Gwent Strategy Articles

+
GWENT COLLECTION STRATEGIES
Card Selection Part II – Choosing Cards to Craft


When newer players are trying to grow their card collection, accumulating enough scraps to craft a card can be an exciting moment. But often, that accomplishment is accompanied by the question, “But which card should I craft?” If your collection strategy focuses around playing meta-decks, the answer is that you should craft the most important card(s) in the deck you want to play. If you are collecting based on optimal efficiency in resource use, the answer is that you should save your scraps until you get enough to craft all cards you have not yet found in kegs (but be aware that this could easily take two years).

But I suspect most players want to craft good cards they can use to build strong decks of their own without directly downloading meta decks. This article is not to tell such players what to craft, but rather to help them make wise decisions. The big differences between crafting and choosing between cards offered in a keg are that crafting gives you unrestricted choice of (almost) any Gwent card, and that crafting need not rush your decision.

My first piece of advice on crafting is to only craft bronze (common or rare) cards in cases where you have immediate use for them in a deck. The reasons for this are simple. Common and rare cards are relatively easy to obtain. Individual bronze cards generally have low impact on match results. And bronze cards rarely are instrumental in shaping a deck – there are almost always suitable substitutes. Save your scraps until you can craft the more impactful epic and legendary cards.

When crafting gold cards, give highest priority to a card you believe would significantly improve an existing deck you enjoy using. This virtually guarantees the new card will make a difference in your game. When I was just beginning, I was very excited to be able to craft Artis: it was a card in the faction I was playing most, a card with a unique ability that I judged (correctly) could change a match, and a card that I thought would lead to interesting tactics. What I didn’t consider was that the card did not fit any of my decks, that the card works best with self-damage and healing units (of which I owned very few), and that the card is a bit tricky to use well. After a few aborted attempts to include Artis in a decent deck, he sat unused in my deck-builder for another 6 months. When I finally dusted him off, I found he was fun and strategic and not as bad as his very low rate of use might suggest. But he was certainly not a good first craft.

If you are not looking for a specific card for one of your decks, I recommend that your second crafting priority be finding good, all-purpose cards likely to significantly impact a wide variety of decks you are likely to play. If you dabble across multiple different factions, I recommend you look at neutral cards first. These cards can work with any faction. If you are focusing on a single faction, do not rule out good neutral cards, but gold cards in your faction should also be considered. Good, all-purpose cards for a beginner include cards with good removal abilities (e.g., Korathi Heatwave), cards that provide points and play other cards of a type you use (e.g., Triss: Telekinesis provided you play bronze special cards) cards that can provide a lot of points (e.g., Sunset Wanderers), cards with the defender status, cards with high tempo (that provide lots of points in a short time), cards that spread points out (rather than piling them on a single unit). As a beginner, I would not worry greatly about provision costs – I was a good 6 months into the game before I could build a reasonably synergistic deck that reached the provision limit. Of course, if you are more advanced, provision cost is an important consideration.

Cards I would avoid are cards that require specific synergy with cards you don’t own, cards with complex triggering conditions, cards whose purpose is not clear, cards whose value derives more from what your opponent does than from what you set up. I would also avoid too many cards that are very passive and do not attack your opponent.

Finally, do not be afraid you might craft a suboptimal card. Cards that interest and inspire you are far more valuable to your gaming experience than cards that squeeze out a couple more points. Let your choices spur your unique imagination; let your creativity spur your choices. Earlier, I mentioned Artis as a “mistake”. But striving to make him useful, letting him inspire me to find different decks and strategies, letting me be immersed in possibilities both shaped me more as a player and brought much more enjoyment than crafting any generic meta-card would have. Mistakes are only in what you make of a card.
 
GWENT COLLECTION STRATEGIES
Card Selection Part III – Evaluating Cards


How can a player tell whether a card is good? This is an important question, both in choosing whether to craft the card as well as in choosing whether to include it in a deck. In some cases, the answer is obvious, but in some cases, cards can be deceptive. This article is written to discuss approaches to evaluating cards.

The big challenge in evaluating a card’s value is that cards rarely play in isolation – a card that is worthless in one situation can be priceless in another. Thus, it is impossible to give a universal formula to rate a card’s value. About the best one can do is to define a card to be “good” if it is worth including in some viable deck. Thus, one approach to evaluating a card is to try it multiple times in multiple decks and gauge how it performs. Of course, this is hard to do if you don’t own the card, but you want to decide whether it is worth owning. And even if you do own it, you might want to design decks without having to test every reasonable combination of cards multiple times.

