Changing the way Potions work - diversifying the game away from buff-oriented meta.

[Nimraphel]

Changing the way Potions work - diversifying the game away from buff-oriented meta.

Throughout the last couple of patches, this one included, the meta has in large part revolved around buffs. Dominant monster decks and Dwarves rely strongly on Thunderbolt Potion (12 points) and Immune Boost potion (9 points + 9 armor) to keep up on points while safeguarding their carry-over. This mitigates the vulnerability or carry-over in the case of Monsters (Harpy eggs primarily), the effects of weather in both MS and Spelldwarves match-ups, which otherwise might be a mitigating factor during a long round 1, and exacerbates carry-over power.

Other potions - Overdose (12 points like Thunderbolt, but spread over 6 random units) and Swallow potion (8 strength on one unit) - are never used.

The premise is that Thunderbolt and Immune Boost are too good, Overdose and Swallow too bad to the point of being unusable.

The trade-off of potions is theoretically that they require a board-state; if you have less than 3 row-stacked units, Immune Boost and Thunderbolt Potion will not achieve full value. If you have less than 6 units, Overdose will not achieve full value. Furthermore, Scorch/Gigni susceptibility is a risk that is associated with primarily Swallow, and to a much lesser extend Thunderbolt and Immune Boost potion. The two latter are thus simply too good. Furthermore, Immune Boost potion's niche - as an anti-weather tech - is nullified by its ease of application and the neglegible trade-off point-wise.

However, more often than not these supposed trade-offs are non-factors, at least for Thunderbolt Potion and Immune Boost potion. For Monsters, spawning 3 units is a non-issue, as is staggering their strength. For Dwarves, the same applies, particularly due to the revamped Elven Mercenary.

Short Analysis of each potion:
Overdose's conditions are too difficult to reliably fulfill, making it unusable.
Swallow potion is too weak to be worth using, particularly considering Scorch and Gigni.
Thunderbolt potion is too powerful (similar to Overdose) but much easier to fulfill, particularly due to staggering strength often being a non-issue.
Immune Boost potion is too powerful point-wise considering that versus weather, it essentially provides even more value.

The solution
Remove potions from the game as individual cards and introduce a new card: The alchemy kit. Playing Alchemy kit allows the player to 'craft' and play one of the four above-stated potions.
Furthermore, the potions craftable will be reworked into the following to account for the added flexibility of being able to choose:

Thunderbolt potion: Boost 3 units by 3.
Immune Boost: Boost 3 units by 2, add 2 armor to each (making it into a potential 12 point value if the row is weathered).
Overdose: Boost 6 random units by 2 (unchanged, but given the new flexibility it might see use, and the 12 points are justified given the requirements to board-state and random targets).
Swallow: Boost 1 unit by 10 (2 more points than Ambassador, but Ambassador is 8 + X value for NG with Impera Brigade(s) down, and can be nuked by Nauzicaa Brigade for additional value, can be Menno Coehoorned, Rot Tosser'ed etc... And Swallow will still paint a scorch target on the unit it is played upon. Higher risk, higher reward).


Why is this a good idea or even necessary?
Several reasons:

1) Thunderbolt and Immune Boost potion is seeing a lot of use in top decks and exacerbates the 'problems' of carry-over. Rather than thinking carry-over - a fine feature in itself that often comes with a trade-off - is a problem, I think it makes more sense looking at the things enabling people to play carry-over and keep up with high-tempo plays easily.

2) Certain potions are never seeing use, essentially making them dead cards in the card pool because they are either too situational or underpowered.

3) Future potions will as of currently have to compete with either 9+9 points or 12 points of strength respectively right now - so either we will face incremental power creep, which will render other cards unusable, or we will see potions that are even more tech-oriented and situational, which might not see use either depending on the meta at any given time.

Future prospects - what happens if more potions are added?
Categorize the different potions and introduce offensive/defensive alchemy kits for instance. The work-arounds are simply enough and would not impede what is essentially a more creative, more meaningful, more elegant potion system.


Conclusion: Ultimately, reworking potions into this would expand design space for future potions, rebalance their impact on carry-over, and indirectly help bring particularly the dominant Token Dagon meta into line, as well as to a lesser extend Spelldwarves. More diversity, better balancing, more meaningful micro-choices within a given game, less snowballing carry-over effects.

