Carryover has always played a role in Gwent. And I believe it contributes to the game. But with recent expansions, I believe excessive carry-over is jeopardizing the entire game. What follow is to explain my concern. What do you think about carryover?
Carryover can be interpreted as any condition that endures beyond the end of the round to give a player advantage in later rounds. Carryover can occur in many forms. The first that come to mind are resilience, hand/deck boosts, and Syndicate coins. More subtle are things like graveyard manipulation, counter progression (for patience cards or cards like Gord or Viy that become more powerful after certain types of occurrences), or top deck manipulation. Technically, even intrinsic features of Gwent like card advantage, final say, and end of round hand/deck quality meet this definition and could be considered carryover. But particularly relevant to my analysis here will be a distinction between carryover due to card design (e.g., hand boosts from Dunca) and carryover due to game design (e.g., card advantage). Please recognize that some types of carryover can come from either card or game design or both (e.g. high deck quality can be created by mulligan choice which is game design, or by thinning which is card design).
Upon reflection much of the strategic (as opposed to tactical – long term as opposed to short term) richness of Gwent stems from carryover: largely carryover due to game design. These elements include card advantage, commitment, round control, and final say. I, at least, would not enjoy Gwent nearly as much without these elements. In fact, I can think of no aspect of the game design carryover mechanics that does not contribute to the value of the game.
Carry over through card powers has the potential to also add richness to the game. When you really think about it, there is a very limited number of different ways that cards can be created to impact a score: they can either have/produce points themselves, they can give/produce points for other cards, they can remove enemy points, or they can prevent enemy points. There are many creative ways to do these four things, but it is nice to also add cards to the game that affect match flow – the longer-term strategy cards and carryover cards. These add variety to card possibilities and widen strategic thinking as one must balance the prevention of opponent carryover with other strategic objectives.
But a problem occurs when card-based carryover becomes so strong that it overrides the game design-based carryover. Strategy becomes irrelevant – the game becomes all about tactics to prevent win-ensuring carryover. We see this already with decks centered on Kolgrim, Foltest, and Meditating Mages. These decks can render all strategic elements inherent from the game rules moot by being so powerful they must be countered – not just to have a chance in the round in which they are played (which is an issue with any OP card), but to have a chance in the match. And it does not suffice to merely make these cards easily removable. Making the cards easily removable causes very linear (non-creative) play. Play the carryover card, remove the carryover card, play another carryover card, remove it, etc. And OP carryover cards increase binary RNG (have a counter and win or lack the counter and lose). Even horrible cards like Cahir admit strategic counters (simply set up to win the rounds Cahir is not played in or prevent Cahir from being played when he gains maximal value) – OP carryover cards hijack all strategic advantage and prevents strategic counters.
In addition to cards already mentioned, there are numerous carryover cards now that are very borderline, including but not limited to: Viy, She Who Knows, Artaud Teranova, Yennifer’s Invocation, Anna Henrietta, Gorthur Gvaed, Erland of Larvik, Shani (in combination with patience mages), Dandelion, Archgriffin, Princess Pavetta (incombination with Blue Stripes Commandos or Dunbanner), Torque, Fucusya, Sigrdrifa’s Rite, Eist, Bride of the Sea, and Melusine. With all these very powerful carryover generators, I think we are entering a grey zone where the enjoyable game mechanics are being trumped by overpowered cards.
Carryover can be interpreted as any condition that endures beyond the end of the round to give a player advantage in later rounds. Carryover can occur in many forms. The first that come to mind are resilience, hand/deck boosts, and Syndicate coins. More subtle are things like graveyard manipulation, counter progression (for patience cards or cards like Gord or Viy that become more powerful after certain types of occurrences), or top deck manipulation. Technically, even intrinsic features of Gwent like card advantage, final say, and end of round hand/deck quality meet this definition and could be considered carryover. But particularly relevant to my analysis here will be a distinction between carryover due to card design (e.g., hand boosts from Dunca) and carryover due to game design (e.g., card advantage). Please recognize that some types of carryover can come from either card or game design or both (e.g. high deck quality can be created by mulligan choice which is game design, or by thinning which is card design).
Upon reflection much of the strategic (as opposed to tactical – long term as opposed to short term) richness of Gwent stems from carryover: largely carryover due to game design. These elements include card advantage, commitment, round control, and final say. I, at least, would not enjoy Gwent nearly as much without these elements. In fact, I can think of no aspect of the game design carryover mechanics that does not contribute to the value of the game.
Carry over through card powers has the potential to also add richness to the game. When you really think about it, there is a very limited number of different ways that cards can be created to impact a score: they can either have/produce points themselves, they can give/produce points for other cards, they can remove enemy points, or they can prevent enemy points. There are many creative ways to do these four things, but it is nice to also add cards to the game that affect match flow – the longer-term strategy cards and carryover cards. These add variety to card possibilities and widen strategic thinking as one must balance the prevention of opponent carryover with other strategic objectives.
But a problem occurs when card-based carryover becomes so strong that it overrides the game design-based carryover. Strategy becomes irrelevant – the game becomes all about tactics to prevent win-ensuring carryover. We see this already with decks centered on Kolgrim, Foltest, and Meditating Mages. These decks can render all strategic elements inherent from the game rules moot by being so powerful they must be countered – not just to have a chance in the round in which they are played (which is an issue with any OP card), but to have a chance in the match. And it does not suffice to merely make these cards easily removable. Making the cards easily removable causes very linear (non-creative) play. Play the carryover card, remove the carryover card, play another carryover card, remove it, etc. And OP carryover cards increase binary RNG (have a counter and win or lack the counter and lose). Even horrible cards like Cahir admit strategic counters (simply set up to win the rounds Cahir is not played in or prevent Cahir from being played when he gains maximal value) – OP carryover cards hijack all strategic advantage and prevents strategic counters.
In addition to cards already mentioned, there are numerous carryover cards now that are very borderline, including but not limited to: Viy, She Who Knows, Artaud Teranova, Yennifer’s Invocation, Anna Henrietta, Gorthur Gvaed, Erland of Larvik, Shani (in combination with patience mages), Dandelion, Archgriffin, Princess Pavetta (incombination with Blue Stripes Commandos or Dunbanner), Torque, Fucusya, Sigrdrifa’s Rite, Eist, Bride of the Sea, and Melusine. With all these very powerful carryover generators, I think we are entering a grey zone where the enjoyable game mechanics are being trumped by overpowered cards.
