Gwent Card of The Moment

+
CARD OF THE MOMENT: Milva: Sharpshooter

Faction: Scoia’tael
Provision Cost: 11
Power: 3
Card type: Unit
Zeal Order: Damage an enemy unit by 1.
Deathblow: Shuffle self back to your deck.
Ability: Whenever an enemy unit moves during your turn, summon self from your deck to the opposite row, then damage it by 1.
Use Frequency: Depends upon current level of nerf.
Synergies: low IQ players

101 ways to nerf Milva:
I am fairly certain by this point that developers have run out of ideas for nerfing this card. Here are some creative solutions. I am a few suggestions shy of 101 – this is not because I can’t count, but because I want to save room for your thoughts; please share.
  • Make Call of Harmony give 12 provisions
  • Remove Resilience from Gabor Zigrin
  • Make Oakcritters a gold card.
  • Boost all Reaver Hunters by 1.
  • Make Milva a member of Monster faction.
  • Change Milva’s name to Yrden.
  • Change Milva’s Order: damage a random enemy unit by 1.
  • Reduce Milva’s power to 0.
  • Change Milva’s Deathblow: shuffle self into opponent’s deck
  • Change Milva’s tag from bandit to trap
 
CARD OF THE MOMENT: Milva: Sharpshooter

Faction: Scoia’tael
Provision Cost: 11
Power: 3
Card type: Unit
Zeal Order: Damage an enemy unit by 1.
Deathblow: Shuffle self back to your deck.
Ability: Whenever an enemy unit moves during your turn, summon self from your deck to the opposite row, then damage it by 1.
Use Frequency: Depends upon current level of nerf.
Synergies: low IQ players

101 ways to nerf Milva:
I am fairly certain by this point that developers have run out of ideas for nerfing this card. Here are some creative solutions. I am a few suggestions shy of 101 – this is not because I can’t count, but because I want to save room for your thoughts; please share.
  • Make Call of Harmony give 12 provisions
  • Remove Resilience from Gabor Zigrin
  • Make Oakcritters a gold card.
  • Boost all Reaver Hunters by 1.
  • Make Milva a member of Monster faction.
  • Change Milva’s name to Yrden.
  • Change Milva’s Order: damage a random enemy unit by 1.
  • Reduce Milva’s power to 0.
  • Change Milva’s Deathblow: shuffle self into opponent’s deck
  • Change Milva’s tag from bandit to trap

I really like the last change, wanna see it added to Renfri too.

But seriously I don’t know why they release obviously broken cards only to nerf them to oblivion later. The game economy doesn’t support “pay to win” type of getting the cards (all the cards are free as long as you have scraps).
In other games broken stuff is available through real money only (e.g. by buying dlc with it or boxes with the stuff for real money). In Gwent however I see no reason to do that other than make an appearance that the game is alive
 
CARD OF THE MOMENT: Sapper

Faction: Neutral
Color: Bronze
Provision Cost: 6
Strength: 2
Armor: 2
Deploy: Play a bomb from your hand, then draw a card.
Barricade: Whenever you play a bomb, damage a random enemy by 1.
Use Frequency: rare
Notable Synergies: all bombs, Madoc, Alissa, cards that create and play soldiers

Comments:

One of the most underestimated changes in patch 11.3 is to the card Sapper – and it’s easy to see why. With emphasis on Bandits and Bonded units, switching to Soldiers is not an obvious move. And there is already a surplus of very good (aka. OP) bronze soldiers in the game. But Sapper is unique amongst soldiers; it almost single handedly brings several bomb archetype decks to viability.

One major problem with bombs is that they offer limited removal while having low point to provision value. Sapper increases this value significantly, adding a two point body plus thinning to a bomb use, then providing one extra point value to subsequent bombs. It’s use is definitely niche, but I want to offer it as an example of the right way to buff archetypes – not with some flashy, OP payoff card, but with a subtle foundation layer. It is a card that adds stability and balance avoiding the tendency for new cards to be binary.

I don’t know whether bombs are truly viable even now, but I can say that I (who once hated the bomb archetype) am finding it enjoyable to experiment with. That is an accomplishment worth noting.
 
CARD OF THE MOMENT: WAGON

58D0150C-4048-4CA8-A799-36CD9DE89643.png


Faction: Neutral
Color: Bronze
Provisions: 6
Power: 5
Armor: 3
Deploy: Banish the bronze unit to the right, then gain resilience.
Order: Transform self into a base copy of the banished unit.
Exposed: Purify self.

