Choosing Leader Card Afterwards

[KingBlackToof]

Choosing Leader Card Afterwards

Hi guys,
One of the things I'd like to see tweaked is the ability to choose your Leader Card after you've picked your 10 card starting hand.

I realise this is not in Gwent: TWCG.
But not having the ability to do so caused some bad hands in W3 Gwent & my Real Gwent Matches.

Skellige Gwent Match [video]https://youtu.be/4x-0ru2ksks[/video]
One example is I chose (seen above)[Skellige] King Bran (I only take half reduction from weather effects) and then I didn't get a single weather effect in my hand. That is a bad hand for that strategy and at which point would have loved to choose [Skellige] Crach an Craite (Shuffle card from both players Graveyard to their Decks)

Another example is if you get a bad Monster Deck Hand, you know duplicate Muster card, even after the Redraws.
You're a bit done for. At this point you'd be tempted to take [Monsters] Eredin Bringer of Death - Discard 2 cards and choose 1 from your Deck.

I realise in Gwent:TWCG you can now Redraw 3 cards but I still feel being able to Pick a Leader Card after your starting hand will allow players to really tie their Deck together more often and will result in better plays and comboability.

- The negative might be, if you see your opponent is playing a particular Deck and one of your Leader Cards eliminates that Deck easily then it's a bit annoying. Weather cards come to mind. But we don't know if any Decks have that large flaw yet. Monsters certainly enjoy weather effects partially now.

Thoughts?

 

[SkyHeadCaptain]

Hey King I really like your youtube videos on Gwent. But i Think changing your leader after your hand is a very bad idea and would really mess with balance. I know your a huge Monsters player and that's cool but i think being able to redraw 3 cards will be enough to fix your hand to your leader ability. I saw your video where you talked about this and I still think this is a bad change for the game.

 

[KingBlackToof]

I appreciate the kind words. And you're opinion is great to hear.
I was always in the ballpark of 2 players with good hands is better than 2 players with mediocre hands - from a challenging gameplay perspective.

Can I ask how you feel it might mess with balance?
I'm not trying to change your mind just want to dig a little deeper into you're thoughts.

 

[SkyHeadCaptain]

I think the main issue here is after your starting hand and redraws you know what your opponent is playing, (oh your monsters i better chose the leader that puts frost down) or oh man i have 6 Siege cards i better grab the one that doubles Siege. I think picking a leader and building a deck around that leader is a big part of the game. Taking that away would hurt the game i feel. You are not going to win 100% of the time and bad hands for your leader will happen. I just think building around a theme and faction will lead to better games.

I hope i explained my point a bit more.

 

[Mythic_Pilot]

I think it's a good idea esp. if the redrawing and selecting the leader happens before you get to know your opponent's faction and leader

 

[SkyHeadCaptain]

I think it's a good idea esp. if the redrawing and selecting the leader happens before you get to know your opponent's faction and leader

Honesty I think the rules and how the games plays in Witcher 3 are very good it was just the cards themselves that needed fixing and balancing I don't find any of the rules or how it plays bad i really like it. I am more condensed about multiplayer balance if a faction has leaders for each Opponent. Lets say Scioa'tael can pick three factions leaders, Leader 1 Put a frost into play, Leader 2 Double your range line, Leader 3 put a rain into play. After redraw vs monsters leader 1,vs Northern Leader 3, Vs Scioa'teal leader 2.

Not every faction leader will see as much play as 1. Just like some cards. Being able to pick leaders will limit cd red on what leaders they can make. but why not test it make a mode in game and try i may be wrong but your taking an aspect of deck building away if you make this change. Variance not every hand will work with your leader it happens, but understand this may not seem like a big change but it changes Gwent a lot. One of the main draws of Gwent is the ability is buff and deserve this rules change hurts bluffing a lot. I think a mode worth testing is no one gets a leader ability. then it's just down to the cards and play. Just an idea thank you for reading.
[h=1][/h][h=1][/h]

 

[KingBlackToof]

Well I'm hoping Decks won't have clear weakness such as ' It's Monsters, time to Biting Frost everything'
At the moment this looks to be the case aswell. (see Below)
Monsters have several cards which get buffed in Fog:
Ancient Foglet: View attachment 57831
Foglet: View attachment 57841

and even more that get Buffed in Frost.
Nithral: View attachment 57851
Wild Hunt Warriors: View attachment 57861
Ice Gaint: View attachment 57871
And there are still more.