 

[4RM3D]

While I agree that potions are in a problematic state right now as you've described, I don't think your suggestion is the way to solve it. First of all, I dislike all-purpose cards like the mages, and the Alchemy Kit becomes just that, only with potions. Because of the extreme flexibility of the card, it should be silver, which also means you still need bronze core cards. Besides, both the Alchemy Kit and the bronze potions don't have to be mutually exclusive. Also, what if CDPR wants to release even more potions (e.g. Maribor) with the next card expansion?

Now, if you want to make a card that can survive the evolving meta and the card expansions, it would have to be something like this: [Alchemy Kit] Look through your deck and graveyard, select one potion card, create a copy of that card and immediately play it.

BTW, instead of making it a spell, you could also make it a 1 strength unit to combo it with Decoy and unit ressing.

 

[Skryba86]

I think a bronze card like that would be far too versatile. Very strong candidate to become an auto include. I like the idea, but it would entail going into silver territory, IMO. Which wouldn't fix the potions problem.

 

[Nimraphel]

While I agree that potions are in a problematic state right now as you've described, I don't think your suggestion is the way to solve it. First of all, I dislike all-purpose cards like the mages, and the Alchemy Kit becomes just that, only with potions. Because of the extreme flexibility of the card, it should be silver, which also means you still need bronze core cards. Besides, both the Alchemy Kit and the bronze potions don't have to be mutually exclusive. Also, what if CDPR wants to release even more potions (e.g. Maribor) with the next card expansion?

Regarding future potions, I addressed that in my post already.

As for the flexibility i.e. in mage cards, I assume that is a personal and subjective preference. I personally like the mages a lot, although some of them could have more compelling choices (hello Ida Emean), and the micro-decision making aspect they introduce. To me, mages and that kind of flexibility is a good thing.

As for the flexibility of the potions - since the amount of potions would be capped at 3 per deck (unless in the future there would be other categories/kits like I described in my original post and which addresses your issue of future potions added to the game. In that case you would balance each kit's available pots to account for the increased maximum and flexibility. It would still be vastly easier to balance than the current messy state of potions). The limited number would also off-set the flexibility they provide. Furthermore, it would avoid the current silliness of i.e. Dwarf deck running 4-6 potions, which exacerbates carry-over problems and make for very binary games.

Now, if you want to make a card that can survive the evolving meta and the card expansions, it would have to be something like this: [Alchemy Kit] Look through your deck and graveyard, select one potion card, create a copy of that card and immediately play it.

BTW, instead of making it a spell, you could also make it a 1 strength unit to combo it with Decoy and unit ressing.

Either way could work, but I am not personally a fan of making it a unit, as all the potions would have to be balanced around that. Furthermore, it would further ease the application of Thunderbolt and Immune Boost potions. The only redeeming quality with making it a unit, in my opinion, is that topdecking it round 3 would allow a Swallow potions to be cast on it, and thus Swallow might see actual use...

However, I personally vastly prefer making it a spell. Less tutor options for it, more in line with the role potions right now fulfill.

Have I convinced you yet?

 

[Nimraphel]

I think a bronze card like that would be far too versatile. Very strong candidate to become an auto include. I like the idea, but it would entail going into silver territory, IMO. Which wouldn't fix the potions problem.

Depends highly on the deck in question. Self-wounding? Not likely. Queensguard? No more than current Thunderbolt potion (my suggestion would lower that impact). Token Dagon? Maybe, but it would lessen their strength and not be different at all from the current auto-inclusion of TB pots. NR? Highly dubious. Nilfgaard? Again, highly dubious.

 

[Skryba86]

But I'm not referring exclusively to the current meta. I don't think it's a very wise choice to made big balance changes like completely overhauling a few cards into something different based on the current meta alone.

Thinking on future balancing, I think that having a bronze that can give you 4 different choices of buffing, between multi unit buffing, single unit buffing, or giving armor is going a bit far. The card becomes a no-downside meta-tool, that can fight off weather if it becomes prevalent again, can be used to buff single or multiple resilient units, etc.

Maybe right now it'd serve basically the same purpose as the potions do, albeit with a slightly nerfed effect, but that might not be the case in a different meta that can develop in the meanwhile.

Bottom line is: in my opinion your suggestion would create a neutral bronze that is too versatile for its own good. In the end I don't think it'd bring more healthy changes than potential issues. Even in the current meta, the best thing it'd do would be to limit the amount of potions in any given deck to 3. Maybe that would be a good change, but then again it can also be achieved by overhauling immune boost, and changing it into something else instead of a buff potion?

 

[Nimraphel]

But I'm not referring exclusively to the current meta. I don't think it's a very wise choice to made big balance changes like completely overhauling a few cards into something different based on the current meta alone.