Thus, I will try to present ways that the value of a card can be estimated (at least crudely) by looking at its characteristics hypothetically. I advocate looking at a card in multiple ways, because no one measure captures the merits and deficiencies of all cards.

Perhaps the most common measure of a card’s worth is “points per provision”. This attempts to measure a card’s worth (points) in proportion to its cost (provisions). This sounds simple – and for some cards it is. For example, an Elder Bear is a straightforward six points for four provisions. Other cards are harder. An An Craite Longship is a four-point body costing five provisions. But its ability to damage enemy units as they are played also generates shifts the score one point in your direction every time the opponent plays a unit. The problem is that the number of units the Longship will damage depends upon decks and how people play. Will Longship be locked? Will it be killed? If not, how many turns will it be active? How many units will the opponent play in that time? Despite this, I am willing to make a crude estimate. If the longship is immediately locked or removed, it plays for four points. If it hits all units after it is played, I expect a typical round to last about six turns. I might expect a typical opponent to play one special in that interval, so the Longship will do five damage. Taking a rough average, I might evaluate the Longship as seven or eight points (two or three damage + four body). But wait! What if I also play something like a Bear Witcher Mentor? Then the damage inflicted by Longship increases the value of mentor. Which card do I credit with these points? (It is important not to double count the same points.)

Moreover, the type and distribution of points also matters. Undying Thirst is a four-provision card that inflicts six points of bleeding onto an enemy – a potential six points for four provisions card, which might generally be considered solid. But six points of bleeding is very low quality – it takes six turns to fully manifest; it requires a target and will not work on veiled units; it can be purified; it is wasted on units with less than six strength. Alzur’s Thunder, which inflicts five points of damage for five provisions (a measly five for five) is a much better card and one that is usually worth more than five points because it often destroys on enemy engine. But even the value of specific type of points is situational. It is often debated whether damage is better than boost. The correct answer is that it depends – if damage destroys an engine; damage is very good; if damage hurts a unit that will later be reset anyway, it is worthless; if six points of damage is used to destroy a three-strength card, it is only worth three points. Similar arguments can be made for boost.

A still bigger problem is that not all value can be measured in points. What is a Veil worth? A Lock? A Banish? These very much depend upon the deck matchup. In addition, not all cost can be measured in provisions. During the play of the game, turns are far more important than provisions. To take an example, Mage Assassin is a four-provision card that plays for four points (2 body, 2 damage). On a points per provision measure, that is a horrible card – even for four provisions. Yet it is one of the most widely used NG bronze units. It gains significant value because if it is moved to the top of a deck, it plays without using a turn… This phenomenon will be further discussed in the deck building strategy article, “Points, Provisions, and Plays” {upcoming]. My main point here is that points per provision is only a partial measure of a card’s worth – very good in some cases, crude in some, and useless in others. As of this writing, most low provision bronzes can be evaluated by points per provision; most six provision and higher cards require significant other considerations. And as a rule of thumb, a four-provision card that plays for seven points is very good, one that plays for six points is solid, one that plays for five or less should have some off-setting characteristic/purpose to be worthwhile. Five-provision cards that play for eight or more are very good, those that play for seven are marginal, and those that play for six should have some additional value from some characteristic of the card. But these values are rapidly becoming powercrept with every new release of cards.

Another fairly objective tool useful for evaluating cards is to examine how they trade for opponent’s cards. This trade can be considered on two bases: how the cards trade in provisions, and how the two cards trade in points. For example, suppose a Masquerade Ball is countered by a Korathi Heatwave. Since Ball costs fifteen provisions and Heatwave, only ten, one would say Ball traded down by five provisions to Heatwave. This is a valuable comparison when trying to squeeze maximum value out of your provisions in designing a deck. But Heatwave does not entirely cancel out the Ball when played – a four-point body Thirsty Dame remains on the board. Thus, we could say that Ball trades up to Heatwave by four points (plus engine value) in a single turn. During play, provisions no longer really matter (except, perhaps, as a measure of a card’s potential) – it is points that win rounds. And thus, trade value in terms of points is also important when considering cards to include in a deck. Scenarios – if they can be efficiently procced – are valuable cards because they literally trade up (in points) versus anything. But trade value is also limited in application. There is no point in computing a trade value for Iron Falcon Knife Juggler because no rational player, given an option, would spend resources (cards or provisions) to trade for it. Technically, it might trade up four points (due to the bleed damage) or one provision to Alzur’s Thunder, but this a meaningless comparison as no one would waste a Thunder on a Juggler unless there were no other targets.