It's just that in some cases (Which may not be true in Gwent:TWCG) Leader Cards were never used or were clearly never worth gambling on using in hopes of getting worth from it. Which is a shame because they were usually the more interesting ones.

Here's some Examples
Monsters - Bringer of Death - Discard 2 cards and Draw any card from your Deck to your Hand (ANY CARD!)

Francesca Findabair: Hope of the Aen Seidhe - Move agile unites to whichever valid row maximizes their strength (don't move units already in optimal row).

Emhyr var Emreis: Emperor of Nilfgaa​rd - Look at 3 random cards from your opponent's hand.

 

[SkyHeadCaptain]

Like I said they should have a mode to test Being able to choose the leader after redraw if it makes the game better then everyone wins. I just think building a deck around a faction and leader will make deck building more important. Will it work every time no if it did the game will get old to fast. So i say test it just know deck building changes alot.

 

[Coto132]

I agree with SkyHeadedCaptain in that it would mess with the balance of the game. I believe that leaders should be a compliment to whatever deck you are playing, and if you choose a very specific leader ability there is room for punishment of inconsistency for the level of power. In TW3 Gwent I enjoyed playing a deck that relied on Bond cards to win rounds. There were very few instances where I could not draw with consistency (Despite only having 3 spies and no Avalach) and win the game. The only issue that I encountered was biting frost, and due to this I always guaranteed myself a clear weather with my leader ability.

If I were able to guarantee that I had a clear weather as well as powerful cards in my hand I could choose a more powerful ability that would make the power level too high for reasonable play. Having one hand to end them all isn't a fun or engaging type of play when cards like scorch are so easy to play around.

If you choose a powerful situational ability as a leader skill you are opening yourself up to counters or weak hands losing games, if you choose a general leader ability you are sacrificing power. I think that this kind of balance is needed to ensure that one type of deck doesn't dominate the game, and wouldn't exist at all if you could choose your leader after seeing your hand.

On a side note, it seems a little anti-synergistic with the flavor of the game if you could choose your leader after your cards. You have an army, with a certain person ruling them. The army can be tapered to the opponent, but the leader is constant. It makes sense to me from that standpoint that the leader wouldn't change (Even though its not actually changing the person, just the state the person is in).

 

[Mythic_Pilot]

I agree with SkyHeadedCaptain in that it would mess with the balance of the game. I believe that leaders should be a compliment to whatever deck you are playing, and if you choose a very specific leader ability there is room for punishment of inconsistency for the level of power. In TW3 Gwent I enjoyed playing a deck that relied on Bond cards to win rounds. There were very few instances where I could not draw with consistency (Despite only having 3 spies and no Avalach) and win the game. The only issue that I encountered was biting frost, and due to this I always guaranteed myself a clear weather with my leader ability.

If I were able to guarantee that I had a clear weather as well as powerful cards in my hand I could choose a more powerful ability that would make the power level too high for reasonable play. Having one hand to end them all isn't a fun or engaging type of play when cards like scorch are so easy to play around.

If you choose a powerful situational ability as a leader skill you are opening yourself up to counters or weak hands losing games, if you choose a general leader ability you are sacrificing power. I think that this kind of balance is needed to ensure that one type of deck doesn't dominate the game, and wouldn't exist at all if you could choose your leader after seeing your hand.

On a side note, it seems a little anti-synergistic with the flavor of the game if you could choose your leader after your cards. You have an army, with a certain person ruling them. The army can be tapered to the opponent, but the leader is constant. It makes sense to me from that standpoint that the leader wouldn't change (Even though its not actually changing the person, just the state the person is in).

you win guys ,, it's not a good idea after all

 

[Coto132]

you win guys ,, it's not a good idea after all

Im not saying its a bad idea, its still up for debate. There would have to be some kind of balance, its a matter of finding that balance, not if the idea is good or bad.