Comments:

Since it’s revision, Wagon has flown under most player’s radar. On the surface, it feels weak — low tempo to possibly preserve a low value card for the next round.

But in the right deck, it has surprising usefulness. It’s most obvious weakness is that, with few exceptions, the good bronzes not needing deploy either belong to archetypes already easily able to copy/reuse them without Wagon (e.g. Reavers) or are cards one cannot afford to destroy in the current round (e.g. Fleders).

But this view is a little bit tunnel visioned. Cheap, easy resilence itself can have tremendous value. It gives a significant level of strategic control. If played in round one, an opponent must either burn valuable removal on a heavily armored target, or concede carryover. (I often use Wagon on a garbage card — like a one-power token — with no intention of triggering the order. Then, despite low tempo, Wagons almost always trade up to removal.) If an opponent concedes carryover while winning the round, the Wagon either gains a card, or forces an opponent to bleed. And if I win, it either forces out a fairly good card or assists with my own bleed. I play it in decks that easily generate weak tokens and that want a short round three.

Wagons are also great for removing unwanted interlopers like NG spies or SK wounded Sirens. And the occasionally useful order is a nice bonus. So….

Come one! Come all! See the new and improved Wagon!! Sample our snake oil and experience eternal life! (Almost.)
 
Last edited:
SVALBLOD TOTEM

Faction: Skellige
Color: Gold
Provisions: 10
Location
Resilience
Deploy:
Spawn a Svalblod on each side of this card
Order: Damage an allied unit by 2
Cooldown: 1

Comments:

It is hard to dispute that Totem is a good card; it is easy to underestimate just how good.

I really appreciate Totem’s flexibility — it is playable in any round: it needs no set up; it is not too costly for round one (also not generally a win con, so it is expendable); it is good for either either bleeding or defending a bleed in round two; it bears sufficient points for round three; it is good in both short and long rounds, and it has decent engine/carry over value in self wound archetypes.

Especially notable are its numerous synergies: especially Svalblod, Vildkaarl, Tuirseach Veterans, Svalblod Fanatic, Dracoturtle, Sigvald, Armored Drakkar, and other Selfwound fixtures. It’s resilience and rapid cooldown often allow it to substitute for the Ursine Ritual leader — permitting new deck ideas or simply allowing other leaders with better value.

Totem is a card I always enjoy having: it suits my sense of variety, strategy, and flexibility. I hope others can discover its appeal.
 
Last edited:
Can i do one of these please? If its not OK or you want to cover it yourself, i can move it to another thread. I SHOULD wait for your response, but this is kind of a spur of the moment thing, and if i waited, i might lose interest in it later. But feel free to deny it afterwards @quintivarium , i would not take offense.

CARD OF THE MOMENT: SQUIRREL

Tag: Beast
Faction: Neutral
Color: Bronze
Provisions: 4
Power: 4
Deploy: Banish a card from your opponent's graveyard.
(Not so notable) Synergies: SK Beast deck with Kelpie or Corrupted Flaminica, Sove target.

This card has become a cornerstone of Gwent, but it's also a symptom of one of its many problems - binary gameplay.
Usually when we complain about Gwent being binary, we point to the top golds, the 'answer or lose' cards. But the lower end of the provision spectrum also has a few examples that dictate a match result. Squirrel probably being the main one, the other being "MVPellar", to purify an enemy defender protecting the 'answer or lose' card, so if you heatwave the defender, then you dont have the counter for that, hence why you need the pellar, or other purify... But since there are other ways to deal with defenders, pellar isnt as symbolic as squirrel.

The popularity of squirrel changes with each meta. In the current one, its incredibly popular, some players even tech two, something i had never seen before in Gwent. Of course that there is also Xavier Lemmens, which usually does the same job, but he's rarely used as usually a single GY banish is enough, and in most matches it will be useless.

THE USUAL SUSPECTS
Any Echo cards; Madoc; a lot of big SK threats that are usually revived like Melusine or Sigvald; Golden Nekker or Battle Stations!, which are often put back in deck to be replayed; Knickers and Roach on Lippy decks; Rioghan on rain decks; Arachas Queen or defender on any Witches Sabbath deck; etc.
More recently - Open sesame, on virtually all SY decks, for cheap carryover.

