Gwent Strategy Articles

[quintivarium]

INTRODUCTION, OBJECTIVES, AND MOTIVATION

Welcome to the Gwent Strategy Essay Thread. With this post, I am initiating an ambitious project to present a series of essays to guide players – especially but not exclusively beginners – to be more successful with the intricacies of Gwent. At first, the content will be sparse (initially vacuous as I must wait 24 hours between posts to prevent my articles from being automatically merged, thereby preventing indexing). But over the next few days and weeks, as I am able to post and eventually write new articles, it should begin to fill in.

Although I am writing an entire series of articles, I certainly welcome comments, feedback, ideas, and even other articles from the community – and I will add contributed articles to the index (which immediately follows this introduction) when I have opportunity to do so. I foresee articles in five general categories: general (about Gwent as a whole), gameplay, deck building, collection building, and specialized modes.

When I was beginning Gwent, I searched for a resource such as what this thread is intended to be – a written source of information to help players succeed with Gwent. I found very little, and it was scattered across multiple sources. Eventually, I found a series of great instructional videos by Spyroza, from which I learned a lot. But videos are not my first choice of media; those videos, although the ideas are timeless, already use obsolete examples; and, because it had no real systematic organizational mechanism (at least that I found), I am not even sure I discovered all the videos in the series. Hence, this thread.


ARTICLE INDEX

Titles listed in Blue are posted and linked – just click on the title to get to the article. When there is community feedback on or addition to an article, it will usually follow in posts shortly after the article. Articles listed in white are articles currently planned. They are subject to change as sometimes while writing, I will find I prefer a different organization or approach to the material. Titles listed in purple were written by others -- often in other threads -- and are linked here.

GENERAL ARTICLES

Gwent Resources (Gwent glossaries, deck lists, instructional videos, e-sports team links, lore, etc. Here I welcome community input as I am certain there are resources of which I am unaware.)

GAMEPLAY:

Passing Strategy: Round I
Passing Strategy: Round II
Passing Strategy: Round III
Mulligan Strategy
Over-Commitment
Bleeding
Defending the Bleed
Card Sequencing
Tempo and Timing
Anticipation and Avoidance
Consistency
Reading Your Opponent
Handling Bad Draws
Baiting, Bluffing and Avoiding Tells
Knowing Your Cards
Things You May Not Know
Foresight
Thinning
Suggestions for Beginners

DECK BUILDING:

Deck Character and Qualities
Deck Building on a Budget
Points, Provisions, and Plays
Synergy
Antisynergy
Balance
Testing/Optimization
Adaptation/Teching
Probability, Consistency, and Redundancy
Idea Generation
Deck Polarization
Deck Robustness
Critical Elements of Deck Building
Round Thinking

COLLECTION BUILDING:

Collection Styles
In-Game Currencies and Sources
Continued Progression
Spending Strategies (Ore/Kegs)
Spending Strategy (Powder)
Spending Strategy (Rewards)
Card Selection Strategies: Part I (Choosing Between Keg Choices)
Card Selection Strategies: Part II (Deciding on Crafting Priorities)
Card Selection Strategies: Part III (Evaluating cards)
Faction Specialization
Monster Faction Overview
Nilfgaard Faction Overview
Northern Realms Faction Overview
Scoia'tael Faction Overview
Skellige Faction Overview
Syndicate Faction Overview

MODES:

Seasonal
...... Banished
...... Irresistable Attraction (Written by DRK3 in Feb. 2020)
...... Power Shift (Written by DRK3 in July 2020)
...... Trial of Grasses (Written by DRK3 in January 2021)
...... Patience is a Virtue (Written by DRK3 in April 2021)
...... Dual Casting (Written by DRK3)
...... Battle Rush
...... Seesaw
...... Bearly Balanced
...... Trial by Fire
...... Order in All Things
...... Double Down
...... I Didn't Sign Up For This
Draft
Open Decklist
Tournaments
Completing Quests and Contracts

COMMENTARY:

Where is the Strategy in Clog?
Game Balance
The Challenge of Syndicate
Rating Play Quality
RNG
Thoughts on Deck Variety
Lessons Learned from Banished Seasonal Mode
Balance progress approaching Gwentfinity
What Can Be Done About Neutrals?

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

I (Quintivarium) am a relative newcomer to Gwent, with limited and often interrupted play time. Thus, there are better and certainly more experienced players. I greatly appreciate input from those in the community who might know better than I. But I am, by profession, a university mathematics professor. I believe I am strong as both a teacher and a writer, and by nature, I am very objective in my outlook. I live in Kentucky (USA) with my wife and two daughters.

My experience with collectable card games began in the early 1990’s when friends invited me to play Magic the Gathering, with paper cards. I built a deck from their leftover cards and enjoyed the game immensely. Thus, I set out to build my own collection. And after dropping a couple hundred dollars on cards, I realized I was nowhere near owning the right cards to build even one interesting deck. It was apparent that the game would be an unwise drain on my financial resources, and I abandoned it. Around 2010 I got my first smartphone and eventually began to look for an on-line CCG that I could play. I found the game Spellcraft: Decent into Chaos and absolutely loved it. Unfortunately, it never achieved the following it deserved and is now unavailable. In January 2020, I discovered Gwent. I love its strategic structure (best two of three games, the draw and mulligan system, and game-length determined by hand depletion). I have been hooked on Gwent ever since.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

SPYROZA whose streams and videos taught me many subtleties of the game
DRK3 for being an excellent sounding board and mentor
Riven-Twain for guidance with technical aspects of creating a thread like this one

 

[quintivarium]

GWENT GAME PLAY STRATEGIES

Round One Pass Strategy

Although it is not the simplest topic, I wish to begin the series of articles on Gwent game play strategies with passing strategy because, in many ways, effective passing is the core of the game. In my observation, more games are won or lost based upon decisions to pass than for any other reason. I will break this topic into three sections. This article revolves around the passing strategies in round one, which tend to be based around balancing the value of winning the round with the resource cost (cards consumed) doing so. The next article will deal with strategy in round two, which largely revolves around a decision to bleed or not to bleed the opponent. There will be a brief article for round three, but the strategy in round three is very simple with a couple noteworthy exceptions.


Basic Thresholds:

Let me start with the very basics. Because up to three cards can be drawn at the start of rounds two and three, and because hands hold a maximum of 10 cards, there are two threshold hand sizes that are important in round one. If the first round ends with your hand-size greater than seven, you will not be able to draw the full three cards generally given at the start of the round; if your hand size is less than seven, you will begin round two with less than a full hand – thus the size of your hand compared to the size of your opponents will significantly impact the play of round two. The second threshold is a hand-size of four cards. Hands of size four, if no cards are played in round two, will reach maximal size at the start of round three. Hand sizes bigger than size four can play cards in round two and still reach maximal size by the final round. And hand sizes less than four cards cannot reach full size by the final round.

So, for example, if you win round one with four cards left, and your opponent has eight cards left, then at the start of round two, you will have seven cards in hand while your opponent has ten. If you pass round 2, you will lose that round, but both you and your opponent will begin the final round with full ten card hands – note that you can catch up a tremendous card deficit. On the other hand, if you win round one with only three cards while your opponent has five, round two begins with you holding six cards to your opponent’s eight. If you pass round two, and your opponent plays one card to win that round, you will begin round three one card down with nine cards to your opponent’s ten. But had you won round one with three cards to your opponent’s four, since your opponent must play a card to win round two, by passing round two you can guarantee you both start the final round with nine cards.

It is easy to see that, if you win round one with four or more cards, you can always choose to go to round three with a full hand; if you win with one less card than your opponent – regardless of how many cards are in your hand – you can choose enter round three with the same number of cards as your opponent; if you win round one with the same number of cards as your opponent and that number is four or less, you can choose to enter round three with one more card than your opponent; and if you win on even (have the same number of cards as your opponent) but with 5 or more cards in your hands, you begin round two with the same number of cards, but unless you play in that round, both you and your opponent will have full hands in round three.

Regarding round one, these thresholds imply that you should almost never pass until you play at least three cards – especially on red coin. You will basically concede the round without using all the resources (cards) you would get back anyway. And if you are red coin (the player who goes second), you unnecessarily give your opponent an extra card in round two. If you don’t pass until you have only 7 cards left, the opponent will have already played down to 6 cards, and you enter round two with 10 cards to your opponent’s 9. But if you pass with more than 7 cards left, both you and your opponent will have 10 cards to start round two. I can think of one possible exception to this rule – if your opponent is attacking your deck to reduce its size so you have no cards left for round three (playing a “mill deck”), you might benefit by not drawing down your deck size – but this would be a very rare occurrence.


Primary Objective:

The primary objective of round one is to position oneself optimally for the rest of the match. Thus, if you can win round one, you want to have enough strength leftover relative to your opponent to win one more round. If you lose round one, you want to have sufficient firepower left to win both remaining rounds. Of course, you always need to remember that your opponent will have the same objectives and will play accordingly. (Actually, this is not strictly true – occasionally you will encounter an opponent whose priority is not winning the round but is something like completing a quest quickly and those opponents may intentionally make what appear to be suboptimal plays. However, you should always assume your opponent wants to win too.)

Generally, to achieve this primary objective, you want to balance advantages in winning round one with the cost of doing so. But to evaluate this balance, it is important to understand the advantages of winning round one, as well as how to value qualitative and quantitative advantages in cards remaining after the round.

Advantages of Winning Round 1:

Aside from the obvious – being one win closer to winning the match, you gain three strategic advantages by winning round 1.

First, you get a favorable play order. The player who wins a given round always goes first in the next round. (If the first round is a draw, the player who went first in that round goes second in the next.) Thus, if you win the first round, you will go first in round 2. If your opponent wins round 2, forcing a round 3, you will go last in that decisive round. Going first in a round gives a head start setting up engines and combinations, which in some matches allows the first player to remove key pieces of the opponent’s combinations before they can take effect. For example, if both players hold the Northern Realms scenario Siege, the player who plays it first will have damage engines in place to weaken the opponent’s as soon as they are deployed. By the time chapter two (bombardment) is played, the first player of Siege will likely eliminate all his opponent’s siege engines – which in turn makes the opponent’s Bombardment much less effective.

But in most matches, going second is advantageous because you can react to cards your opponent plays while leaving little of importance for him to react to. And, unless you are behind on cards, playing last gives you “last say” – the opportunity to play the final card. Last say ensures your opponent will not have a chance to react to a big card you might play on your last turn, or alternatively, allows you an opportunity to respond to your opponent’s last card. In general, the value of playing last depends upon the particular matchup. If one card plays for high strength, the ability to play that card last is invaluable, as that high strength card cannot be removed. Likewise, the ability to play removal (like heatwave) after a high strength card is played can be invaluable. On the other hand, if neither player has cards that play for high value, or if neither player can significantly interact with the opponent’s cards, last say has very little value.