Other than these, there are a couple other values one might examine. How much of the card’s value is immediate upon play (as opposed to delayed until later)? Both Gord and Syanna can play for 20 points or more, but Gord’s points (although they require setup) occur immediately, while Syanna plays for only three points until the next turn. Generally, immediate value is significantly preferred as it is harder to be denied by the opponent. There are occasional exceptions – especially when an order card can build up charges. Redanian Archer generally gets one damage ping a turn – but if four or five are saved up, it can discharge them all to destroy an engine. Related is the idea of reach – the maximum number of points you can score in one turn. The better the reach in a given hand, the easier it is to compete deep into round one or to conduct or defend a bleed in round two.

Another consideration is whether a card is primarily proactive or reactive in nature. Many decks can struggle to find proactive plays. But remember, to be truly proactive, a card needs no set up – from you or from the other player and ideally helps set up something else later.

There are also more subjective considerations. How hard is the card to set up? How much deck commitment is needed for the card to get good value? How could the card be answered? Is doing so easy or hard? Is it a card that necessitates an answer? Are likely answers for the card disadvantageous to you? How does it synergize with other cards you are using? How does it limit other cards you are using? What is its popularity (good cards are likely to be used by significant numbers of people – unless you find a unique context for the card.

Let me conclude this article with an example. Fulmar is a card I do not own and have seen relatively little. It is a Price of Power expansion card, which, as of this writing, would be a relatively new card. Hence, because of powercreep, I would expect to be rather strong. It also belongs to SK which is not prominent in the current meta – a possible reason I rarely see the card. It is 12 provisions – which is expensive. It plays for an immediate 8 points (Fulmar’s six-point body, and a two-point Deafening Siren). It effectively plays for two more points as the opponent will have no chance to counter one round of rain, so I will call its immediate value ten points. Unless it is the final card of the round, its reach is also ten. Rain will continue another round to make its total deploy value twelve points. It has an order that converts rain to storm. This is harder to evaluate as it is hard to predict how many turns will be converted – not to mention how many enemy cards the Storm will injure. I will estimate (crudely) that this adds three points to the card’s value. Fifteen points from one play is pretty good – especially when most of it is immediate and needs little set up. But is it worth the high provision cost?

I also note that Fulmar’s points are nicely distributed (6 on Fulmar, 2 on Siren, the rest in scattered damage pings). The only set-up issues would be in getting good value converting rain to storm, and his value is decent even without this. Fulmar cannot be effectively countered. The 6-point body is not really big enough alone to justify the tall removal it takes – although shutting down the order ability might make it so. But then Fulmar (thanks to the siren and rain) trades up about 6 points to any removal or locks the opponent might use. I also note that synergies might increase Fulmar’s value significantly – but most of this increase would be in his order ability which is likely to be shut down. There are some synergies with rain or with spawn, but these don’t seem that sizable. In short, Fulmar looks like a decent addition to a deck, but not one so strong as to drive the deck.

The last part of this analysis would be to compare Fulmar to equivalent provision alternatives in the SK faction. In SK there is one 13 provision card (Gedyneith), four additional 12 provision cards (Blood Eagle, Hemdall, Harald an Craite, and Eist Tuirseach), and three 11 provision cards (Cerys an Craite, Wild Boar of the Sea, and Lippy Gudmund). All these cards, at one point or another, have been instrumental in top tier SK decks and many at some point in time were considered broken (and some might still be broken). I will focus on Hemdall as his effects and likely role seem very similar to Fulmar. Hemdall plays with an eight-point body and additional damage upon deploy. Hemdall has a much lower point ceiling than Fulmar, but because all his effects are immediate, he likely has more reach and is even harder to deny value. As a warrior, Hemdall has very nice synergies in warrior decks – especially with potential to be tutored. I do not see Fulmar contributing more to a storm deck than Hemdall does to a Warrior deck, and Fulmar is more variable. My conclusion: Fulmar is certainly a worthy card to have. But he will not single handedly make or break a deck. He is one of those cards that I would use if I owned him, but nor one that I feel inadequate without.

In this article, I have discussed quantitative and subjective measures often used determine a card’s value, and I have applied those to an example. Ultimately, however, cards are always part of a deck, and decks, part od a match. Finding a card useful in actual play should always be the final word on its value.
 
GWENT CARD COLLECTION STRATEGIES
Scoia’tael Faction Overview


Mood: Mismatched and scattered, the Scoia’tael use what they can – at whatever cost.

Lore: The Scoia’tael are desperate, oppressed, and unforgiving, locked into a world they no longer control.