HOW TO PLAY AROUND SQUIRREL
You play around it by playing the vulnerable card at a time where your opponent wont have a chance to squirrel it away. OR, you play around it like Heatwave - you include multiple threats in your deck and your opponent will only be able to banish one (assuming Xavier or multiple squirrels is too rare and doesnt need to be considered).

WHAT DECKS GET BEST VALUE FROM SQUIRREL
Squirrel is obviously matchup dependent. The key is to mulligan him away, only play it when needed. In most cases, with a good knowledge of the netdecks, you know when you'll need it, but there are always some surprises.
Therefore, decks with great tutoring or consistency are the best fit, where you get all your best cards in hand, and you can afford to oneiro/ royal decree into a squirrel if the need arises. Or when you can simply discard him if not needed.

WHY IS SQUIRREL A PROBLEM?
Im not implying squirrel shouldnt exist. When a 13p card dictates a win, its bad but tolerable, but when its a 4p unit that is mulligan fodder on 70% of the matches and potentially game-winning on 10-20%, 'binary' definitely comes to mind.
This problem likely will never go away. Sometimes, a meta comes where squirrel is not needed at all, and he stops seeing play, but that is temporary until a new meta arrives - especially if it has OP echo cards - and then the trusty squirrel always returns!
 
DRK3's post on Squirrels has made me ponder exactly what "binary" means (or at least where the root issue with certain "binary" cards lies. There is no denying that this four provision card can be the difference between winning and losing certain match-ups, while being totally useless in others. So, at least in some sense, the card is binary. But it is also undeniable that the only reason the card is binary is that it eliminates the possibility of an opponent playing an over-powered card from the graveyard. (Incidentally, all OP cards are always binary as not drawing them can easily win or lose matches, but not all binary cards, e.g. Squirrel, are overpowered.) I am therefore more inclined to value cards like Squirrel as counters to to very unpleasant excesses (Melusine, Amphibious Assault, Heist, targets for Witches Sabbath, etc.) than to discount them as binary. If other problems in the game are addressed, cards like Squirrel will never be an issue.

But Squirrel has a couple of other features: first, it is very low tempo -- using it against echo cards in particular is risky, as it can also either lose a round or cost a card. If played against cards with reasonable, but not decisive, amounts of return (not cards so powerful that their removal from the graveyard is essential to avoid losing), this makes Squirrel a strategically interesting addition to the game. Unfortunately 20 base power Melusines, or three copies of Tugo do not give balanced returns; rather than being a subtle choice, Squirrel can feel like a binary necessity.

And Squirrel has a second, undesirable and binary feature (one shared with Korathi Heatwave) -- it disproportionately disrupts Skellige and Monsters, the factions designed around graveyard play. Thus, it is not only RNG binary, it is matchup binary. No card should ever primarily target a particular faction. Squirrel is also guilty of this.

But that makes me also consider other cards that may not be binary in and of themselves, but that contribute to binary play -- several things come to mind: locks, Operator, Defenders -- and I am certain I have missed others.

Four to six provision locks are often a necessity against the ridiculous 6-point per turn engines that are proliferating in Gwent as well as against super-charged order cards, but are low value bricks against decks gaining most value on deploy. This is binary. But the problem is not the locks -- it's the cards that generate so much value that they must be directly answered.

Operator is not itself a problem. But it becomes one if the bronze cards it copies have too much specialized engine value (e.g. Fleders). Often, two such cards can be controlled by removal/locks, but three exceeds a reasonable amount of control that balanced decks should have and is very binary with matchup. High removal opponents are not threated, while low removal opponents are overwhelmed by the existance of this card. And Operator is also binary when paired with cards that gain effectiveness with numbers (removal engines, Crow Clan Preachers, Cintrian Royal Guard, etc.).

Finally defenders. With so many remove-or-lose cards in the game, defenders create an extra layer of draw dependence. Now, one not only needs access to a removal card, they also need access to purify to get through the defender to the threat. None of this is really the fault of a defender, the fault lies entirely with the existence of remove-or-lose cards.
 