The second strategic advantage of winning the first round is that you can control the round length. By passing round 2 early (or often immediately), you will concede it to the opponent, but you will guarantee that the decisive third round is as long as possible. On the other hand, since your opponent must win the second round, if you win the first round, you can play cards, virtually forcing your opponent to continue playing until you pass. This tends to create relatively short third rounds. Decks that play a lot of powerful “engines” cards that accrue increasing value over time, or combinations requiring substantial set-up tend to perform best in long rounds, while cards that play for large initial value tend to be strong in short rounds. By winning round 1, you get to choose a length for round three that benefits your deck.

The last advantage of winning round 1 is what I will term round 2 tempo control. To some degree, you can force your opponent to play big cards at potentially inopportune times. Again, because your opponent must win the second round, your opponent must respond appropriately to your plays. It is easy for an opponent who must win the round to either overcommit with cards that are too valuable, or to under-commit and then need to play an extra card after you pass to catch up (and hence go a card down) – assuming they can even catch up at all. You, on the other hand, have no obligations in round 2. This will be discussed further in the article on round 2 passing strategy.


Card Quantity and Quality:

Unfortunately, the value of winning round one must be balanced with the value of resources used to achieve the win. Once an opponent has passed, it is often possible to win a round by simply playing more cards. But, depending on where the hand size is relative to the threshold values discussed earlier, this could result in needing to win a future round with fewer cards in hand than your opponent. Needing to play and win in a round with fewer cards than your opponent has is termed “card disadvantage”, while a player whose opponent has card disadvantage is said to have “card advantage”. Having card disadvantage is generally a significant problem as an average turn is worth from eight to nine points (excluding leader value). (I got this figure by observing six games of a top 100 pro-rank streamer and literally tallying point totals turn by turn. There was very little variance between games, so this figure should be quite accurate – as late July 2021. But this calculation will, at some point, become obsolete due to power creep.)

On the other hand, a one card disadvantage can reasonably be overcome – especially in longer rounds provided your remaining cards are better quality than your opponent’s cards. Over-valuing card advantage by “overcommitting” (spending too many high-value cards) is another common mistake.

Although round one can often be won by committing higher quality cards than your opponent, most cards committed round one are unavailable later. So, winning by playing strong cards usually comes with the price of having to play weaker cards later. Before committing big cards to win round one, it is important to ask whether you have enough left to be able to win a second round.


Effects of the Coin-Flip:

Pass strategy is also significantly impacted by the initial coinflip. The red player gets to go second (which often has significant strategic advantages), but the blue player gets a stratagem card on the board (which provides offsetting points and effects).

Since the blue coin player gets the stratagem (worth about 5 points), the blue player will more easily win the first round. But barring bad plays, the blue coin player will almost never win the first round without going down a card – since the blue player goes first, the red player – if intending to pass – should always do so after the blue player has spent a card and has fewer cards in hand than the red player. The only exception to this is when both players decide to pass after playing only three cards.

The red coin player, on the other hand, can potentially “win on even” (win with equal hand sizes) by building a sufficient lead after the blue player’s turn that the blue player passes rather than playing further.


First Round Length:

In most games, the first round is played without a lot of concern about round length – a player will compete to win the round until the player either believes the opponent is too far ahead to catch up with reasonable commitment, the player runs out of cards they are willing to commit to the round, the player believes they are sufficiently far ahead that the opponent will have to over-commit resources to catch up, or the player fears that continuing to play will worsen that player’s position in the game as a whole – number of cards remaining after the round is rarely a deciding concern.

But number of cards remaining into round two is not totally irrelevant. For instance, it is usually harder to be outpointed if your opponent holds three cards to your four than if an opponent holds seven cards to your eight. This is simple mathematics. If your cards average nine points each, you will score 72 points with eight cards, your opponent will need to average roughly 10.3 points per card to match this. But if you hold four cards that average 9 points, you score 36 total points. With only three cards, your opponent’s will need to average 12 points each to match your total.

Moreover, if a round one winning player emerges from the round with five or more cards, they will enter the second round with eight or more cards. This is above the seven-card threshold to obtain a full hand in round three. Hence, that player can play at least one card in the second round without risk. (Since the round one winner goes first in round two, if the winner’s hand size is seven or less, that player plays a card, and the opponent plays a bigger card, the original player will have wasted a card unless they can eventually avoid that situation by playing deeper into the round.) Thus, it is usual for a player to push as deep into round 1 as they feel able.

However, there are exceptions. If you have a deck that strongly benefits from medium to long rounds, and you expect to be unable to win round one, it is better to pass as soon as possible. If only three cards are played in round 1, the remaining rounds average 6.5 cards; if eight cards are played in round one, the remaining rounds average four cards.


Playing in the Real World:

Recognizing these considerations, it is possible to plan an ideal round one scenario. What would position you best for the remaining rounds? Do you need to win round 1? What cards are you willing to play (and what are you absolutely unwilling to play) to win the round? How much commitment (relative to your opponent’s commitment) are you willing to make?

But in the real world, you are not playing in a vacuum. Your opponent also has objectives for round one – usually in conflict with yours. So, it is important to always consider how your opponent might thwart your plans. There are certain things to watch for as the round is played.

The first is relative commitment. In round one, neither player is obliged to continue to compete. If you are up 30 points, and your opponent has not yet passed, and you commit a card that plays for 20 points, the opponent does not have to respond – they can simply pass, and you are out a very good card on a round you would likely have won anyway. Of course, occasionally, you might want to sacrifice that big card to force your opponent out of the round immediately. Other times, you might want to bait your opponent into playing further into the first round. So, you don’t play your big cards – you let the opponent believe they can catch up or win for as long as possible.

Secondly, always be attentive to “reach” – the maximal number of points you can earn in a single turn. Before playing, ask yourself what you will do if your opponent passes. If your answer is that you would pass even though you are behind – pass now, don’t play a card that will just be wasted! (This is a huge mistake beginning players often make.)

A third thing to watch for is opportunity/risk. If you are on blue coin and your round one hand is weak relative to your opponent’s likely hand, you are at risk of “losing on even” (losing with a hand size equal to that of your opponent). Thanks to the stratagem, you will usually jump out to an early lead that is gradually eroded. If you are given a chance to pass while ahead with 7 or fewer cards in hand, you should probably do so. Your opponent will likely win the round with their next card, but at least they will have played one more card than you. Always ask if your opponent would likely have a card to play that passes your total – and if they do, ask whether your remaining cards are strong enough to pull ahead again. Unless you absolutely need to win round one, pass before you become destined to win on even.

Similarly, if you are on red coin and you expect to outpoint your opponent, sequence your cards, when possible, to stay ahead at the end of your turn – then when your opponent passes, you win on even. If you play a small card that does not put you ahead, your opponent might pass. You will win the round with your next card, but you will have used one card more than your opponent in the process.

Still another risk is possible big point swings. If you have a tall unit that has been poisoned, your opponent, with a small commitment of a cheap poison card, might gain a lot of points. Unless you believe the poison to be a bluff, ask whether you could recover from the loss of your tall card before you decide to play on in the round. (Note: not all potential “swing” cards are really a risk; players are not likely to sacrifice the key card for their final round just to win round one. You only need to consider possibilities your opponent would reasonably play.)

Another consideration can be “carry-over” (generating value that carries over into later rounds). For example, many cards may boost other cards in a player’s deck or hand. Sometimes it is better to pass than to let this type of carry-over to occur/continue for your opponent. And it might be better for you to set up your own carryover – even if it costs a card.

Finally, be realistic. Your opponent is not going to roll over and just let you achieve your ideal round one. Often, it is better to cut one’s losses with a pass than to play on into a hopeless situation. Even if a big card can get you in the lead, unless you expect to stay in the lead, that big card is wasted if you play it. But sometimes, you have a choice of undesirable options – at least maneuver toward the lesser evil. For instance, it is usually better to win going down two cards than to lose on even (either way, you are likely to enter the third round down a card but winning the first round gives you a little more control over how the rest of the match is played).


Conclusion:

Deciding when to pass is one of the trickiest – but most important – decisions in the game of Gwent. This article discussed most of the important considerations and factors that go into that decision in round one. But mastering the art of passing takes time and experience. The better you understand various factions, archetypes, and particular decks, the easier it becomes to estimate your opponent’s reach, your likelihood of winning a long round 3, which cards your opponent cannot afford to play, etc. It is my hope that this article at least introduces you to the key considerations behind wise passing.

 

[quintivarium]

GWENT GAME PLAY STRATEGIES

Round Two Pass Strategy

This article continues the discussion of one of the most critical elements of Gwent strategy – wise passing. In the previous article, I focused on passing in round one. Here, I will discuss strategy in passing round 2.

If you lose (or tie) round one, you must win round two to win the match – basically you do not pass until after your opponent or until you are out of cards. The one possible exception is the “hero pass” – assuming you are so far ahead that your opponent will be unable to catch up. Since strategically, it is a waste of a card for an opponent to play when they cannot ever surpass your point total, it is generally a poor idea for an opponent to play into this situation – and hence, it is a poor strategic decision to assume they have. Of course, an opponent might intentionally bluff, but since the number of instances in which they benefit enough from such a buff to justify the potential loss of a card is very small – not to mention the risk/reward to you – I would be very cautious before calling such a bluff. Thus, I will focus this article from the point of view of the player who wins round one and has free choice as to when (or if) to pass.

So, for players who have won round one, there are two cases I want to consider: playing into an uncontested round and choosing to push (bleed). There is a third case: testing the waters before committing – but that is better covered in a later article on bleeding itself.

Suppose you enter round two with eight or more cards and do not intend to compete in round two. There might be an instinct to play a card anyway, because you can still reach a ten-card hand in the final round and otherwise waste a draw. But wait! This is faulty thinking. An extra card will translate into an extra mulligan. If you play, wasting your worst card by playing with no intention of winning the round, you will remove a bad card from your hand, draw three cards, and then be able to mulligan two – effectively you get to remove three cards and draw five. If you do not play, you will keep your hand’s worst card, draw two new cards, and have three mulligans – effectively, you remove three cards and draw five. There is no difference! Except, by playing rather than passing, you have committed to discarding the worst of the 8 cards in your hand. If you pass, you can choose the worst card from a bigger selection, and there is a chance (admittedly very small) that you would never choose to mulligan the card you would have played. Thus, unless you have a reason for playing a card – such as deck thinning, carryover, or trying to bait your opponent into playing something important – it is slightly better to pass. (Note: this argument does not apply in round one because playing the bad card prevents it from returning to your hand for round three, while mulliganing it would not. In addition, playing in round 1 virtually forces your opponent to play again unless they intend to concede the round; it reduces the chances you will get card disadvantage.)