Thinking on future balancing, I think that having a bronze that can give you 4 different choices of buffing, between multi unit buffing, single unit buffing, or giving armor is going a bit far. The card becomes a no-downside meta-tool, that can fight off weather if it becomes prevalent again, can be used to buff single or multiple resilient units, etc.

Maybe right now it'd serve basically the same purpose as the potions do, albeit with a slightly nerfed effect, but that might not be the case in a different meta that can develop in the meanwhile.

Bottom line is: in my opinion your suggestion would create a neutral bronze that is too versatile for its own good. In the end I don't think it'd bring more healthy changes than potential issues. Even in the current meta, the best thing it'd do would be to limit the amount of potions in any given deck to 3. Maybe that would be a good change, but then again it can also be achieved by overhauling immune boost, and changing it into something else instead of a buff potion?

I see your points, but I still maintain that this change would be superior also long-term. Why? Because the value of potions would be brought more in line with other bronze cards rather than being superior due to easily fulfilled conditions and overtuned numbers. Furthermore, we would see more potions being used, and further down the road CDPR would be able to be more creative in potion design. Case in point, the old Immune Boost and Overdose cards were never used (apply/remove weather immunity) at all. Too niche. The current Thunderbolt Potion and Immune Boost are too good in and of themselves (superior value to almost all bronze units and, in the case of immune boost, nullifying weather severely), and they exacerbate carry-over by nullifying the trade-off that carry-over should present, namely inferior power within a given round due to providing some for the next.

Right now TB and IB are included because they're too good at too many things, Overdose and Swallow never included because they're too situational or outright bad. Nerfing the two former would risk them fading into the same oblivion as the two latter, leaving us with 4 dead cards instead of 2. Buffing the two latter while leaving the two former untouched is incremental powercreep, which the game does not need.

Introducing the Alchemy Kit would mitigate the problem of immense carry-over, would create more variety in potions used, and open up design-space for future potions where CDPR can get creative and design even niche potions akin to the old IB/Overdose without fearing that these cards never see play.

 

[actionjack123]

putting in a "what if" idea....


What if... the potion's boost last only for X number of turns? (maybe like 4 or 5 turns)

 

[Skryba86]

I see your points, but I still maintain that this change would be superior also long-term. Why? Because the value of potions would be brought more in line with other bronze cards rather than being superior due to easily fulfilled conditions and overtuned numbers. Furthermore, we would see more potions being used, and further down the road CDPR would be able to be more creative in potion design. Case in point, the old Immune Boost and Overdose cards were never used (apply/remove weather immunity) at all. Too niche. The current Thunderbolt Potion and Immune Boost are too good in and of themselves (superior value to almost all bronze units and, in the case of immune boost, nullifying weather severely), and they exacerbate carry-over by nullifying the trade-off that carry-over should present, namely inferior power within a given round due to providing some for the next.

Right now TB and IB are included because they're too good at too many things, Overdose and Swallow never included because they're too situational or outright bad. Nerfing the two former would risk them fading into the same oblivion as the two latter, leaving us with 4 dead cards instead of 2. Buffing the two latter while leaving the two former untouched is incremental powercreep, which the game does not need.

Introducing the Alchemy Kit would mitigate the problem of immense carry-over, would create more variety in potions used, and open up design-space for future potions where CDPR can get creative and design even niche potions akin to the old IB/Overdose without fearing that these cards never see play.

I definitely see the value in what you're saying, and I'd be totally on board if you were suggesting something like:

"spawn swallow potion or thunderbolt potion" for alchemy kit 1 (or alpha) (so that swallow did something like boost a unit by 10, and thunderbolt did boost 3 adjacent by 3). And then you could have alchemy kit 2 (or beta) "spawn immune boost or overdose" (in which immune boost could heal up to 4 adjacent units and add 3 armor to them, and overdrive could boost up to 6 random units by 2, for example).

Basically giving 2 different options to each kit, so as to not make them too versatile, and try and balance them by those options (kit 1 would either buff by a lot a single unit, making it more vulnerable to scorch, or buff by a small amount 3 units, scattering the buff, and kit 2 would be more utility, healing and adding armor to deal with weather, or buffing x random targets for a high value).

This way you'd remove the potions as stand alone cards themselves, and divide them into spawned specials by each kit, therefore reducing the number off buffs to 3 per deck for example, but still not making the kit too versatile for a bronze.