Four to six provision locks are often a necessity against the ridiculous 6-point per turn engines that are proliferating in Gwent as well as against super-charged order cards, but are low value bricks against decks gaining most value on deploy. This is binary. But the problem is not the locks -- it's the cards that generate so much value that they must be directly answered.
I almost always include at least one lock in my decks, on all the Decks of the Day, probably +80% fit this description.
I rarely find a lock is bricked, in the current meta, only against MO ogroids a lock isnt valuable, even in those, they have that bronze ogre that boosts by 1 if there's might. And against SK, they always have bronze ships worth locking.

What i wanted to know is what are those 6-point per turn engines you mention. Didnt you mean 2-point per turn? Because those, i agree, they are indeed proliferating, and making the other 80% bronze engines that only do 1pt per turn obsolete.
The only 6pt per turn engines i can think of are golds, like Gezras, Brouver, Kolgrim (a lot more than 6, but only for 2 turns), maybe sir kitty, paired with koschey. Then there are NR engines, which get a ton of points but individually they are usually only 1pt per turn.
 
What i wanted to know is what are those 6-point per turn engines you mention. Didnt you mean 2-point per turn? Because those, i agree, they are indeed proliferating, and making the other 80% bronze engines that only do 1pt per turn obsolete.
The only 6pt per turn engines i can think of are golds, like Gezras, Brouver, Kolgrim (a lot more than 6, but only for 2 turns), maybe sir kitty, paired with koschey. Then there are NR engines, which get a ton of points but individually they are usually only 1pt per turn.
Actually two point per turn engines (at least if boost based) taken in extreme moderation (so it become virtually impossible to accumulate more than 3 or 4 points of engine value in general) don’t really bother me. With the power creep in the game today, they can be out performed or addressed strategically, e.g., with careful bleeding — they don’t have to be removed.

The 6-point per turn engines I discussed (and I exaggerated a bit — I would include any combos of engines that accumulate over 6-points per turn) are usually either gold or combos that rapidly contribute a lot of points. And there are a lot I would add to your list. These include (and I make no attempt to be comprehensive)
  • Keltullis
  • Unseen Elder (with other bleed engines)
  • Tugo
  • Bloody Mistress (if multiply copied)
  • She-Troll
  • Orianna
  • Self-eater (after multiple divisions)
  • Cahir
  • Cultists (after Eternal Eclipse is procced)
  • Thirsty Dame (with Pikeman)
  • Kimbolt
  • Foltest (with correct target)
  • Raffards Vengeance (average with crew effects and occasional reduction in cooldown)
  • Immortals (with cursed mage)
  • Dana
  • Quarixis
  • Sticky Situation (round 1)
  • Dal Blathanna Sentry (with enough movement)
  • Tyr (second form)
  • Svalblod
  • Artis
  • Arnaghad (with Sukrus)
  • Crach
  • Melusine (including rain and carryover)
  • Dagur
  • Knut
  • Sigvald
  • Acherontia
  • Casimir
  • Ixora
  • Bincy
 
DRK3's post on Squirrels has made me ponder exactly what "binary" means (or at least where the root issue with certain "binary" cards lies. There is no denying that this four provision card can be the difference between winning and losing certain match-ups, while being totally useless in others. So, at least in some sense, the card is binary. But it is also undeniable that the only reason the card is binary is that it eliminates the possibility of an opponent playing an over-powered card from the graveyard. (Incidentally, all OP cards are always binary as not drawing them can easily win or lose matches, but not all binary cards, e.g. Squirrel, are overpowered.) I am therefore more inclined to value cards like Squirrel as counters to to very unpleasant excesses (Melusine, Amphibious Assault, Heist, targets for Witches Sabbath, etc.) than to discount them as binary. If other problems in the game are addressed, cards like Squirrel will never be an issue.

But Squirrel has a couple of other features: first, it is very low tempo -- using it against echo cards in particular is risky, as it can also either lose a round or cost a card. If played against cards with reasonable, but not decisive, amounts of return (not cards so powerful that their removal from the graveyard is essential to avoid losing), this makes Squirrel a strategically interesting addition to the game. Unfortunately 20 base power Melusines, or three copies of Tugo do not give balanced returns; rather than being a subtle choice, Squirrel can feel like a binary necessity.

And Squirrel has a second, undesirable and binary feature (one shared with Korathi Heatwave) -- it disproportionately disrupts Skellige and Monsters, the factions designed around graveyard play. Thus, it is not only RNG binary, it is matchup binary. No card should ever primarily target a particular faction. Squirrel is also guilty of this.