Let us now discuss choosing to pass versus choosing to compete (bleed) round two. First, bleeding (or not bleeding) should never be automatic – it should be a conscious decision based upon how well your deck will fare against your opponent’s deck in a long round, how well your remaining cards will fare against your opponent’s likely remaining cards, your current hand’s likelihood of forcing unfavorable trades out in round two, your current hand’s likelihood of winning round two and completing a 2-0 match victory, and possible carryover that can be generated (by both players) if the second round is actively played. And the benefits of playing must be balanced against the likelihood (and cost) of losing a card if you do play.

Usually, the primary basis for a decision to bleed is your preference for a long, as opposed to a short, third round. If you believe you will win a long third round, you should immediately pass. To some degree, it requires experience to know which decks are favored in longer rounds. If you have encountered a particular deck in a long round previously, you can typically calculate the likely outcome of future encounters by the results in that round (modified, of course, by the cards previously committed or not drawn). If you have no experience with the current match-up, you will have to make an educated judgment. Generally, cards that require substantial set-up for payoff, or cards that play for value over time will do better in longer rounds; and cards that play for substantial immediate payoff with little further set-up needed will have more impact in a short round. On the other hand, if a long round is a virtually certain loss, you must play to either shorten the final round, or at least to reduce you opponent’s potency in it. Conversely, if you are virtually certain to win a short round, you almost certainly want to play, forcing your opponent to also play, and thereby reduce the final round length. Of course, the value of this round shortening must always be weighed against the risk of losing a card.

If the outcome of a long, third round is not certain, you should ask whether your opponent has remaining cards that will be very strong. A second reason for bleeding (other than simply shortening the final round) is to force your opponent to play dangerous cards prior to the conclusive round. These strong cards could be forced out for three reasons: the opponent plays them to avoid falling too far behind in tempo and losing a card (or even the round) later, the opponent plays them as a necessary counter to one of your cards (this has value only if opponent uses better cards than you do), or the opponent has nothing but good cards to play (which often happens toward the end of the round when hand sizes are small because the opponent was forced to keep those good cards at the mulligan phase to avoid a risk of losing 2-0).

The final reason for playing into round two is if you believe you have a better chance of winning that round than you would of winning round three. This can be the case if there is evidence your opponent has drawn poorly, if there is one card that guarantees your opponent victory – provided they draw it, or if your hand is exceptionally strong.

The first part of the decision to bleed is assessing whether you have something to gain by doing so; the second part is evaluating what you are likely to lose – and this is where the quality of your hand comes in. If you have only low value cards, you should expect you opponent will try to answer with low value cards as well. You can certainly shorten the third round, but you are unlikely to force out any dangerous cards your opponent has. And it is very likely that your opponent will keep pace with your score. If your opponent can win the round playing the same number of cards as you, card advantage shifts in your opponent’s favor over the case where you pass but your opponent burns a card to win the round. Ideally, you want your opponent to play at least as many cards as you do.

And if you start round two more than one card behind your opponent, you are almost certain to play round three behind at least one card if you cross the seven-card threshold. Moreover, you cannot expect to bleed so deeply as to force your opponent to play good cards simply because they are the only option. Thus, it is very difficult to bleed in this case. There are still times when it might be necessary to bleed – but do so with extreme caution.

So hands that are good for bleeding are hands with good, value generating cards that you can afford not to have in a short round three (if these cards are engines, passive engines are better than active engines because they continue to threaten after you pass); hands with cards that are powerful if not countered, but that would typically trade down in points (not necessarily provisions) during the final round (it’s better to lose points in the less consequential second round); hands with few if any cards you are unwilling to play, and hands with at least one high tempo but affordable play that could be used to avoid losing a card.

Finally, you want to be flexible during play. If your bleed has served its objectives, look for ways to gracefully exit the round. If you have an opportunity to avoid losing a card with an immediate pass that is unlikely to occur again, carefully consider whether continuing the bleed is worth a card.

Bleeding is a tricky concept to master. There will be times when things go horribly wrong. There will be times when bleeding is the correct choice – and still loses; there will be times when it is the incorrect choice and still wins. Consider you results, but objectively consider what caused them. And learn.

 

[quintivarium]

GWENT GAME PLAY STRATEGIES
Round Three Pass Strategy

Generally, the decision of when to pass is round three is very straightforward – you do not pass until you run out of cards and do so automatically, you give up the match and are ready to concede, or you want to gracefully accept when your opponent has conceded. But this brief article is to point out a couple of exceptions.

Sometimes an opponent has so much value from passive engines that they score more points without playing cards than you do playing cards. If passing shortens the round, you should do so. For example, and opponent playing Kolgrim is often willing to go down multiple cards because Kolgrim can continue to generate significant value. So, if your opponent has already passed and your opponent’s Kolgrim plays for ten points boost a round, you should only continue playing cards that are worth more than that – then pass.

Also, an opponent might have an unsprung trap on the board, which, if triggered, plays for more points than your card that triggers it. For example, if your opponent has what you believe is a Serpent Trap on the board, your tallest unit is worth 20 points, your smallest unit is worth 2 points, and you hold the special card, Alzur’s Thunder, in your hand, playing the card will cost you 18 points (the difference between destroying your tallest unit if you trigger the trap, and your smallest unit if your opponent springs it) but your card only plays for 5 points. You should pass (unless, of course, your only chance of winning the round is to hope you misidentified the trap).

So, the basic rule of thumb for round three is never pass. But the real point of this article is that all rules have exceptions. Always think before blindly following rules.

 

[DRK3]

First of all, this is a huge project, that will take a lot of work, and for that alone you deserve praise.
Second, so far its been very well written and detailed, i know a lot of players dont enjoy reading much, but at least on an online forum, its more likely its users are ok with reading.

When the project is finished or close to the end, if you havent gotten recognition for it yet, i will certainly try to bring attention to it with the REDs, some form of official sponsorship, even if its just a small acknowledgment on TWIG.

Now, questions @quintivarium :
-Do you plan to aggregate any of the topics in the index? For example, some of the smaller ones might work better together (for ex. the spending stategies for ore, scraps, etc)

-Are you gonna include some sort of analysis on the different factions? Where you address faction identity, or maybe even faction history (the latter might be better suited as a task for me, now that i think about it... )

-Are you going to include a seasonal guide for all 12 seasonals? If so, i volunteer to help with this, as i've already done guides for 4-6 of them, some might need just a little bit of updatin...

 

[quintivarium]

First of all, this is a huge project, that will take a lot of work, and for that alone you deserve praise.
Second, so far its been very well written and detailed, i know a lot of players dont enjoy reading much, but at least on an online forum, its more likely its users are ok with reading.

When the project is finished or close to the end, if you havent gotten recognition for it yet, i will certainly try to bring attention to it with the REDs, some form of official sponsorship, even if its just a small acknowledgment on TWIG.

Now, questions @quintivarium :
-Do you plan to aggregate any of the topics in the index? For example, some of the smaller ones might work better together (for ex. the spending stategies for ore, scraps, etc)

-Are you gonna include some sort of analysis on the different factions? Where you address faction identity, or maybe even faction history (the latter might be better suited as a task for me, now that i think about it... )

-Are you going to include a seasonal guide for all 12 seasonals? If so, i volunteer to help with this, as i've already done guides for 4-6 of them, some might need just a little bit of updatin...

When this project is finished, if I foresee continuing to want to write about Gwent, I might try to become a content creator like you are. I'll have to see whether that feels appropriate. If this thread proves useful, I will seek ways to keep it visible for new players (not sure what that would be).

All topics in the index are subject to change. If multiple short articles fit together, I will aggregate them; if it makes sense to keep an article separate (like round three pass strategies), I have no problem with short articles.

I have written, but not posted yet, an article about "feel" of factions -- which includes general discussion of major archetypes and card packages. I will send that to you as a separate correspondence so you can see what I have done. You are right, history of factions is better left to you as you have a much longer record with the game. Also, it may be better to leave lore issues to other writers -- I have read all the Witcher books, I half-heartedly watched the first Netflix season (I'm not really a television or video type person), but I have played none of the Witcher games.

I did intend to have articles on all twelve seasonals (actually, with your permission, I intended to link your guides -- with credit -- rather than write my own).

 

[DRK3]

@quintivarium I will check more carefully what the gwent team's websites have in (written) beginners guides, you probably already done that before you decided to write these articles. Still, its a good opportunity to check 'what's out there', that way i wont risk writing something i think its totally new, only to find later on that somebody else already did it

I have played none of the Witcher games.

This should be a crime, i even though about not giving REDpoint to the whole post because of this.
Maybe you dont have a console or PC able to run those games, then you have a good excuse. Maybe you're not much of a gamer, or have much free time, but we know you play Gwent, soooooo...

You're probably tired of hearing this, but YOU GOTTA PLAY THE WITCHER 3. Its magnificent, and revitalized my hope that the future can still bring games that mark me, even as an adult.
Its very long, but i've had friends who have little free time, took them about a year to finish it but they loved it too.
Gwent is good, and now ive played it almost 10 times as much as TW3, but that doesnt mean i like it better, its TW3 that is the masterpiece.

 

[quintivarium]

GWENT GAME PLAY STRATEGIES
Card Sequencing

This article discusses how to optimally sequence cards. There are at least seven factors that must be balanced in card sequencing: maximizing eventual expected net point value, maximizing probability of a desired goal, minimizing risk, maintaining flexibility, playing needed/desired tempo, avoiding over-commitment, and manipulating/inhibiting your opponent. I will talk about each of these in turn.

The most fundamental concept in card sequencing is to play the cards in an order that maximizes their value. Typically, engines are played early because they will develop additional value as the round progresses. Playing them late reduces that value. Some mechanics (Sunset Warriors, Gord, thrive, adrenaline) dictate a preferred order, but in these cases, it is important to weigh what you gain by sticking with the optimal order for that mechanism with what you gain by giving up that order. Let me take an example. Suppose your opponent has three units in her back row: Morenn (which is now an inert five points), Ida Emean aep Sivney (which was just used to give vitality to a Hamadryad), and the Hamadryad which now sits at six points with three vitality remaining). Your hand contains 5 cards, including a Gerd and a Gigascorpion Decoction – the two cards you are debating using. If you do not play Gerd this round, the adrenaline feature will kick in and Gerd will only damage the spawned siren and not the other three cards in the row – for a loss of three points over playing it immediately. If you do play the Gerd however, the Hamadrayad will boost to eight points next turn, and your Gigascorpian Decoction will no longer destroy it, and the Hammadryad's vitality will generate a total of six extra points before it expires. It appears better to give up points for Gerd in favor of destroying the Hamadryad. But wait! If the round were to end with the Hamadryad boosting only once more, Gerd is the better play. Or if you had a card like Curse of Corruption in hand, but a ten-point Greatsword on the board, you could not destroy the Hamadryad with curse of corruption now, but you should be able to do so once the vitality is fully used – again, Gerd is the better choice. As this example indicates, in calculating card order for optimal points, you may need to consider the impact of multiple cards – including your opponent’s. You also need to consider round length and possible future plays. Do not over-simplify the situation. I will return to this example later as it also illustrates a point about tempo which I will eventually make.

