalry, Lyrian Pikeman, Menagerie Keeper, Wyvern, Wraith, Axe-wielder, Axeman, Brokvar Archer etc without looking at the special cards even.
For now my picks:
power+
Cutup Lackeys ***
Fringilla Vigo **
Reavert *
power-
Sigvald ***
Carroballista **
Highland Warlords *
provision+
Hidden Cache ***
Compass **
Siege *
provision-
Milaen ***
Serrit **
Crownsplitter Thug *
Post automatically merged:
*Rivian Pikeman not Lyrian.
And I may have under estimated the impact of removal on the value of a card. Normally I figure an eight-provision card should play for 12 to 14. Riptide has a floor of ten and is unlikely to play for more than about 16 — hitting a 10 point card after getting 4 armor buffs. It doesn’t seem that great. But comparing to alternatives (e.g. Rockslide, Parasite, or Imlerith’s Wrath), it is.
I don’t know whether the moral is that one shouldn’t over-rely on point/provision curves or that even a small deviation from those curves can create imbalance.
Call of the Forest used to be powercrept by Decree for the longest time, before the devs finally made them the same provision. The cards were brought up to illustrate two points. One, that this notion of neutral card powercreep equaling apocalypse is actually nonsense, since the dev have done nothing but powercreep faction cards with neutrals for like the last year (and in some cases ^ a lot longer); and two, that here are two cards of similar but slightly different abilities justifiably costing the same provisions. Call of the Forest boosts by 1, but is limited to only tutoring ST units, while Decree doesn't boost, but tutors ANY unit. Both are used, depending on what cards in your deck are important to have access to, and both cost the same. The situation is very similar to Yenvo vs Heatwave. Yenvo cannot deal with artifacts, but Heatwave cannot steal units. Both should cost the same and should be used according to their strength and deck context.If Call of the forest was power crept by Royal Decree then why ST keep using it over Decree?
You're also not right about devotion. Evolving cards aside, some archetypes support it to the point it's actually worth to go that way (MO, SY, SK)
And as for devotion, what you listed as "archetypes" are actually factions, and if they were archetypes, then NG also has one that supports Devotion (status), not that it's very relevant.
Post automatically merged:
As a note here, I don't think Filavandrel needs that power increase, because it goes against the mechanics of how he works: he should have an option of creating a 4p card. Therefore it's probably better to buff him through provisions, if needed.
Last edited:
How does it goes against the mechanics of he works? The ability reads:
Deploy (Melee): Create and play a Scoia'tael special card with a provision cost equal to this unit's power.
Deploy (Ranged): Create and play a Scoia'tael special card with a provision cost equal to or lower than this unit's power.
So, it doesn't specify base power. It just says this unit's power I assume it's current power here. So, if Filavandrel is at 5 base power, then you can create 5 provision cost Scoia'tael special card on Melee and you can create less than 5 provision card in Ranged. Also, it will take lesser handbuff to reach 8 power so that he can create 8p Scoia'tael special card.
Is that reason enough though? Are MO cards only supposed to be used in one archetype? It's the one faction where that rule seems to apply. Every faction has cards that are auto include in several decks. If Riptide is being used for removal it's because the faction lacks any removal at all. Most factions have several such options, I don't think that defines a card as OP.
For me It's provision cost vs the points a card plays for the vast majority of the time.
Yes, it doesn't specify base power, but by buffing his base power, you're basically relegating 4p specials to his ranged ability, and decreasing consistency of the choice by about 50% percent, because instead of having a choice of 3 cards out of 4 that you would by playing him on Melee at 4 power, you will have a choice of 3 cards out of 8 by playing him on Ranged with 5 power. How he works is you play him on Melee if you manage to buff him to just the right power for the purpose and the timing, and you play him on ranged if you basically overbuffed him, to try and get the desired result at the cost of consistency. I see no benefit in giving him 1 extra power to force 4p specials into inconsistent ranged.
Changing my votes due to BC-nerf. Not gonna focus on dead cards any more:
I am not sure if you are joking or did it mistakenly or you are serious. You want to make Magic Compass 8 provisions and Seige as 12 provisions and Ball as 13 provisions and Reaver Hunters as 7 provisions and so on?
It is your vote and your choice, but you said you want to take it seriously so I guess you put wrong cards in wrong category.
I am 100000000% sure Magic Compass is not going to become 8P and every other of your pick (I sincerely hope so.. Seige at 12P will most likely make me to quit the game or change to NR main)
What is the reason behind buffing Necker and Lippy archetypes?
Siege and MBall buffs and Heatwave nerf make little sense, there are many more problematic cards that require attention.