 

[Restlessdingo32]

Not sure I like the idea of the alchemy kit. That seems like a lot of versatility on a bronze card. Perhaps it would be fine with potions being reigned in a bit. If not it could be reasonable with certain requirements/conditions stuck on it.

I agree with pretty much everything else.

 

[Kinglionsfox]

I would rather have more cards that do different things, and keep the potions as they are. The Alchemy kit idea is too versatile and reduces deck construction choice.

 

[partci]

... what if CDPR wants to release even more potions (e.g. Maribor) with the next card expansion...

Cat - reveal 2 Random Cards in your opponent' deck? :surprise:

 

[Draconifors]

Cat - reveal 2 Random Cards in your opponent' deck? :surprise:

Or Golden Oriole: Apply on a Unit to have the next Damage it is dealt Boost it instead.
:wondering:

 

[Pruny]

What if... the potion's boost last only for X number of turns? (maybe like 4 or 5 turns)

Good idea

 

[partci]

^ Actually I was thinking it would be best for Manticore Venom - 3 adjacent Units x3 turns x2 DMG each (it's a venom, right?).

Or Epidemic x1/x2 DMG per turn, BUT it spreads on the row among the uninfected units.

... so here's where the above mentioned Golden Oriole will come in handy.

Of course, those sound more like Silver Cards.

 

[4RM3D]

I see your points, but I still maintain that this change would be superior also long-term. Why? Because the value of potions would be brought more in line with other bronze cards rather than being superior due to easily fulfilled conditions and overtuned numbers.

I was thinking about all these different potions and then suddenly I thought of Thunder and Lacerate, and then it kinda struck me (the idea, not the Thunder), that it would be unfair for potions to have this flexibility, while still having separate cards for Thunder, Tremors, Lacerate, etc. Thus making Alchemy Kit silver would still be the best thing to do.

 

[Nimraphel]

Lots of comments - thank you all! I'll try and reply to each and every one of them

I would rather have more cards that do different things, and keep the potions as they are. The Alchemy kit idea is too versatile and reduces deck construction choice.

We saw that in closed beta with immune boost and overdose. They were never used. We're seeing it even now with Overdose and Swallow potion. Adding more niche cards will not help if people cannot commit to them in deckbuilding - and with IB and TB the way they are, it'll either result in more dead cards, or incremental powercreep.

Aside from that, I cannot for the life of me see how it limits deck diversity. Pots - and several different - might actually see play in more archetypes. Right now the predominant decks at 4k+ - Spelldwarves and variations of Dagon swarm - include upto 6 potions (IB & TB). With the Alchemy Kit, I could see a lot of decks incorporating just 1 or 2 of them even though potions are not necessarily a natural fit - perhaps to punish a greedy dwarf deck by applying a Swallow potion, or an overdose vs. an NG deck to counter Stammelford's - or just swing for 12 points.

Right now potions are the sole domain of Monster and Spelldwarves. Of the four potions in existence, only two see play. Whenever they do, they do so in abundance, because they exceed whatever bronze units can be thrown into their deck. This is plain and simple unhealthy and reveals a glaring design flaw. The Alchemy kit would expand future potion design space, and would promote versatility. I don't think they would be an auto-include as essentially all the potions except Swallow (who has other drawbacks) would be nerfed as well (see my original post) to account for the flexibility. Rein in the current dominating lists which rely heavily on pots, expand their usage beyond 1 faction and 1 other list.

putting in a "what if" idea....


What if... the potion's boost last only for X number of turns? (maybe like 4 or 5 turns)

Lore-friendly, but I think from CDPR's perspective, it would needlessly make the game more mathy and complex than it already is, which, judging by the general whine on forums and subsequently dumbing down of the game, is not a path CDPR wants to take.

Cat - reveal 2 Random Cards in your opponent' deck? :surprise:

Wouldn't see play; no tempo, dubious use. Would be another completely dead card. And this illustrates the problem of potions in relation to lore as well, and why the Alchemy Kit would help solve this; the effect you mention is lore-friendly and appealing, but gameplay-wise it's a terrible card. Making the Alchemy Kit would allow such potions as you describe to exist, so that they are available that 1 in 10.000 times you want to use it.

Or Golden Oriole: Apply on a Unit to have the next Damage it is dealt Boost it instead.
:wondering:

Interesting effect - and certainly not without merit. However, it has several problems:
1) the opponent can just choose not to damage it, thereby making it (yet another) dead potion.
2) it is underpowered versus weather; you trade a card for 2-4 strength, depending on weather. And Immune Boost would still be better vs. Weather, even on a single unit.
3) You generate no tempo while playing it, which is a no-go unless the effect is remarkably stronger (Adrenaline Rush being a good example).

