Defined Archetypes vs Flexible Leaders

[Slizzl]

The uproar over this latest patch has gotten me thinking about the subject of whether the community prefer leaders to encourage players to build around a certain archetype like with White Frost or Battle Trance or extremely flexible leaders like Death's Shadow or Second Wind?

To me the answer was obviously the former, I've had this stance since the beta. I absolutely loathed beta Brouver (play any silver) because it's decks could just be a mishmash of anything that brings big points. I was disappointed to see them bring more leaders like that into Homecoming but now they're finally gone and I've realized I might be in the minority on this.

 

[DRK3]

I do like the idea of solid archetypes with leader abilities supporting them... if executed properly. Which doesnt seem to be the case - Battle Trance is just stupid, so glad i already have all SK Masteries and wont have to use that stupid crap. Spawning a mardroeme is similar to Mahakam's Forge, but it has multiple targets where it has synergy (DracoTurtle, 2x Drakkars, etc.). But healing a unit everytime an alchemy is played? Are we supposed to put GS on alchemy decks now? Because alchemy doesnt usually deal with damaged units, that's another archetype.

And White Frost, makes sense as an ability but i dont think its strong enough, it seems a weaker variation of ST's Guerrila Tactics.

But returning to the main OP question: there should also be room for creativity in deckbuilding, allowing interesting combos, and unfortunately it also seems the game is shying away from that path.

 

[Draconifors]

I like both, and I think both need to exist.

Abilities that are tied to a specific archetypes are cool in that they are designed for a specific type of deck -- but on the flip side, they can only ever be (efficiently) used for that specific type of deck.
Which means that every time you see such an ability you know what the deck's going to be. I personally like not being able to tell what an opponent's deck is based on the leader ability alone.
(And of course it also limits one's own deckbuilding.)

An example of an archetype Leader that I really liked was Morvran Voorhis in beta, when he was the Reveal Leader.
An example of a flexible Leader that I really liked was Jan Calveit in beta, when he had the current-but-soon-to-be-old Tactical Decision ability. Also, Radovid, especially when he was the "YenCon killer".

 

[Iuliandrei]

There was a discussion like this back in beta aswell, and leaders like Brouver were the exception, probably because the small card pool and not many archetypes were available but some of the leaders were strongly tied to specific archetypes.

I think Morvran is a good case study on "archetype" leaders and also shows the evolution of CDPR's attitude on leader abilities.

After Reveal was removed from the game Morvran was made into the "soldier" leader, however it was too strict. He has able to boost a soldier by 2 and put a soldier on top of the deck. This version failed, be it because of the ability being difficult to use or soldier archetype not being good enough, whatever the reason the soldier requirement was removed. Now Morvran is more of a general purpose leader with a slight bonus for a soldier deck, which is what i personally prefer from a leader ability, something that works well universally but has a slight benefit in the right archetype.

The biggest problem with Morvran's ability right now is Affan, a terrible card to print, completely removing the decision from the second part of the ability. It also makes the card mandatory for playing this leader ability and it's the reason the ability will get nerfed.

 

[Jollyrogerxberg]

The evolution of Morvran is a really good example and a top analysis of a card not to print. I give you another one: Graden/Wild card. I tried really hard to build a wild card collusion deck but always ended up playing Graden.
I'm with Draco for the most part. To have both is good, given the number of leaders avaible is high enough.
I really like leaders to support an obvious archetype but aren't limited to one deck.
Mahkam forge is obvious dwarf support with a small option for unitless dwarfs but is very limited. Morvran is (was) a bit too strong and flexible regarding other NG options but is okay as an engine protector / pointslammer if it wasn' for Affan to be to autoinclude.
Deadeye ambush is pretty boring but a good example of my sweet spot here. Obvious elf swarm but not too limited. A good pointslam and swarm option that can combo with a whole deck or just some key cards. Quite easy to balance given floor and ceiling. I loved old eldain but this is the better desing for the game. MO overwhelming hunger could also fit. It is obviously necessary to play some good deathwith units in an OH deck but you have the choice to highly or just partly comit your deck to it.
What I don't like and will always oppose is lockdown as a leader. You desing your game as a ccg with a leader added to the deck. Why give the NONO option? It just hurts deckbuilding and is never to be balanced proper by provision because it depends so much on the opponents deck.

tldr: I like leaders to support archetypes but still offer options for creative deckbuilding.