Scoring as many points as possible is often desirable, but points are not necessarily synonymous with your most desired goals. For instance, if your opponent has dry-passed round 2 (passed without playing a card after winning round 1), you don’t want to play an engine to maximize its point generation – you want to play your worst unit because that better meets the goals of winning round two and having the best possible cards for round three. But, with those goals in mind, depending upon what is left in your hand and deck, you might be still better off playing a card like Fisher King over a card like Iron Falcon Knife Juggler. Even though Fisher King would have more points in round three, its ability to help you draw your best card might be worth more than the points.

Another factor to consider in card order is minimizing your risk. Suppose your last two cards are Gord and Barclay Els. If you play Gord first, Els will play for one additional point (Gord loses no value). If your opponent has only one card left, it is almost always better to play Gord last despite the potential lost point. Gord is likely to boost to a very high value – much higher than a wisely chosen target for El. Playing Gord first greatly increases risk if your opponent holds a card like heatwave. Of course, if Gord’s boost is small compared to Els’, you should certainly play Gord first. And if your opponent still had two cards rather than only one, you may as well play Gord first as your opponent could simply hold any Heatwave card until after you play Gord anyway. But this example will also merit a revisit after I discuss manipulating your opponent.

Sometimes you want to choose a card order that maximizes your flexibility. Suppose your round one hand contains both Olgierd Immortal and Curse of Corruption. Olgierd is usually a good choice to play first as it gives your opponent no card to target with spells and abilities. However, it does not pair particularly well with Curse of Corruption – it is likely to be the card Curse destroys. To maintain flexibility, you might want to hold off on playing Olgierd until after Curse of Corruption is used. So, you might choose some different unit to start the round. (Of course, it is probably better to avoid the anti-synergy between these two cards entirely by either muliganning one away or not including both in the same deck in the first place! But that is a different topic.)

Sometimes your card order will be dictated by “tempo” concerns. “Tempo” refers to how rapidly a deck develops – usually in terms of points. Sometimes to avoid problems – or to cause them for your opponent – you will want to play a high tempo card, even at the cost of future points. Let me return to the example where your opponent had Morenn, Ida, and a six strength, three remaining vitality Hamadryad in the back row. Suppose they have no cards in the front row. Suppose your only card on the board is a ten-point Greatsword. Your opponent is bleeding you and holds three cards; you hold five. We already saw that immediately playing a Gigascorpion to destroy the Hamadryad is, in the long run, worth two points more than playing Gerd before adrenaline reduces his value. But in this case, playing gigascorpion will leave the total score as 10-10 tie. If they were to pass, you would need to play one more card to win the round. (Because your opponent won round one, you would lose the match if you passed.) So, you enter round three even on cards. On the other hand, if you play Gerd, you will end the round with 18 points to your opponent’s 14. If they pass, even after the Hamadryad boosts, they are still behind on points, so you would win the round with card advantage. If you believe you could continue to stay ahead of your opponent through future plays, thus gaining card advantage for round three, Gerd is the better play.

Avoiding over-commitment is another factor that impacts card order. Obviously, you will not play an important card for round three in round one – even if it is an engine that gains more value played early in the round. Similarly, you might choose not to play any gold card early – thinking that you might not need it and it is nice to preserve gold cards for later rounds. This is called avoiding over-commitment. Later in the round, perhaps you opponent commits a high value card. Now playing you gold card merely matches your opponent’s commitment so you play it (assuming you think it will make the difference between winning and losing) because using it is no longer an over-commitment.

Finally, you might choose a card order based on its ability to inhibit your opponent’s choices – or to manipulate them into a choice that is better for you. Suppose you are playing a Scoia’tael movement deck, and you are choosing between Dol Blathanna Sentry and Pyrotechnician to start a round. Sentry is an engine that will boost any friendly card that moves – you want to set it up quickly. Pryotechnician is a card that plays for points, then does four damage on an order. If you do not consider your opponent’s actions, there is no rush to play the Pyrotechnician – he will give the same value if played at any time (unless he is played last and can’t use the order). So, you might think that Sentry is clearly the better play. In real play, this is dubious. Pyrotechnician might prevent your opponent from playing an engine (like Nauzicaa Sergeant) themselves because the Pyrotechnician would destroy it. (In later turns, the Pyrotechnician is less threatening because his random damage could miss the engine). And Pyrotechnician might even bait out an Alzur’s Thunder (thereby possibly sparing the more valuable Sentry). And let us return to my example where your final two cards are Gord and Barclay Els. Suppose your opponent has two cards remaining as well. You might think that you should Gord first to hopefully get one extra point out of Els on the chance that your opponent does not hold Heatwave. But suppose your opponent’s last two cards are a Gord of her own, and Heatwave. If you play Gord first, your opponent easily chooses to play heatwave on your Gord as Heatwave will not get better value. If you play Els first, your opponent has a dilemma – not knowing your cards, they must guess whether your last card is Gord or your own Heatwave. If they hold their Heatwave (hoping to hit your Gord), they expose their own Gord to a possible Heatwave. If they choose to hold Gord, they must play their Heatwave on a lesser target. Again, you might prefer to choose a card order, not based on points, but on difficulties it causes the opponent.

Choosing the right cards to play at the right time is at the heart of playing Gwent well. This article has examined several important factors that help in making wise decisions. It is my hope that it guides you to play better. But it is always possible that an article like this one can miss other important considerations. Please feel free to contribute your own observations.

 

[quintivarium]

GWENT COLLECTION STRATEGIES
Approaches to Card Collection Building

Collecting cards and cosmetics is an important element of collectable card games like Gwent. How one goes about acquiring as many desirable items as rapidly as possible merits discussion. Of course, the best approach to collecting depends somewhat upon what one most desires to collect. This article provides an overview of different possible approaches to collecting cards for the game. There are several approaches to consider; I will take them one at a time. I will approach this discussion assuming money is not spent; although the basic strategies are essentially the same when real money is spent. In Gwent, it is very possible to acquire all cards without spending money, although it takes some time. This article does not discuss optimal strategies (which are discussed in other articles), but it focuses on possible priorities in collecting cards. Unlike many card games, Gwent rewards are structured so that progression can be made even with weaker decks – thus one need not necessarily seek the most powerful deck as rapidly as possible.

Faction Focused Collection:

Many players will choose a favorite faction, then acquire as much as possible within that faction before moving to a new faction. This has an advantage of generating many cards from one faction from which successful decks can easily be constructed; it has a disadvantage of not using resources quite as efficiently as some strategies, and it may have trouble being top-level competitive if that faction is relatively weak in the current meta. However, while balance might not always be perfect, it is good enough that no faction is ever completely outmatched – at any except top levels of play, a good player should be able to be successful with any faction. It also somewhat limits your opportunity to experiment with different decks and factions – if that matters to you.

To collect one faction as rapidly as possible, faction barrels are available to get cards limited to that faction. Also, there are a few faction-based trees that can be pursued to collect resources and trinkets. Some of the resources granted are faction specific. Also be aware that certain expansion trees may contain faction-based trinkets – and (rarely) faction-based cards. For example, each faction’s legendary location card is available in the Year of the Rat: Way of the Witcher subtrees. To unlock the subtrees, you will need to purchase (with rewards) the appropriate node of the general tree. Scraps can be used to purchase cards within the faction that are not drawn. Scraps can also be used to acquire essential neutral cards since faction-focused approaches don’t generally draw neutrals.

Expansion Focused Collection:

Because of “power creep” – the tendency of new cards to be more powerful than older cards, some players might choose to focus upon collecting the newest cards. Since CDPR makes kegs containing only the most recent expansion cards available, this becomes possible. Surplus resources can be gradually used to update a general collection.

This does tend to give players strong cards quickly, but often the players are then lacking key synergy cards. And with the current CDPR practice of dividing expansions over several months (and only making kegs available after the complete set is dropped), it is not possible to rely on expansion kegs to get the latest and greatest.

The advantages to this approach are that you will be collecting generally better cards and you will be able to play the cards people are most likely to be excited about at the moment. The disadvantages are that you won’t necessarily get the best cards to for coherent decks and your resources will be scattered across several factions rather than concentrated in one.

Meta Focused Collection:

Some players might prefer to focus their collections on creating the latest meta decks. By searching various e-sports team’s sites (such as team Leviathan Gaming’s site), it is usually possible to find a “meta” report within a couple of weeks of every significant patch/update. If you want the best decks known at a given time, it is possible to download such decks. This approach will not be possible until you have acquired a good number of scraps (typical decks, should you need to craft every card, will cost about 8000 scraps). Moreover, the meta is constantly changing – that deck you spent a fortune on may be obsolete within two months. (Actually, most meta decks remain very effective for a long time. However, they may not be at the very top for more than a few weeks.)

One obvious advantage to this approach is you gain experience with a great deck – which might facilitate learning as you can be confident your losses are not due to your deck being bad. You are also more likely to get wins, which does speed progress – although winning is not essential for progress.

The downsides of this approach are also obvious. By bypassing your own deck building, you don’t get to apply your creativity in making a deck truly your own. You don’t get as familiar with the faction as you don’t spend the same time pouring over cards to identify synergies and find what will work best. You will probably be slower in recognizing and anticipating what your opponent is trying to do. Since you can’t use kegs to guarantee specific decks, you will want to focus on scraps more than ore or kegs; this might not be most efficient. And finally, you may not be able to keep up with the scraps needed to stay current in your decks. Some players are of the opinion that “netdecking” (copying meta decks from the web without effort to make them your own) is bad for the game, but it is not the goal of this article to pass moral judgments – you should decide what you consider appropriate.

Resource Efficient Collection:

By focusing on using resources efficiently, players delay the gratification of having great cards quickly for the satisfaction of acquiring a complete collection as rapidly as possible. Here, a player will hold scraps, and will purchase whichever type barrel contains the smallest proportion of legendary cards already owned. This reduces the chances of obtaining duplicate legendary cards. Then, when the player can use the accumulated scraps to craft all cards that player is missing, he or she crafts all the remaining cards at once.

This type of player will need a lot of patience, a lot of self-discipline, and a willingness to “make do” with inferior cards and decks. And, if you lose more frequently, you will also be slower in acquiring resources. There is no guarantee that this is the fastest approach to a complete collection. Arguably, it might be the most satisfying.


Non-card Priorities:

Finally, some players may care more about cosmetics and animation than about card variety. By focusing on meteorite powder (rather than ore of scraps) when moving through reward trees, as well as spending recourses to upgrade cards to premium rather than crafting new cards, or by choosing premium versions of existing cards over non-premium, unowned cards, a player can focus more on other elements of Gwent. For some, these things might be more important.

Conclusion

While most players naturally fall into a collection strategy, awareness of the strategy you are using can help you identify the decisions that optimize your resources for your objectives.