Imo all og scenarios should sit at 14 provisions.
real list not-definitive
Just reading https://leriohub.com/october-season-report-meta-decks-experience/ and gwentdata etc to make definitive list. Suggestions welcome!
Post automatically merged:
and 5 per bracket? 20 max sounds boringly low. Or the devs could fix bc by first buffing dead cards like Milaen and many others at once...
Attachments
-
1699697021790.png
Last edited:
Final submission. Ogroids and Deathwish need a nerf but no more room so I'll have to hope other players cover those two or I will focus on nerfing them specifically next month. I play MO mainly but even I can recognize when something is overtuned. For Ogroids the obvious issue is King Chrum and for deathwish I'm leaning towards Giant toad. Remove them and things are far more balanced for their archetype. I think the community needs to not just look at buffing their preferred faction but also areas where they think that faction needs a nerf.
Yes...Buff AND Nerf your faction. My main deck has 6 Ogroids in it and just said and I quote "Ogroids and Deathwish need a nerf".
I buffed WH cards that no one is playing...Oh the horror. Read the entire comment, that might help you put the pieces together. I'm guessing you're using one of the meta decks being nerfed but chin up, you'll be ok.
You've just aptly demonstrated the short term thinking that was being discussed here previously. Yes, buffing dead cards allows more variety so ppl don't immediately copy paste meta decks. There's also an Ogroid in my nerf list right there and the rest couldn't make it for this round because Renfri is a higher priority but I literally said the rest will be added next. Why would I encourage ppl to nerf Ogroids and Deathwish if I'm against nerfing MO? How did you resolve that in your head?
Better yet let's show that neither of us are being hypocritical. For the next month let's both confirm the faction we play the most, we can share match stats from the game as proof and then we will both agree to nerf our own faction. We'll even post that balance list here, easy to eliminate any hypocrisy right. I'm game because I'm willing to nerf my favorite faction when it's called for, are you? Just tell me when you're ready.
Last edited:
I can't sufficiently express my dissapointment with the fact that you can vote.... [...] But instead of only criticising I'll help you. I agree with you that ogroids need a nerf and I personally have voted for nerfing Enraged Cyclops but for the love of God: INCREASE PROVISIONS NOT LOWER BASE POWER! Just read their deployment ability: after X turns set base power to 10. IT ABSOLUTELY DOESN'T MATTER IF STARTING POWER 3 OR 4 - AFTER X TURNS IT'S SET TO 10! That is a wasted vote that doesn't change anything. Congratulations.. Another EPIC nerf, or rather "nerf"..
Moreover stop F***ING NERFING NIFLGAARD. It's at the edge of being unplayable already....
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh, really? How about it would be easier to kill before the counter sets its power to 10? That's the actual point.
Based on my experience against ogroids, I'd sat that 19/20 cases the timer is set to 0 or 1, in which case you can't react to this. If this discussion was done a week ago, I'd say that I've never seen the timer set to 2 or more but recently I've seen the timer set to 3. My opponent immidiately has used a leader charge on it, so Cyclops' power equalled 7. After the "nerf" it would be 6. Now how do I kill a 6 power unit? Options are: assassination, parasite, masterful spear, Deranged Corsair+1 leader charge of Onslaught, what else? I personally would like to vote in such a way that the nerf is not limited to specific (I'd say rather not common) situations.
If your opponent used a leader ability charge to get a 4pt bronze unit with no ability to 7pt then you were the one who won that turn not them because they just wasted a charge. There's a difference between wanting to balance a card and wanting it dead.
At 3pts it is easier to remove because a Carapace charge would only get it to 6pts. That's far easier removal than 7pts and they would need to use all 3 charges to get it to 10 vs 2 charges before...this would be a loss for them. Also the only time they will have the timer at 1 is if it's the 1st round AND 1st turn. For the rest of the 1st round as well as round 2 or 3 you will have 2 or more turns to remove it. You can't just assess a card in one specific scenario and ignore the rest.
Post automatically merged:
Now the reason I'm not in support of a provision nerf for Enraged Cyclops is because Nerfing King Chrum will automatically make Ogroids weaker. I'd rather make it easier to remove and yes, it does matter if you think about it for a minute rather than shouting in caps. Do better
It seems you do not understand how the card works. Why do you think the card is always played first? Unless your opponent plays the card in the 1st round AND on their 1st turn then you will have at least 2 turns to answer a 3pt card. More importantly at 3 power, the Carapace leader ability will only boost it to 6pts which is still in removal range for a lot of factions and outside of the Might mechanic. 7 pts would have been difficult to answer and using 2 charges to protect that card would be a loss for them.
Some of these comments really does not give me confidence that a lot of thought goes into these changes.
Last edited: