Just found this thread, so re-posting here from big pile of random PTR feedback topic.
TL;DR: I think the new round system is way better than what we have now and sounds better to me what fixed-row early beta version (which I didn't have chance to play, only W3 version with some friends). I also think
it actually would work better 2 rows than 3. Unfortunately there's just not enough cards that capitalize on that.
(Although statistics in OP seem significant underestimations to me as it doesn't account for many positional cards not having explicit Melee, Ranged or Reach keyword and actually these are the cards actually make the whole system interesting).
I'm not gonna talk about current system as there's more or less an agreement in the community that current row system is almost meaningless. Let me know, if you disagree with this. I can also share my opinion on this.
So what's good in the new row-system:
- Reach mechanic obviously makes the list. It capitalizes on row placement and gives solid basis. It's simple and elegant: you have the vulnerable, but offensive Melee row and the more protected Ranged row. Reach 1 goes melee-to-melee, Reach 2 you have to decide to protect your card or target the ones your opponent tries to protect. It's also a choice whether you only want to protect your key engines, or want to spam Ranked row denying opponents Reach 1 (and Ranged Reach 2) cards risking a big Lacerate.
- Then there are the cards that trigger only from one row. I think that's better than simple row-locking as it gives you options and while you pretty much have to place your stronger Golds on the "right" row, with bronzes you could often get by without the added benefit. I got punished a couple times when wanted to maximize effect of all my row-locked cards. Since we usually start the round with our bronzes, we have to anticipate and make these decision beforehand. If new Gwent manages to evolve into a meaningful 3-round game, then you also gonna have to plan from start which row-locked Golds you wanna play in this round and which one later - if necessary adapting on the way as round goes on into more risky plays.
- Choose row for effect cards add even more complexity to this, as it may be non-obvious which is the right row from ability aspect (although very often it is).
- There are also cards with less obvious row considerations like Magne Division which is one of the more interesting generic bronzes. It's usually your first play and you have to decide right then which row to put him on based on your and opponent's anticipated cards so that you can benefit from its ability for as long as possible (assuming he won't just get insta-killed of course
). You also have to decide during the round when to put your first unit next to him (shutting him down in the process), because you want to play a row ability or just for the sake of avoiding excessive row stacking.
- Then we have punish cards like Lacerate what we already know from old Gwent, but with less rows to distribute units among and the added restrictions, it's not that easy to dodge these cards anymore. You no longer have to build the entire deck around movement or row-stack encouragement (e.g. weathers) to get decent value from these cards.
- Also we do not have these punish effects on dedicated hate cards only, but also on archetype cards like Deathwish Kitten (formerly Blood Moon, don't recall its proper name right now). Granted there's not many of these latter effects right now, but more on that later.
- It's also nice to see more effects that capitalize on placement than plain "damage everything on one row", like Blue Mountain Elites or that NG Soldier unit that damages by number of the units on the other row. Many cards capitalize on adjacent placement as well: trying to play around Arachas Venom seems like an interesting challenge.
Where it should be improved:
- While as mentioned there are some punish cards, there aren't that many that gets played. Probably it's just not that easy to make randomly room for a Lacerate in most decks. I still see possibility for it to become at least a tech card.
- As mentioned before there are not too many archetype cards capitalizing on placement. We have archetype synergy cards with bland effects. And we have cards with interesting mechanics that capitalize on opponent's row placement on cards that have no synergy with anything, so don't find a place in any of the decks. The solution is obvious for me: move the interesting effect to archetype cards, redesign the other card from scratch.
- I also see that Reach cards are usually not punished for Melee row placement. I mean they can be punished indirectly if they get played into row-hate cards, but most of them you don't really want to protect to consider Ranged row placement as they only have Deploy effect. A positive example in this sense is Imlerith or Ves as you have to decide whether you want to target enemy's engines on Ranged or protect your own Order activation. A less obvious example of the mechanic utilized well is Cyclops who you also don't have to protect, but the enemy can keep weakening your viable cannon fodder cards on Melee so adds a nice possibility for counterplay.
- I don't think that any-row cards and any-row eliminations are properly priced at the moment. They should be either of higher cost or more conditional or risky plays. I see this mainly as a balance issue. I mean why play into Ranged row for protection, if it's not much harder to eliminate your unit there? Why worry about row-stacking if you can fill up your deck with enough any-row units to balance out the row-restricted ones?
- I also think it needs some more fiddling in general to find out which cards and abilities should be row-restricted (and to which row) to have impact, but not too much impact. (Right now we're more on the not enough impact side it seems.) No wonder, it's a pretty hard balancing problem.
So why not 3 rows?
- With more rows it becomes more easy to play around punish cards.
- Row-restricted abilities would also get distributed into more rows weakening the restriction.
- Choose row for effect cards would become impossible to balance in the masses. Coming up with 3 viable and sort of equal options is challenging enough. Weighing in which rows to put which effect (considering which rows other cards would get played) seems like a nightmare. Or you may make them activate an effect on multiple rows, again weakening the impact of row placement restrictions.
- It seems like an overcomplication for no good reason.
- I started my description with how 2-rows feel simple and elegant. It's also more intuitive. What would be the role of Ranged row in this system? You want your engines on Siege row, offensive cards on Melee, what to put into Ranged? "Protected but not that much protected"?
- Same with Reach. We would have Reach 1-4. What would Reach 2 do in this system? Or 3 or 4? Again it's very intuitive with 2 rows, seems overcomplicated with 3.
- Still only the same general rules would apply: put your units as backwards as possible to protect, while also avoiding excessive row-stacking and choose the row for effect intended. Choosing the right would just become a harder memory game to recall which possible enemy units have which row-restriction or exact Reach value. I see no real added depth.
- UPDATE: Less tutors mean less units on the board, 2 rows seem more fitting for current number of units.
- I said earlier that it's hard to make the system work properly even now. With 3 rows it would become even harder.
To summarize I don't think the new row system works perfectly right now, and that's an understatement. But also think it has great potential.
Adding another row would increase the complexity for sure, but I see no real added depth here, as all new mechanics work with 2 rows in a more intuitive and less finicky way. It may increase the difficulty of the game, but not the kind of difficulty I'd aim for. Also it would make it harder to implement and balance right.