 

[DRK3]

Just writing to point out players dont necessarily need to fall in one of those card collecting strategies, its possible to do one 50% or even mix em up. I will share my personal case:

I havent needed resources to get new cards for a long time, but i recall my strategy on acquiring all premiums - i would do something similar to 'resource efficient', where i would choose the kegs that contained the most cards i was still missing (in premium).
But whenever i got enough for a legendary transmute, i would do it, choosing whichever my next priority was, i definitely wouldnt have the willpower to stock up on resources for months to then finish the collection in one go.

And for beginners, i recommend something similar: dont mill cards to craft netdecks if you plan on completing the card collection, but also dont deny yourself a few new cards you want to try every once in a while, maybe leave just a "resource reserve" for emergencies, so you're never at 0s. Oh, and stock up on resources 2-4 weeks before each expansion.

 

[quintivarium]

GWENT GAME PLAY STRATEGIES

Mulligan Strategy

Prior to each round, Gwent allows you an opportunity to “mulligan” undesired cards. When you mulligan, you select a card in your hand to return to the deck, then draw a new card from your deck. Cards mulliganed will not return to the deck until the end of the mulligan phase – thus, you do not risk drawing that particular card again, but you can draw copies of it if you have more than one copy of a card in your deck. Generally, you have two mulligans prior to each round; however, there are exceptions. The blue coin player (the player who goes first) has an extra mulligan for round one. And any cards you would draw at the start of the round but cannot draw because your hand contains the maximum 10 cards transform to additional mulligans. Unused mulligans do not carry over from round to round. Mulligans are used to make hands more playable for each round; despite the randomness, wise choice of mulligans can significantly improve your chances of winning a match.

In choosing cards to mulligan, you want to consider three things: what cards you most want for the current round, what cards you need for later rounds, and what cards you do not want in your hand. You also want to consider probabilities – especially the odds of drawing something better vs. something worse as well as the probability of winning with your current hand vs. the probability of winning if you do mulligan a card. This latter is generally too complex to compute exactly during a match, but you should at least consider it intuitively – for instance, if your current hand is virtually certain to win, but it has a weak card you would like to replace, you should not do so no matter the odds of improving that card if there is a chance of drawing a card which could cause you to lose.

Let me begin by discussing cards you want for the current round. First, you should account for whether you play first or second. If you must play first, you want to make certain you have at least one (ideally more than one) proactive card in your hand – mulligan to achieve this. Second, you want to make sure you have cards in hand that work together. If you have one of two cards that works best when combined with a second card, try to get both cards you need for the combination. Third, analyze whether your hand can meet expected threats of your opponent. If they are expected to play several engines in this round, what do you have to respond? If they play a high point card, how will you respond? If they won the first round, what will you play if they dry-pass (pass without playing a card) to carry the second round without committing a card you will need later? Fourth, what is your “reach”? Reach is the number of points you can expect to make-up in a single round (or sometimes, over two or three rounds). It is helpful to have an expendable card that gives you good reach – this can allow you to quickly catch-up a sizable lead for your opponent or to build a sizable lead yourself. A card with good reach can often help you achieve card advantage or help you to avoid card disadvantage in the current round.

You also need to consider cards you will need for later rounds. If you are missing a vital card, you might take mulligans to try and find it even if you will not play it in the current round. Similarly, if your opponent can manipulate your deck, you might want to try and draw key cards before deck manipulation renders them unreachable. One the other hand – at least in rounds 1 and 2 – it is very possible to have hands that are “too good”. Every card you keep in hand to carry over to later round is one card less available to play in the current round. Whether you can afford to mulligan away essential gold cards depends upon how likely you will be to draw (or tutor) them again. If your deck thins well, or if you have general purpose tutors, it is probably safe to mulligan a critical card to obtain a more playable card for the current round; if you will have significant risk of not redrawing the card, you need to evaluate whether you absolutely need a weaker card. But even if you do not mulligan gold cards, if your hand is very strong, you don’t want to mulligan bronze cards as you risk drawing still more gold cards.

Finally, whenever mulliganing, you must also consider cards you don’t want in hand. Most cards that are summoned from deck are very bad in hand. Cards that summon cards from deck need a target that exists in the deck and you don’t want to draw the last possible target. And some cards might demand an opponent to target that is unlikely to be available. If you cannot afford to draw certain cards, do not mulligan!

 

[quintivarium]

GWENT GAME PLAY STRATEGIES
Overcommitment

INTRODUCTION:

A common mistake made by beginning to mid-level players is overcommitment. In Gwent, overcommitment is the practice of spending too many resources (usually too many high-value cards) in the initial rounds for too little return. Overcommitment is generally relative (the more your opponent spends, the more you can afford to spend) and matchup/deck specific (depending on the value of last say, round control, and card advantage as well as on the level of deck polarization. If you are unfamiliar with these terms, they can be looked up in a Gwent glossary.) This article deals with recognizing overcommitment, ways to avoid it, and how to exploit your opponent’s overcommitment.

Usually recognizing overcommitment comes with experience after being conscious about looking for it. I cannot replace experience with an article, but I can present statistics so that a mechanical analysis can replace experiential judgment. There are generally at least five statistical signs of overcommitment – spending significantly more key cards than one’s opponent, spending too many top / gold cards relative to one’s opponent, spending too high of an average provision cost, winning by too wide of a margin, or spending all one’s consistency cards.

BASELINES:

First, let’s establish some baselines. The average provision value of all units placed in a deck is generally a small amount above 6.5 provisions per card. (If a typical leader gives 15 extra provisions, a typical deck has 165 provisions, which, divided by 25 cards gives 6.5 provisions per card.) Since the Mulligan system allows one to return low provision cards to the deck – and tutors allow high-cost units to be drawn, and deck-thinning can improve the odds of drawing desired cards, the average value of cards actually played in a game will be worth somewhat more than 6.5. Although the probability calculations were too tedious to precisely compute, I crudely estimate that a perfectly polarized deck will draw roughly 10 more provisions than a totally unpolarized deck – and deck thinning will increase this further. So, without accounting for tutoring, it is reasonable to expect the average provision value of a played card will be about 7. For now, I will not worry about tutors – if we count only the value of the card drawn by a tutor and ignore the cost of the tutor, this average will not change significantly as the amount of provisions spent on tutors (and therefore unavailable to the general card population) is generally higher than the provision difference between a tutored card and a random card.

Second, by looking through the Gwent deck library, I observe that typical decks contain from 9 to 13 gold cards (with the median about 12), and 4 or 5 cards that are 10 provisions or more. Assuming no extra units are drawn from the deck, 16 of 25 cards will be played. The mulligan system will probably allow a player to virtually ensure about 4 of the nine undrawn cards are bronze (and the other undrawn cards will be about half gold, half bronze), so I would expect about 2 gold cards, on average, to be unplayed. Thus, I would expect about 10 gold cards to be played by a single player in an average match, with four or five of these 10 provisions or above.

Finally, it is also helpful to estimate how many points are earned in a typical turn. To estimate this, I watched a top 100 player’s stream and totaled the change in score difference from the start of the one player’s turn to the start of the other player’s turn. This average varied greatly from round to round, but through an entire match was very consistently between 9.5 and 10 points. Note that this average does not count points that would be cancelled out (e.g., points of boost lost by points of weather damage), and it does count points generated by leaders. It also does not count points prevented by the likes of locks and removals. Altogether, I would guess an average card in Gwent should play for about 9 points, and an average turn (including turns when leader is used), about 9.6.

SPENDING KEY CARDS:

Normally, players will not spend third-round, win-condition cards before the third round unless they are forced to do so, but there are other key cards in most decks. Recognizing key cards for decks in the current meta helps you to gauge the amount of commitment your opponent is making – this might be hard for beginning to mid-level players (not to mention that many of your opponents may not be playing meta-decks). But you should identify key cards for your deck. For purposes of illustration, let me take a deck I enjoy playing. It is not a meta deck; it might not even be very good. But it illustrates the process. Here is the deck (it is an SK, self-damage deck):

Leader: Reckless Flurry
Olaf
Dracoturtle
Ihuarraquax
Dire Bear
Covenant of Steel
Sigrdrifa’s Rite
Hearn Caduch
Artis
Vidkaarl
Blueboy Lugos
Heymaey Flaminica
Freya’s Blessing (x2)
AnCraite Longship (x2)
Bear Witcher Quartermaster (x2)
Svalblod Priest (x2)
Bear Witcher Adept (x2)
Svalblod Cultist (x2)
Heymaey Protector
Heymaey Herbalist

First, I identify win condition cards – cards I never want to use before round three. Most critical is Artis – he is vital both for my points and to deny my opponents. But he is vulnerable, so I want Covenant. Otherwise, the deck is flexible; I will count Olaf, Dracoturtle, Ihuarraquax, Dire Bear, and Heymeay Flaminica as key cards as these are able to score/prevent significant points. Round three needs at least some pay-off cards (Olaf, Dracoturtle, Vidkaarl, or less ideal, Flaminica). The number of pay-off cards needed depends upon round length. In longer rounds, I also want Dire Bear to provide control in a removal-light deck. But because of Sigrdrifa’s rite, I can pull one key card from the graveyard. The remaining three gold cards (Hearn Caduch, Blueboy, and Ihuarraquax) are not necessary provided I have Artis – and Ihuarraquax is even intended for round one if drawn. Thus, I consider it zero commitment to play any bronze cards, Blueboy, Caduch, Ihuaraquax, and one of Dracoturtle, Olaf, Flaminica, or Vidkaarl in rounds one and two. Beyond this, I am in trouble unless my opponent commits as well. The leader is nine points with additional control value – against most opponents, he is dispensable provided he pulls equal points from my opponent – especially if I still have Dire Bear. I will return to this deck as an example throughout the article.

GOLD CARDS:

Gold cards are easily counted, but probably a much less useful measure. Many lower-provision gold cards are no more important than good bronze cards. If 10 gold cards are played from an average deck, in 16 rounds, you would expect gold cards to be played as about 60% of all cards. But if you set aside win-condition cards, I would expect that, through rounds one and two, more than half the cards played being gold is a significant commitment. Looking at my SK deck above, in an eight card third round, I would want Artis, Covenant, and three more gold cards. If I assume two gold cards are never drawn, without commitment, I will typically play four gold cards in the eight plays comprising the first two rounds – right at 50%.

AVERAGE PROVISION COST:

This is an old deck, and due to some recent buffs, it is 8 provisions below the number allowed, so its average provision is 157/25 = 6.28. Assuming I play eight turns in rounds one and two, they would ideally be Ihuarraquax into Olaf, Blueboy, either Caduch or Flaminica, Svalblod Priest, Longship, and three more bronzes. That’s about 57 provisions in 8 rounds – an average of 7.125 provisions per round. This is slightly over the recommended 7, but it included the value of an extra card drawn by Ihuarraquax (which will be offset by the extra card drawn by my opponent). Also note here that I am using a key card analysis (with a bit of experience to know what is needed in round three) to decide what over-commitment for this deck would be. Again, analysis of key cards is more reliable than analysis of provisions. But I can then confirm that my heuristics that about 50% of cards played in rounds 1 and 2 being gold is not over-commitment and average provision cost 7 is not over-commitment by using this standard.