Major Strategic Facets:
  • Attention to Category – Many factions have cards that derive benefits of other cards of a certain primary category, but Scoia’tael not only has a significant number of those, it has units that use multiple categories and it has mechanics (Harmony) that use them as well. Noteworthy cards: Saskia, Novigradian Justice, Barnabas Beckenbauer, Zoltan Chivay, Gabor Zigrin, Isengrim’s Council, Aelirenn, Isengrim Faoiltiarna, Yaevinn, Percival Schuttenbach, Barclay Els, Vrihedd Sappers, Abandoned Girl, Vernossiel’s Commando
  • Traps – Although many Scoia’tael decks may use no traps, traps can create a unique dynamic with delayed effects, hidden cards, and optional spring opportunities. Noteworthy cards: Iorveth’s Gambit, Iorveth, Eibhear Hattori, Mahakam Horn, Serpent Trap, Pitfall Trap, Treant Mantis: Stalk, Crushing Trap, Incinerating trap
  • Movement & Positioning – Many Scoia’tael cards allow or benefit from moving either friendly or enemy cards. These cards highlight the value of unit positioning and disrupt the opponent’s positioning. Noteworthy cards: Gezras of Leyda, Stygga Castle, Brehen, Treant Boar, Gaetan, Ciaran aep Easnillen, Malena, Cat Witcher Saboteur, Dol Blathanna Sentry, Dryad Matron, Cat Witcher, Cat Witcher Mentor
  • Contribution of Small Units –Numerous Scoia’tael abilities generate, boost, or benefit from small units in ways that go beyond typical spawn strategies. From cards that convert tokens to better tokens, cards that benefit from numbers of specials to the creation of Treants through symbiosis, Scoia’tael swarm tactics are unique. Noteworthy cards: Feign Death, Water of Brokilon, Munro Bruys, Eithne Young Queen, Vernossiel, Zoltan Warrior, Ele’yas, Figgis Merluzzo, Freixenet, Dennis Cranmer, Zoltan’s Company, Scoia’tael Neophyte
  • Spell Affinities – Scoia’tael strategy often revolves around special cards, using specials to purify, boost, and control. But Scoia’tael can play large numbers of special cards over very short time periods. Noteworthy cards: Simlas Finn aep Dabairr, Forest Protector, Call of the Forest, Sorceress of Dol Balthanna, Elven Seer, Vanadain,Francesca Findabair, Saov Ainmhi’dh, Fauve, Harald Gord, Orb of Insight, Whisperer of Dol Blathanna
  • Armor Use – Although largely the realm of dwarves, armor is potentially prevalent, along with cards that exploit it. Noteworthy cards: Brouver Hoog, Yarpen Zigrin, Xavier Moran, Paulie Dahlberg, Dwarven Chariot, Dwarf Berserker, Tempering
  • Handboost – Scoia’tael has exceptional ability to boost cards in hand, from both leader options and cards that are played. Carryover value is often a consideration. And a handful of cards significantly benefit from entering the board already boosted. Noteworthy cards: Ithlinne Aegli, Aglais, Sheldon Skaggs, Dunca, Hawker Smuggler, Mahakam Defender
  • Prevalent Vitality – Vitality is available to all factions, but nowhere is it as prevalent as in Scoia’Tael. Vitality provides a slow engine and protects units from removal, creating strategic opportunities. Noteworthy cards: Shaping nature, Ida Emean aep Sivney, Forest Whisperer, Hamadryad, Dryad’s Caress, Mahakam Marauder
  • No Unit – With traps and a couple of uninteractive units, ST is very capable of providing opponents with no targets late into many rounds. And unlike other factions that may also try uninteractive play, ST can transform its uniteractive cards into actual points. Noteworthy cards: Eldain, Saesenthessis, Saber-Tooth Tiger, Milva
  • Precision Points – Setting up opponent units to maximize value of friendly cards – especially Schirru and several low damage deathblow units requires some very precise play – which is aided by the Precision strike leader. While this is far from universal in ST decks, it is common enough to merit mention as a strategic facet. Other ST cards also allow very precise control over damage inflicted. Noteworthy cards: Great Oak, Schirru, Circle of Life, Waylay, Brokilon Sentinel

Faction Focused Mechanics:
  • Harmony – Units with harmony boost by one whenever an ST unit with a distinct category is played.
  • Ambush – Ambush is an attribute of traps triggered when the opponent takes a specified action.
  • Spring – Spring is an attribute of traps which allows a player to trigger an effect somewhat less than the ambush effect.
  • Symbiosis – Whenever a spell is cast, a Wandering Treant with strength equal to the number of active, friendly symbiosis units is spawned.
Weaknesses:
  • Expensive top-level cards.
  • Poor coordination between cards belonging to different archetypes.
  • Low tempo – especially in early stages of the match.
Other Influential Cards: Pavko Gale, Morenn, Cleaver’s Muscle, Pyrotechnician

Subjective Evaluation: I find Scoia’tael a hard faction to play well – especially when I design my own decks. Between the strong dependence of a handful of very powerful cards, the challenges of maintaining sufficient tempo, difficulty of obtaining necessary death blow opportunities, and heavy use of special cards, the faction does not match my strengths and interests. Of course, my strengths and interests do not have to be yours!
 