Again, we're faced with the situation that the potion, while lore-friendly, would not see play due to not holding up against the almight duo of Thunderbolt and Immune Boost.

I was thinking about all these different potions and then suddenly I thought of Thunder and Lacerate, and then it kinda struck me (the idea, not the Thunder), that it would be unfair for potions to have this flexibility, while still having separate cards for Thunder, Tremors, Lacerate, etc. Thus making Alchemy Kit silver would still be the best thing to do.

No, for several reasons. Note: I differentiate between Damage and Removal. The distinction matters greatly.

1) Game design 101: Damage cannot be stronger, more accessible or more flexible than putting points on the table. This is an established CCG convention (and for good reason); more than just taking points away from the opponent, it might also crucially disrupt deck strategy. Damaging abilities/spells can never be de-facto stronger or more flexible than putting points on the table. CDPR already skirted close to this with the silver mages, which work, but which are also borderline auto-includes (particularly Water Hag).

2) Certain damaging spells have no ceiling. Lacerate is the best example, being able to accrue immense value in certain match-ups (i.e. vs. Consume/Weenie decks).

3) Certain damaging spells have utility uses as well, i.e. Alzur's Thunder nuking a cow carcass.

4) The existence of direct removal - i.e. Scorch, G:igni - serve another "no ceiling" purpose that allows removal/damaging oriented decks to "punch above their weight", far exceeding the value buffs can generate, with the caveat that they are conditional (20+ value / highest mob being an enemy).

5) Damage and Removal are and should always be a meta-call. The game would be in a terrible state if it wasn't the case. The choice to include potions is based on a given player's deck-building - and should (right now it doesn't) present a trade-off in vulnerability for power (i.e. removal/damage before potion buffs are applied, making them vulnerable). Adding flexibility to that does not detract from the inherent risks that should come with potions (especially not with the nerfs I've proposed to potions), it just encourages diversity in deck-building since avenues are opened up by allowing max 3 pots (of any kind) to decks that otherwise cannot justify including one (i.e. Nilfgaard, which never runs pots).

Now, as for your claim that making it silver would be best, I disagree strongly.

1) Even with potions remaining unchanged from their current state, there is no reason to include the Alchemy Kit if it is silver, as it is essentially just a silver tutor pulling out another TB or IB. Thus, it is far too weak even when viewed in isolation, but even more so when viewed in relation to other silver options. When taking Elven Mercenary into consideration, it is easily apparent how this would be a bad solution.

2) With my proposition of nerfing potions to keep their value more in line with other bronze cards but capping them at max 3 (potentially more in the future as more are added) and allowing flexibiltiy, more factions would consider them - but I sincerely doubt they would be auto-includes. They would encourage different strategies from factions we don't usually see (i.e. Overdose for NG if they run Vicovaro Novice and floods the board - right now Overdose is too risky to run).

3) I fail to see how you determined that an element of "fairness" should exist between damaging spells and potions. We're talking game design, not a kindergarden where Harry Potter, who loves to sling damaging spells at random people, complains that mini-Snape got a new set of potions and now nobody wants to play with Harry because mini-Snape is much cooler. Damaging spells will always serve a purpose, damage and removal can and will always be either "merely some" points (often decent value regardless of MU) or outright devastating and crippling.


To conclude...

Most importantly, this thread illustrates perfectly why the Alchemy Kit would be a good idea; the suggestions for future potions presents even more dead cards. The Alchemy Kit would vastly expand CDPR's design-space, allow for unlimited creativity since potion's use will be limited (cap, lower values, more niche effects), yet require very little commitment in terms of deck-building. It's a win-win, but particularly for CDPR and us players, who will see less dead cards in the future.

 

[4RM3D]

[...] Weenie decks [...] mini-Snape got a new set of potions and now nobody wants to play with Harry because mini-Snape is much cooler [...]

I personally like the mages a lot, although some of them could have more compelling choices (hello Ida Emean), and the micro-decision making aspect they introduce. To me, mages and that kind of flexibility is a good thing.

CDPR already skirted close to this with the silver mages, which work, but which are also borderline auto-includes (particularly Water Hag).

Eh, so you like the mages, but at the same time you think they are too... flexible? That's a bit inconsistent. As you know, while I do use the mages, their flexibility is a bit too much. When you look at Decoy, for example. That card is also flexible (e.g. against Cows and Traps). However, that's the good kind of flexibility that arises from it's core ability.