MARGIN OF VICTORY:

Ideally, one wins rounds by 1 point as this minimizes the number of wasted points. In reality, winning margins will be more than this, but winning rounds one or two by more than 30 points is very wasteful. It is hard to compute a winning margin without an actual game, but I can compute a theoretical value my cards will play for – of course, this value requires guesswork since it is hard to precisely predict how many points my opponent will be able to deny. Ideally, the expected point value of cards I play in early rounds does not significantly exceed the expected value of my opponent’s cards.

Assuming I draw reasonably well I hope to play something like the following cards in a match with my example deck. Following each card, I give an estimated value of the points for which it would play on the average. By necessity, these estimates are crude.

Ihuarraquax – Olaf – 13 points net value (deducting probable value of opponent’s card)
Priest – 7 points
Blueboy – 9 points
Longship – 7 points
Flaminica – 10 points
Quartermaster – 8 points
Cultist – 6 points
Adept – 7 points
Covenant – 7 points
Artis – 5 points
Vidkaarl – 12 points
Dire Bear – 8 points
Dracoturtle – 10 points
Priest – 9 points
Quartermaster – 8 points
Herbalist – 7 points
Leader – 9 points

This is a total of 142 points over 16 rounds which is 8.875 points per turn. This is a significantly below the pro’s average – but this is far from a meta deck, and Ihuarraquax, Artis, and Dire Bear are significantly undervalued by my point counting system. Also, note that if I assume the first 8 cards were made in rounds one and two, 67 (47%) of my points come from the half of the cards played. This would again be consistent with not over-committing.

CONSISTENCY CARDS:

Sometimes players do not consider that giving up a critical consistency card is also a commitment. Halving your chance of drawing a critical card is equivalent to giving up almost half its value (on the average). My example deck already has issues with consistency (which is a good part of the reason it is not a strong deck), but it does have two consistency cards (Ihuarraquax and Sigrdrifa’s Rite) and one thinning with Ihuarraquax. Provided I don’t use both before round three, I consider myself as having made a normal commitment. However, I do have to consider lack of consistency as an inherent part of my round one commitment.

GENERAL NEED FOR COMMITMENT:

Provided I draw both Ihuarraquax and a Priest, my deck plays quite strongly in round one. Moreover, if I draw the cards, I can generate a lot of points quickly in round three, but I also have good engine value. Thus, I rarely am concerned about controlling the round length, nor do I worry about competing in round one without commitment. I also have little to fear from last turn removal and little ability to remove opposing units. Thus, last say has little value to this deck as well. On its own, my example deck really provides no obvious reason to make extraordinary effort to wing round one.

But there could be reason based upon my opponent. Because I have a lot of cards with very good reach, I might be able to win the first round on even by only committing one extra gold card. As the difference between my typical gold and my typical bronze is only four to five points, but an extra card is about 8.5 for this deck, that seems like a promising trade. Even if I don’t win on even but force my opponent to play an extra gold card, I probably gain more than I lose. I can assess this as the round progresses.

A much bigger reason to commit heavily in round one is when my opponent plays a deck that generates a lot of value that I can’t mitigate with either Dire Bear or Artis. Kolgrim or Brouver decks are no problem. But decks that produce points by spawning or damaging are very bad for this deck – I probably need to bleed out big point generators to have a chance. And Heatwave onto Artis is often disaster. I have some great bait cards (Olaf, Dracoturtle) to draw Heatwave, but I don’t want Artis banished.

This is also a pretty good deck for bleeding. It can sustain a medium-high tempo for several turns with non-vital cards. Should there be reason to bleed, there is little fear of not drawing a hand able to do so.

ONGOING EVALUATION:

Commitment is always relative: the more your opponent commits, the more you can afford to commit. Moreover, the willingness to commit should also depend upon the probability and the projected benefit of that commitment. There is never a point in spending a gold card unless you believe it will change the round outcome, force something at least as useful from the opponent, or generate carryover worth the loss of the card. For my example deck, there are a lot of gold cards I am willing to play round one without worrying about not having them round three. One the other hand, if I am depleting my hand of gold cards, I do run a significant risk of not drawing the gold cards remaining in deck: if my opponent thins better or has multiple tutors, even an equivalent commitment becomes risky for me.

But it is also true with my example deck, that I rarely have reason not to push round one as deeply as I am able without heavy commitment as this usually forces my opponent to use cards more valuable than the ones I am using (of course, that does depend on exactly what is in my hand). On the other hand, I rarely have strong interest in committing more than my opponent unless I can win on even (or avoid losing on even) by committing no more than one extra gold card.

READING COMMITMENT:

It is strategically important to judge how hard your opponent is committing to a given round – this provides strong clues as to what you can expect from the opponent, as well as modifying what you should be willing to play. If you see only low cost, low value bronze cards early in round one, don’t respond with strong gold cards just because a 30-point lead feels comfortable – your opponent is showing signs of little interest in the round and will likely pass soon. If your opponent develops engines cumulatively capable of more than three points a round, be careful – your opponent is setting up to contest the round; you need to match or contain this value, or you need to plan to set up a safe pass. If your opponent has played several costly cards, they might have committed so much that their remaining rounds look weak; maybe you should pass – or if you safely can, maybe you should bait out still more.

If you are facing a good opponent (with experience you can usually tell by the strategy they use in round one), you may be able to draw useful inferences from how they play. If their deck is highly unfavored in a long round, they should be aggressively trying to win round one to be able to bleed round two. If they surprise you with passive, tow tempo cards, ask yourself why they would do that. Have you misread their deck? Do they have an awkward hand? Are they testing or tempting you?

CONCLUSION:

In this article, I spent a lot of time discussing one deck. Take it as an illustration for applying the principles behind over-commitment – not an advertisement for that deck. You will want to consider your own deck – and guesses at your opponent’s deck using the same principles: key cards unavailable in round three, use of gold cards disproportionate to gold cards in the deck, above average per-unit provision cost of units used, margin of victory, and lost consistency. You then need to evaluate the value you expect to obtain from your commitment relative to your opponent’s. Always balance your commitment to the return it gives. That balance is a core aspect of Gwent strategy.

 

[quintivarium]

GWENT COLLECTION STRATEGIES
Resources: Types and Sources

This article is designed to address the types of resources used in Gwent, what those resources are used for, and sources from which they can be acquired.

Depending upon exactly what you want to define as a resource, there are from three to five different kinds of in-game resources/currencies used in Gwent. Ore (looks like a gold nugget) is used exclusively to purchase kegs. Scraps (red and blue, almost in the shape of the letter N) are used exclusively to craft cards. Meteorite powder (looks like a pile of green dust) is used to transmute cards to their premium, animated version, as well as to purchase certain cosmetics. Reward points (look like keys) are used to purchase nodes on reward trees. These nodes can give other resources, cosmetics, or (rarely) cards themselves. Finally kegs (look like barrels) can be opened to obtain random Gwent cards (of a specified type).

Ore can be obtained as a reward when an opponent gives you a good game at the end of a match, or when a node of a reward tree is acquired. It may also appear in certain special events or as drops for watching or participating in certain Gwent based activities such as watching official streams of Gwent World Masters Tournaments. Scraps are obtained when an opponent gives you a good game after a match, from certain nodes in reward trees, as prizes in some special events, or as drops from some Gwent related activities. Scraps are also given when cards are milled (in the deck builder). Meteorite powder can be obtained from nodes in a reward tree, from certain special events or as drops doing certain Gwent related activities. It can also be purchased for real money in Shupe’s Shop. Kegs can appear when certain reward tree nodes are acquired, on certain Journey nodes, as drops, or by purchase (using either ore or real money) in Shupe’s Shop. Rewards are generally given for completing Journey nodes or completing Gwent contracts.

[This article has now been modified to correct the imprecise terminology pointed out by DRK3 below.}

 

[DRK3]

GWENT COLLECTION STRATEGIES
Resources: Types and Sources

This article is designed to address the types of resources used in Gwent, what those resources are used for, and sources from which they can be acquired.

Depending upon exactly what you want to define as a resource, there are from three to five different kinds of in-game resources/currencies used in Gwent. Ore (looks like a gold nugget) is used exclusively to purchase kegs. Scraps (red and blue, almost in the shape of the letter N) are used exclusively to craft and upgrade cards. Meteorite powder (looks like a pile of green dust) is used to upgrade cards and to purchase certain cosmetics. Rewards (look like keys) are used to purchase nodes on reward trees. These nodes can give other resources, cosmetics, or (rarely) cards themselves. Finally kegs (look like barrels) can be opened to obtain random Gwent cards (of a specified type).

Ore can be obtained as a reward when an opponent gives you a good game at the end of a match, or when a node of a reward tree is acquired. It may also appear in certain special events or as drops for watching or participating in certain Gwent based activities such as watching official streams of Gwent World Masters Tournaments. Scraps are obtained when an opponent gives you a good game after a match, from certain nodes in reward trees, as prizes in some special events, or as drops from some Gwent related activities. Scraps are also given when cards are milled (in the deck builder). Meteorite powder can be obtained from nodes in a reward tree, from certain special events or as drops doing certain Gwent related activities. It can also be purchased for real money in Shupe’s Shop. Kegs can appear when certain reward tree nodes are acquired, on certain Journey nodes, as drops, or by purchase (using either ore or real money) in Shupe’s Shop. Rewards are generally given for completing Journey nodes or completing Gwent contracts.

A few corrections:

The official term for the process of transforming standard cards (non-animated) into premium cards (animated) is called 'transmutation'. Players can transmute their cards with meteorite powder (AKA dust).

And the resource used to unlock nodes in reward trees is called 'reward points', you can find this term is the one the Gwent team uses on their posts and articles.

 

[quintivarium]

GWENT COLLECTION STRATEGIES
Card Selection Part I – Picking from Kegs

Newer players, when building card collections are often faced with two related questions: “When encountering a choice of cards from a keg, which should I choose?” and “What cards are most important to craft?” These are both good but complicated questions, and the answer depends upon your goals as a player. Thus, rather than attempting to answer these questions, this cluster of articles will attempt to give you tools to answer the questions yourself. This part deals with how to pick the best choice for the center choice from kegs. Part II deals with choosing cards to craft, and part III deals with evaluating card quality.

What makes selecting cards from kegs difficult is that generally you cannot investigate the cards in advance – you need to make a choice on the spot. And the best choice often depends upon your collection strategy. If the choice includes one animated card, unless the animation does not matter to you, I recommend selecting that animated card – animated cards are much harder to obtain and ultimately consume scarcer resources to craft.