But that makes me also consider other cards that may not be binary in and of themselves, but that contribute to binary play -- several things come to mind: locks, Operator, Defenders -- and I am certain I have missed others.

Four to six provision locks are often a necessity against the ridiculous 6-point per turn engines that are proliferating in Gwent as well as against super-charged order cards, but are low value bricks against decks gaining most value on deploy. This is binary. But the problem is not the locks -- it's the cards that generate so much value that they must be directly answered.

Operator is not itself a problem. But it becomes one if the bronze cards it copies have too much specialized engine value (e.g. Fleders). Often, two such cards can be controlled by removal/locks, but three exceeds a reasonable amount of control that balanced decks should have and is very binary with matchup. High removal opponents are not threated, while low removal opponents are overwhelmed by the existance of this card. And Operator is also binary when paired with cards that gain effectiveness with numbers (removal engines, Crow Clan Preachers, Cintrian Royal Guard, etc.).

Finally defenders. With so many remove-or-lose cards in the game, defenders create an extra layer of draw dependence. Now, one not only needs access to a removal card, they also need access to purify to get through the defender to the threat. None of this is really the fault of a defender, the fault lies entirely with the existence of remove-or-lose cards.
"disproportionately disrupts Skellige and Monsters"
i diagree with that statement: it just destroys a single card in the graveyard, not from your deck, hand or played ones. it can be unpleasant, but for me it is not disproportional.

Also, I do not consider it binary. Not sure what you consider binary. For me a binary card is one that a player having it in their deck, and playing it, asures that player the victory, no matter what the other player plays. On the contrary, having it in the player's deck, but not playing it, might result on losing the match. Having Squirrel and playing it, even destroying the two most OP cards from the opponent's graveyard, does not guarantee a victory at all. With that train of thought one can say that serprent trap card is binary just because it can destroy on spring mode the first played card from the opponent, which is stretching too much what can be considered binary cards or binary play.
Post automatically merged:

about defenders: they should cover their cards to the right and left only, not the whole row.
 
"disproportionately disrupts Skellige and Monsters"
i diagree with that statement: it just destroys a single card in the graveyard, not from your deck, hand or played ones. it can be unpleasant, but for me it is not disproportional.
Monsters and Skellige are disproportionately affected by anything that disrupts graveyard play, because, unlike other factions that generally only draw echo cards from the graveyard, MO and SK not only have echo cards, but have entire archetypes dependent upon graveyard play. That is disproportionately punishing to SK and MO in the same way a card that had a deploy ability, "Boost self by 15 if your opponent is MO or SK." would be. On the other hand, cards that attack deck or hand at least affect all factions nearly equally.

Also, I do not consider [squirrel] binary.
I would call a card binary if it can have dramatically different value entirely due to random circumstances beyond the control of the way the opponents play the match. This could be due to random effects, draw order, match-up, coin flip, etc. In a strict sense, When squirrel can prevent a 30-point Rioghan play, or delete a 23 power Melusine in one match, while always being a 4 point brick in another, it is binary. (I believe the problem here is not squirrel, but the OP cards it eliminates -- but it is definitely binary as that swing in a match can easily determine its outcome.)
about defenders: they should cover their cards to the right and left only, not the whole row.
As I see it Defenders have two possible roles in Gwent. The first is to add a layer of "luck testing" to "remove-or-lose" binary cards as now an opponent must include and draw two answers instead of just 1. This role makes a binary situation worse. The second use of defender is to provide a chunky, shielded body that must be attacked before weaker units are attacked. This helps reduce the effectiveness of removal (especially damage pings) to bring it more in line with boost, and, in my opinion, makes game play more interesting.

I therefore object to your suggestion for two reasons: first it does not prevent the first role for defenders, leaving them as "binary enhancers", and, second, it prevents defenders from the wholesome protector role, as there will quickly become units that the defender cannot protect. I guess your "solution" would prevent a defender from preventing access to three "remove-or-lose" units, but, by their very character, protecting one such unit should suffice.

I believe that either defender status should be dropped entirely, or the crazy remove-or lose units eliminated (which, as my post above shows, is a huge undertaking).
 
then it does not disproportionately disrupts Skellige and Monsters, it might disrupts some archeotypes of those factions. Not all the players using those factions I play against depend on the graveyard, and those who does, by removing one card (even two) from the graveyard don't prevent them to win, as they most likely have at least other four cards in their deck to make my game difficult.
 
Top Bottom