 

[judgecsk]

- You can add leader abilities to the game and see how the people react and adapt to your changes, what we have here with 7.2 just takes options away making you conform with what the creators tell you to play destroying potential deck originality and creativity imo.

- First add the things you want to see people play then listen and change as necessary, that's what they did with the Ethereal, that's what they said they like to do, put things in the game then balance and nerf to make it fair, how's fair to remove abilities that people love and play is beyond me .

Why have only one option or some when you can have plenty...

 

[BlackSwan1092]

I like to build around archetypes. Makes the deck building process fun for me.

I love my Devotion Wild Hunt MO deck. White Frost might help me a bit with my strategy and can come in handy in a clutch (like moving a defending or row card) so I'll try it out tomorrow for sure. The first deck I'm fixing.

However, I do agree that there should be more flexibility. We'll see where their ideas go over the next few months.

 

[Shagric]

I think the goal should be to have multiple playable/viable archtypes for every faction.
So you cant have to many flexible leaders, because then all decks will play the same strong cards and the leader that benefites this playstyle the most will be picked the most.
At the same time you cant restrict the leaders to much, because then they autofill the cards and there is no room for creativity and experimentation.

The leader update sadly failed on both ends.

Now we have a bunch of restricting leaders aiming for the same mechanic for some factions and flex leaders for other factions.
First of, i think ST and MO are in the best spot leaderwise atm, their leaders are more diverse than other factions and encourage the usage of different archtypes and cards. for ST we have Harmony, Gord/Symbioses, Elf swarm, Dwarves, Shirru - while not perfectly balanced, they can all be played with some success. MO has Thrive, WH, Deathwish, maybe Swarm archtypes that get supported by different leaders.

SY, NG, NR and SK have 2-3 different archtypes that are playable, but most leaders aim for the same synergies.
SY has the hoard/engine package that gets supported with minor changes by most leaders (4 out of 7), gord/crime and swarm are the alternatives.
SK has the bloodthirst/warrior control list, that can pick between 5 leaders which are totally interchangable aside from strength, making most of them utterly pointless. Gedyneith/druids and selfwound are the only solid alternatives.
The same can be sad for NRs engine/boost archtype. Here we got 4 leaders competing for the same decklist, while stockpile is just plain worse by miles because it cant even protect those engines. zeal is playable. and thats about it.
and Lastly NG.. here we got a bounch of control lists, all almost identical. double/single ball doesnt really make a difference, the gameplan is the same. argueably 4-5 leaders support this archtype.. assimilate and hyperthin have some support.

now what did the update change about this, what variety do the new leaders bring to the table?? you are correct. absolutly nothing new.
In the contrary, it DID remove midrange control with vicious slash for NR and some meme miracle decks for SK. Aswell as the targeted abuse decks like kikimora and stuff (which i do support).

This leaves us at a much much worse state then before. only ST and MO are in a "healthy" spot leader wise, but Mo's balance is completely broken, almost removing them from the game..

So the TLDR: ST and MO have the best designed leaders, but the MO balance is broken.
SY, NG, NR and SK have a bounch of leaders that target the same archtype, resulting in decks that are basicly the same and leaders that dont see any play whatsoever because they are simply outclassed.

 

[quintivarium]

I guess my perspective is different — I prefer leaders that fit this spirit of the faction, but that support nearly all archetypes in different ways — ways that make the archetypes play differently. For example, a Patricide warrior deck feels different than a Second Wind warriors deck even if most cards are the same. Unfortunately, I think that ideal is hard to achieve.

 

[ShinAkira00]

So the TLDR: ST and MO have the best designed leaders, but the MO balance is broken.
SY, NG, NR and SK have a bounch of leaders that target the same archtype, resulting in decks that are basicly the same and leaders that dont see any play whatsoever because they are simply outclassed.

I would say MO and ST have unique leaders not necessarily the best designed. The other faction leaders while not unique allows for synergy across archetypes so you don't know what you might encounter based on just the leader they use. That can be more powerful than the former because they can easily combine archetypes.

Whether one approach is better than the other is tough to say but I think everyone should have the same options.

Give each faction one leader that isn't tied to a defined archetype then make the rest support for specific archetypes.

 

[Bleach25]

I one thing thar I've never liked about HC Gwent is that flexible is often a synonym for generic. I welcome this change hoping it will increase flavour and faction identity

 

[Celadyl]

as long as leader abilities arent too streamlined and limited in their execution I like them.
I think the new nature's gift ability is really tailormade for the symbiosis archetype and feels really good imo, was exactly what the archetype needed