Otherwise, if the card is only common or rare, the choice is not that critical. Crafting such cards is not expensive and, especially if you choose a faction centered collection approach, you will probably get all common and rare cards within a couple of months. If you dabble in all factions, it might take a year. Just be certain to pick cards for which you do not already have two copies (you cannot place more than two copies of common or rare cards in a deck).

If the card choice is epic or legendary, your decision really does matter. You can only play one copy of an epic or legendary card, so first, never take a second copy. Otherwise, if there is a card you have been wanting for a deck, of course you choose that one. If there is a card you have seen in frequent use, it is probably a good card – especially if you see it in meta decks or used by high-level players.

If the card is unfamiliar, read its description. Consider the impact the card might have – is it likely to sway an entire match, or even a single round? Consider how specialized it is – will you be able to use it with most of your cards, or will you have to build a deck around it? Consider how hard it is to use: does it require fulfilling a lot of conditions or very careful timing? Consider its similarity to cards you already own. Many players would prefer variety, but many might prefer similar themes that reinforce one another. Finally, consider the card’s appeal to you. Some people get excited by flashy random effect; others hate randomness. Some players value points; others prefer lots of special powers to build around.

Choose with the comfort of knowing that you cannot go seriously wrong. Even “bad” cards can have interesting uses. And Gwent never reaches a stage where you cannot continue to progress – no matter how bad the cards you own seem. You can win rewards and resources by just playing; you don’t need to win. And I have navigated some absolutely atrocious decks to victory – either I face an opponent playing something worse, my opponent inexplicably quits, or, with better strategy, I outplay a better deck.

 

[quintivarium]

GWENT CARD COLLECTION STRATEGIES
Monsters Faction Overview

Mood: Lurking, brooding, sudden. Monsters arise to devour the unexpecting.


Lore: Monsters are menacing, inhuman, evoking primal fears.


Major Strategic Facets:

Spawn – Monsters can quickly spawn their rows with small units, followed by payoffs that use that spawn to generate significant points – and monsters can accomplish this in multiple ways spawning insects, rats or thrive cards with payoffs ranging from synergizing immediate effect cards to on-going engines. Noteworthy cards: Plague Maiden, Koshchey, Arachas Behemoth, Wererat, Chimera, Arachas Nest

Board Clog – Although somewhat a meme, monsters have ability to spam enough junk on the opponent’s side of the board that the opponent’s board space can be completely consumed, leaving the opponent unable to play units. Noteworthy cards: Noonwraith, Maerolorn, Abaya

Power Units – Monsters have many high-strength units, as well as mechanisms that tend to create or use tall units. This, alone, gives them a unique feel. Noteworthy cards: She Who Knows, Yghern, Imlerith, Imlerith’s Wrath, Griffin

Vampiric Tactics – Most of the least human vampires in the game belong to the monster faction, thus monsters features many units which give bleeding and/or benefit from bleeding enemies in a variety of different ways. Noteworthy cards: Unseen Elder, Crimson Curse, Dettlaff van der Eretein, Orianna, Protofleder, Fleder

Low Unit Strategies – A handful of monster cards benefit by controlling fewer units that one’s opponent. Maintaining fewer cards requires interesting and sometimes unique tactics. Noteworthy cards: Keltullis, Jotunn

Graveyard Exploitation – Several monster cards benefit from units in the graveyard – usually as targets to consume. Noteworthy cards: Mammuna, Ozzrel, Mourntart, Ghoul

Frost/Weather Use – Particularly wild hunt units can generate and exploit weather effects (especially frost) which can significantly hinder an opponent, while potentially helping friendly units. Noteworthy cards: Eredin Breacc Glas, Ard Gaeth, Ancient Foglet, Red Riders

Power Boost – The monsters faction has the unique ability to claim substantial boosts – often very quickly. From two point per turn engines to units that grow through re-birth or consumption from the graveyard, to thrive engines, to growth based upon effects like bleeding or weather, monstrous growth is a trademark of the faction. Noteworthy cards: Kikimore Queen, Bloody Mistress, The Beast, Selfeater, Endrega Larva, Witch Apprentice

Death strategies – Monsters often find direct benefit from the death of units – usually because of deliberate triggering of deathwish traits, but also by cards boosted by the deaths of other units. Noteworthy cards: Ruehin, Ritual Sacrifice, Weavess: Incantation, Dettlaff: Higher Vampire, Glustyworp, Miruna, She-Troll of Vergen, Predatory Dive


Faction Focused Mechamics:

Thrive – Thrive is a unique monster ability where certain units gain power simply because a more powerful unit is played. It can create a large, interconnected boost-based engine.

Sabbath – Some monster units receive a special bonus simply by having a row containing at least 25 points.

Dominance – Some monster units gain a special benefit by owing the highest power unit on the board.

Deathwish – Some monster units have a power invoked when the unit is killed or destroyed (but not when banished). A few non-monsters have deathwish, but it is primarily a monster trait.

Consume – Some monsters consume other units. These monsters destroy the unit consumed and are then boosted by the power of that destroyed unit. Units with this power are typically used to trigger deathwish abilities.


Weaknesses:

Often very limited control/removal.

Vulnerability to tall removal and often power reset.

Impetus to row-stack caused by Sabbath and some consume mechanisms.


Other Influential Cards: Viy, Auberon King, Frightener: Dormant, Caranthir Ar-Feiniel


Subjective Evaluation: I really enjoy the monster faction. Often very deep strategic considerations belie the apparent tactical simplicity of many mechanics and cards, and the consistency of monster cards reduces the chance that good choices are undermined by bad draws. Moreover, I find a lot of variety in the faction: both multiple alternatives to most units in most decks, and numerous archetypes to design a deck around – different decks that have distinctive feels.

 

[quintivarium]

GWENT CARD COLLECTION STRATEGIES
Nilfgaard Faction Overview

NILFGAARD:

Mood: Deceitful and underhanded, Nilfgaard is not about playing fair; it’s about playing successful – and getting their opponents to help.


Lore: Nilfgaardians live in a society where status is everything. They are known to be devious, cruel, and manipulative.


Major Strategic Facets

Control / Status Manipulation – Nilfgaard is sometimes called the control faction. With ready access to locks and poison, Nilfgaard has many tools to interfere with opponent strategy. Noteworthy cards: Usurper Officer, Emhyr var Emreis, Vincent Van Moorlehem, Fergus var Emreis, Van Moorlehem’s Cupbearer, Fercart, Aukes, Vanhemar, Alba Armored Cavalry, Thirsty Dame, Seditious Aristocrats

Soldier Bolstering – Nilfgaard has many soldier units with a good variety of abilities. It also has numerous cards to bolster/support those soldiers. Soldiers, working together can have a lot of flexibility. Noteworthy cards: Ramon Tyrconnel, Vrygheff, Affan Hillergrand, Vreemde, Slave Infantry

Copy/Steal – Nilfgaard is also notorious for duplicating or even stealing enemy units, thus they love a good “adversary”. Noteworthy cards: Artaud Terranova, Vattier de Rideaux, Letho: Kingslayer, Yennifer’s Invocation, Cadaverine, Coup de Grace, Bribery, Tourney Shaelmaar, Sweers, Glynnis aep Loernach, Cantarella, Amnesty, Experimental Remedy, Viper Witcher Alchemist, Master of Puppets, Duchess’s Informant

Sabotage – Nilfgaard is full of underhanded tricks to undermine the opposition. Noteworthy cards: Ivar Evil-Eye, Cahir Dyffryn, Vilgefortz, Shilard Fitz-Oesterlen, Vypper, Isbel of Hagge, Treason, Peter Saar Gwynleve,

Friendly Deck Manipulation – With properly selected tools, Nilfgaard can modify its own deck by either thinning cards or returning cards. It also has several ways to cash in on that manipulation. Noteworthy cards: Xarthisius, Deadman’s Tongue, Assire ver Anahid, Albrich, Blightmaker

Opponent Deck Manipulation – The deck of opposing players is not immune to Nilfgaardian machinations either. Nilfgaard can attempt to stuff that deck with junk, or to thin that deck to the points that cards become unavailable to draw. Noteworthy cards: Tibor Eggebracht, Kolgrim, Gorthur Gvaed, Warrit the All-Seeing, Cynthia, Imperial Golem, Traheaern var Vdyffir, Kingslayer, Viper Witcher Mentor, Coated Weapon, Viper Witcher, Courier

Leader Manipulation – Although limited to two cards and one leader ability, Nilfgaard is uniquely able to gain additional leader abilities, or to deny opponent leader abilities. Noteworthy cards: Damien de la Tour, Anna Henrietta, the leader Lockdown.

Board Disruption – Nilfgaard’s spies can re-order units on the opponent’s board in ways that fundamentally disrupt certain abilities. While not a tactic that stands on its own, board disruption is a useful tool NG can often employ. Noteworthy cards: Joachim de Wett, Braathens, Roderick of Dun Tynne, Emissary, Mage Infiltrator


Faction Focused Mechanics:

Disloyal – Disloyal units are played on the opponent’s side of the board. They are not limited to Nilfgaard, but the mechanic is iconically Nilgaardian.

Assimilate – Certain Nilfgaard units receive a boost whenever the NG player plays a card not in the original deck. It is a mechanic that strongly supports playing cards copied or stolen from the opponent.

Conspiracy – Conspiracy gives certain effects greater impact when applied to units with the spying status.


Weaknesses:

NG in general has low base strength units.

Finding proactive plays can sometimes be difficult.

NG lacks significant passive (able to grow with player action) engines.


Other Influential Cards: Rience, Stefan Skellen, Doadrick Leumaerts, Hefty Helge, Artorius Vigo, Urcheon of Erlenwald


Subjective Evaluation: Although Nilfgaard is frequently maligned by players, I tend to strongly disagree with that assessment. In fact, Nilfgaard is my favorite faction – to play against! I observe that, more than any other faction, responding strategically (and not merely tactically) against Nilfgaard has a big impact. I also find that Nilfgaard tends to counteract certain excesses in the game – excesses that for the good of the game must be counteracted. When the current meta is at its worst, NG tends to rise to prominence – not because it creates a bad meta – but because it counters it. And those are the times when I often most enjoy encountering Nilfgaard: my often weak, homebrew decks fare very well when an opponent can only copy, counter, steal, and destroy lousy cards!

 

[quintivarium]

GWENT GAME PLAY STRATEGIES
Tempo and Timing


INTRODUCTION: Sometimes obvious, sometimes subtle, tempo is an important characteristic of cards and decks, and using tempo well can significantly improve one’s competitiveness in play. By tempo, I might refer to either of two related ideas: the rate at which a player can score points over a desired period, or the ability of a player, in a timely fashion, to provide set up for a desired card or effect. Timing will refer to the ability to effectively play a certain card at the optimal moment.