Game design 101: Damage cannot be stronger, more accessible or more flexible than putting points on the table.

Well, if you put it like that, then buffs should have a little bit of an advantage. Each time more cards are introduced means other cards will never see the light of day again. If certain type of potions are thrown on the junkyard, then maybe they should be made more flexible. Even then, there are still other options available. It would actually be possible to create a potion deck archetype when CDPR introduces some new cards, like a card that can turn a buff into damage and vice versa or a unit that gets extra strength from potions (e.g. the old Witchers).

 

[Nimraphel]

Eh, so you like the mages, but at the same time you think they are too... flexible? That's a bit inconsistent. As you know, while I do use the mages, their flexibility is a bit too much. When you look at Decoy, for example. That card is also flexible (e.g. against Cows and Traps). However, that's the good kind of flexibility that arises from it's core ability.

I don't think mages are too flexible, I did not say that. I am saying they are bordering on it - meaning that I think personally this is as far as they can go in terms of that type of design. It is also reflected in the fact that they have one spell (damaging except for Ida Emean and Gremist, with Gremist being vastly more useful), one weather and first light. Having i.e. Lacerate + Alzur's Thunder available would cross the line. Right now the mages balance that line beautifully, in my opinion, even if Ida could use a rework.

It is not inconsistent.

Well, if you put it like that, then buffs should have a little bit of an advantage. Each time more cards are introduced means other cards will never see the light of day again.

Certainly. You see that in HS and Magic: The Gathering all the time. These games are also much older and have a vastly bigger card pool that dwarfs Gwent's.

At this early point in the game, I think we should strive not to place numerous cards in the dumpster (there are already many - Ida Emean, Skjall, Overdose, Swallow, Necromancy, Dudu, Xarthisius, Vabjorn, Restore, The Last Wish, Priscilla, John Natalis, Gold weathers, normal Harpy, Shadow, Ice Giant, Reinforce Siege Tower (this one is comical, compare it to Immune Boost...), Wild Hunt Rider, DB Marksman, Sapper, Tridam Infantryman... The list goes on, these were just off the top of my head).

The way potions are currently designed, there is an overwhelming risk of creating new unusable dumpster cards, or pushing out existing staples through incremental powercreep due to the limited space for potions in a deck (as easy as it is to create the requisite boardstate for them, you can't stack 9-15 pots in a deck - thank God).

If certain type of potions are thrown on the junkyard, then maybe they should be made more flexible. Even then, there are still other options available. It would actually be possible to create a potion deck archetype when CDPR introduces some new cards, like a card that can turn a buff into damage and vice versa or a unit that gets extra strength from potions (e.g. the old Witchers).

How is making existing potions more flexible, multi-purpose "good in (m)any situation" more desirable than my suggestion? I'm curious, because to me it sounds like a terrible idea. A nightmare to balance, much more susceptible to meta-favoritism, and does not solve the current problem of their power level. It sounds more auto-include - and much less interesting - than my suggestion, which also allows CDPR to design lore-friendly, techy/niche potions, i.e. akin to some of the suggestions made in this thread.

Regarding a potion archetype, this is pure conjecture, and I don't see the worth of it at present. It is not something CDPR has talked about (and they've revealed a lot of insight recently), I doubt it is high on their list (at least it hasn't come up during some of the talks), and I cannot envision what a potion archetype would look like. 6 bronze units + 9 potions? That is barely different from some of the current dwarf decklists running 6. And it would run the risk of promoting even more Gigni/Scorch/BTM usage, the latter which CDPR recently rallied against, saying they are not happy with. We also don't need more 'dead' archetypes, i.e. Mulligan, and I strongly suspect a potion archetype would be just that.

I'm not convinced of the alternatives proposed - on the contrary, I think these discussions highlight why it is the right way to go from the perspective of future design, and vindicates the suggestion Reducing the commitment potions presents to deck-building (leading to only 2 types being used), reducing their power in line with reality, namely that the game has evolved to allow the requisite board states to be easily setup, capping their number, and making potions a flexible choice (also lore-friendly, I might add) that allows for creative designs and versatile use... Sounds like an exclusive win-win for everybody to me.

On another note, thanks for taking the time to reply - all of you.

 

[4RM3D]

Nimraphel

All that I wanted to say with my example was that there might be other solutions to solve the issue with potions. Didn't say it was necessarily better, just different.

Well, let's see what CDPR is planning with the next patch/card expansion.