THE ROLE OF TEMPO: The canonical round one result has the winning player expending one more card than the losing player. Tempo creates this tendency; tempo can be used to change it. If both players use roughly equal tempo cards, the stratagem gives the blue-coin player a boost equivalent to about half a turn – this would be enough that (still assuming both players play equal tempo cards) a blue-coin player will always end his turn about 1.5 cards ahead. If the red-coin player passes at this point, the blue-coin player will have spent an extra card but will win the round. If the red-coin player plays another card, that player will still be about one half turn behind on points, and if the blue-coin player passes, the red-coin player needs one more card to win the round. The canonical round two result is then that the player who lost round one must spend his extra card to win round two, and round three begins even on cards. But obviously not all cards are the same, and differences in tempo between cards can change this result. Thus, in rounds one and two, tempo can be used to strategically alter the typical round end situation.

Tempo can also be used tactically in any round by using rapidly developed threats to disrupt the opponent’s optimal card order. Often this takes the form of developing removal options that force one’s opponent to delay playing engines until the removal threat is handled – which can deny an opponent valuable points.


TEMPO TRADEOFFS:

Playing high tempo allows you control over many match dynamics, but it comes at a price. In general, higher tempo cards cost more provisions per point of value than lower provision cards. In general, large payoff usually happens only after a few rounds of low tempo set up. In general, there are limited quantities of high tempo cards available. Moreover, certain critical, defensive cards (squirrel, purify cards) are innately low tempo. Most good decks simply cannot maintain high tempo through the entire match.

Therefore, high tempo cards are often saved for when they matter most – usually in the final round. In addition, usually playing high tempo cards also exposes them to enemy attack – it is often beneficial to keep a lower profile.


CHOOSING A TEMPO:

Often, a hand will have what I would call a default tempo: based upon the cards in the hand, a player selects a sequencing of cards that seems natural based upon other considerations (such as optimizing point potential, preserving cards wanted for a later round, developing desired carryover, playing around possible plays of the opponent, etc.) But tempo can be one of the factors in selecting a card to play. And sometimes, accounting for other factors leaves more than one viable card order. So, it is important to recognize the achievable tempo that most benefits you and how much that tempo is worth. It is unlikely that I will identify every possible situation where tempo matters, but I would like to discuss some of the most common and important tempo decisions.

Probably the simplest and most important tempo decisions revolve around “reach” – the ability of a player to surpass the score of the opponent within a desired number of plays assuming the opponent passes and takes no further actions. For example, suppose in round one that your opponent has four cards in hand, is up by a score of 24 – 18, with engines on the board that passively generate two points every round and you are deciding what to do with no engines on the board and five cards in your hand. If you play a card generating nine or more immediate points, doing so will win you round one on even should your opponent pass. If you have two cards capable of generating eleven or more points over the next two rounds, should your opponent pass after you play the first, you will still win the round, but you will have spent one more card than your opponent. If you cannot generate eleven points with two cards, you would likely pass as, even if you win the round, you will have a persisting card disadvantage. Playing a high value card in preference to a more optimal combination of two low tempo cards is a tempo-based decision. But the decision might go deeper than this. If you play the nine-point card to go ahead, but your opponent does not pass, you will have another reach-based decision. If your hand has insufficient high tempo cards for you to think you can stay ahead at the end of your turns as the round plays on, using your nine-point card might be a needless waste of a nice card. And even if you can win on even, you need to evaluate whether doing so is worth the cost. And if you can’t stay ahead to win on even, you need to consider what it will cost your opponent to prevent this – playing a nine-point card might be worth the trade.

But tempo can enter decision making in much more subtle ways. At the start of round one, you should consider your goals for the round based on the probable matchup, the coin-flip, and the content of your hand. Do you need to bleed round two? If so, you need to try to win round one – and do so in an appropriate position to bleed round two. Do you need not to be bled in round two? If so, you can either win round one or lose it with your opponent in no position to bleed. Do you have a bad hand? Maybe you just need to escape round one in other than a horrible state. Of course, your goals can be revised as the round progresses, but having goals helps you decide upon a tempo to best achieve them. If you are blue-coin, and a round one goal is not to lose on even, you will want to either play sufficient tempo that your opponent cannot catch up with the stratagem boost before you have played three cards and can safely pass, or to set up engines sufficient to get you back in the lead before your hand drops below four cards. On the other hand, if you need to bleed round two, you cannot no longer rely on very low tempo engines, because if an early opponent pass (before the engines kick in) forces you to go down two cards (even if you do not cross the four-card threshold) successfully bleeding round two is unlikely. In fact, a common technique to avoid being bled in round two is what is known as a tempo pass – getting sufficiently far ahead that the opponent cannot surpass your total without going more than one card down, then passing.

On a round two bleed, tempo is also important. A bleeding player with high-tempo cards in hand has far more options than that player would have without tempo. Remember, the goal of bleeding is not necessarily to win the round, but to force the opponent to play good cards. A high tempo bleed forces the opponent to respond with high tempo as well – otherwise the bleeding player can pass at a point when the other player cannot catch up without using extra cards. This case is discussed more in the article on bleeding.

Sometimes, a player might deliberately choose a low tempo just for the sake of a low tempo. Often this is to bait an opponent into making bad choices such as unnecessarily using a good card or enticing an opponent to continue competing in a round beyond the point where they would optimally pass. Sometimes it is done to avoid providing the opponent with potentially valuable information about your hand or deck. Sometimes it is done simply to allow more time for desirable occurrences (like carry over or adrenaline) to occur.


CREATING A DESIRED TEMPO:

You might think that creating tempo is a simple as playing cards that suit that tempo. And often this is the case. But actions that slow your opponent’s tempo can sometimes be as effective as actions that increase your tempo. And sometimes you need bursts of tempo, but you can decide when to initiate those bursts.

Moreover, a common mistake made by players is to fail to consistently pursue a planned tempo. If you play a high tempo card, followed by a low tempo card, you have let your opponent off the hook – they are no longer in danger of bad things that happen when falling behind in tempo, but you have spent a good, high tempo card.


CONCLUSION: Tempo is often a subtle and difficult concept to use well. This article discussed several principles in the abstract, but actual experience is vital to true understanding. In the article “Working Examples” (presently in progress), there are several practice cases that also might help with these concepts.

 

[quintivarium]

GWENT CARD COLLECTION STRATEGIES

Northern Realms Faction Overview


Mood: Fall in line; Northern Realms molds all into one, big machine to trample enemies.


Lore: Regimented, militaristic, and sometimes spoiled.


Major Strategic Facets:

• Damage on Order – Many NR units offer orders giving damage. Ordered damage erodes enemy strength through either repeated pings or significant bursts. Noteworthy cards: Prince Anseis, Seltkirk of Gulet, Foltest’s Pride, Black Rayla, Vissegerd, Vincent Meis, Battering Ram, Cintrian Spelweaver, Griffin Witcher, Reinforced Ballista, Redanian Archer
• Boosted Units – NR contains numerous engines to boost units, as well as cards offering one-time boosts or cards benefitting from boosts. Noteworthy cards: War Elephant, Queen Meve, Reynard Odo, Keira Metz, Nenneke, Dethmold, Prince Stennis, Vysogota, Nathaniel Pastodi, Coen, Cintrian Royal Guard, Anna Strenger, Temerian Drummer, Kerack City Guard, Tridam Inantry, Lyrian Scytheman
• Order Manipulation – NR can also manipulate orders to gain power, reduce cooldown, or even carry out orders twice. Noteworthy cards: Viraxas Prince, Tissaia de Vries, Priscilla, Hubert Rejk, Leticia Charbonneau, Casting Contest, Siege Support, Lyrian Cavalry
• Patience Engines – The patience keyword not only enhances the power of units with the trait, it also supports and is supported by powers of other cards. Noteworthy cards: Gerhart of Aelle, Aretuza Adept, Ban Ard Student, Aretuza Student
• Spawn and Replay – NR can spawn units – often repeatedly. It also has a few tools to re-play units, taking advantage of previously spawned units or of previously developed patience. Noteworthy cards: Roche: Merciless, King Foltest, Shani, Keldar, Princess Pavetta, Ronvid the Incessant, Reinforcements, Kerack Frigate, Forbidden Magic, Blue Stripes Commando, Kaedweni Revenant, Blue Stripes Scout, Dun Banner, Poor Fucking Infantry
• Boost carryover – NR, better than any other faction can create and use carried-over boost. Noteworthy cards: Erland of Larvik, Dandelion, Archgriffin, Kaer Seren, Griffin Witcher Mentor
• Shield manipulation – NR can create and exploit shields very effectively. Noteworthy cards: Prophet Lebioda, King Roegner, Immortals, Windhalm of Attre, Damned Sorceress, Immortal Cavalry, Kaedweni Cavalry, Cintrian Artificer
• Tutoring with benefits – NR not only has a significant number of faction-based tutors, but many of those tutors bring other benefits to the cards tutored. Noteworthy cards: Amphibious Assault, Vernon Roche, Queen Adalia, Practice Makes Perfect, Cintrian Envoy

Faction Focused Mechanics:

• Crew – Some units benefit from being between two soldier units
• Patience – Units with the patience trait increase the power of an order each turn the unit is on the board without being used.
• Inspired – inspired units gain power when boosted
• Formation – Formation gives units the choice between being given a boost (deployed back row) or being given zeal (deployed front row)
• Resupply – Resupply allows some units to benefit whenever a warfare card is played.

Weaknesses:

• Frail Units
• Vulnerable to Control.
• Difficulty maintaining high tempo

Other Influential Cards: Siege, Draug, Phillipa: Blind Fury, Falibor, Bloody Baron, Botchling, Istredd


Subjective Evaluation: To be blunt, NR is probably my least appreciated faction. There are occasional NR decks that I really enjoy (in fact, my current "go to" deck is NR), and the faction contains several of my favorite cards. But many of the mechanics of the faction just don’t appeal much to me. First, I don’t like the huge number of orders some decks make me manage – I find that tedious. And I don’t like patience – keeping track of how much patience is where is again tedious to me. Also, while every faction has cards to which I object so strongly that I will not play them, it seems much harder to build viable NR decks without them. Finally, to me it seems almost every NR card is either about boosting or spawning an ally or damaging an enemy. The consequence is that the cards in a deck feel highly interchangeable, and virtually every deck starts to feel the same.

 

[DRK3]

Damage on Order – Many NR units offer orders giving damage. Ordered damage erodes enemy strength through either repeated pings or significant bursts. Noteworthy cards: Prince Anseis, Seltkirk of Gulet, Foltest’s Pride, Black Rayla, Vissegerd, Vincent Meis, Battering Ram, Cintrian Spelweaver, Griffin Witcher, Reinforced Ballista, Redanian Archer

Just a correction: Vincent Meis ability actually isnt considered damage by the game - for example you can use it on a shielded unit and it will still put it to 1pt. One of my favourite NR cards.