GWENT DECKBUILDING STRATEGIES
Deck Character and Qualities


When building a deck, striving toward a consistent strategic approach is important. And understanding strengths and weaknesses in that general approach helps you decide both how to play and where to tech.

Generally, decks are divided into 3 basic categories – although most decks have at least some elements of each. Point slam decks focus on playing cards that generate a lot of immediate value – usually with minimal set up. Point slam tends to be forgiving of bad draws and flexible in card order. But it requires good long-term strategy and careful use of points. Point slam generally plays well against control decks and poorly against engine decks.

Engine decks revolve around the development of engines – cards and combinations that generate value over time. Engines can be passive (requiring no user actions to produce value) or active (requiring actions to produce value). Generally, engine decks have little flexibility on card order – engines must be set up early. And engine decks hinge on drawing proper engines at the right time. Strategy usually revolves around protecting the engines so critical elements survive to produce points. Engines tend to be effective against point slam because the potential value of engines exceeds the value of point slam, but they tend to perform poorly against control because the control prevents engine decks from producing that value.

Control decks are designed to interfere with the opponent’s cards and strategy. Control tools include removal (damage), movement, locks, purify, and similar cards. Control is generally very reactive in character; care must be taken to include sufficient proactivity to function when there are no targets for control. Major strategic decisions usually revolve around what to control and how to control it.

In addition to the three basic categories, the mid-range category describes a deck that balances features of point slam, control, and engines. In addition, these categories are blurred by cards like Tunnel Drill that are designed as control, but which can be played for significant point slam.

But control, point slam, engine, and midrange is only one of several useful classifications for decks. Another useful distinction is whether a deck is largely reactive, largely proactive, or balanced between reactive and proactive. Generally, people consider control to be reactive – but this is not strictly true: ST traps, NR Siege, and SK’s An Craite Longships are all proactive but control-based cards. Engines are often thought of as proactive, but damage engines usually need a target – making them reactive. Point slam is usually very flexible, but some point slam is highly contingent upon board- or hand-state, and could, as a result, be either proactive in some cases or reactive in others. Highly reactive decks often need to make concessions to function well on blue coin; highly proactive decks might need some tempo plays to avoid trouble on red coin.

Another feature of a deck I find useful to consider is what I term its point potential – just how many points the deck can generate over the duration of a match. Some decks such a no-unit decks or high removal decks have a relatively low point potential and rely upon denying an opponent’s deck the ability to reach its potential. Other decks, such as ST movement or Foltest or Kikimore queen decks produce huge numbers of points unless disrupted. Knowing how your deck generates points dictates the deck’s entire strategy.

Still another good question to consider is how a deck interacts/interferes with the opponent. A deck could interact very directly and immediately through removal or locks. It could interact directly but slowly or retroactively through poison, banishment, or reset. It could interact indirectly through disruption: movement, clog, mill, defenders, Savage Bear, Sukrus, no unit strategy, etc. It could interact indirectly through deterrence: Cahir, Pyrotechnician, Tunnel Drill, or the like. It could interact strategically, as through high tempo plays that deny low tempo set up or through choosing from a multitude of threats in ways that force suboptimal response. Or a deck could simply try to out-perform an opponent’s deck without really interacting at all. Understanding how a deck interacts with an opponent is essential to assessing its chances in long or short rounds as well as the importance of last say.

Finally, I like to ask what the deck’s vulnerabilities are. Is the deck highly dependent upon a single card, or even worse, a combination of two cards? If so, the deck is vulnerable to bad draws, and likely to bleeding as well. Does the deck lack high reach cards? If so, it will have trouble competing to win early rounds. Does the deck thin extensively? If so, it is vulnerable to both mill and clog. Does the deck have many potential bricks? If so, you might have to forgo some high-risk mulligans. Does the deck lack wide punish? If so, it is likely weak against spawn. Identifying the vulnerabilities of your deck not only gives you an opportunity to consider useful tech cards, but it also helps you use better strategic judgment during play.

It is possible to build a deck by simply putting together powerful and synergistic cards. But having a sense of your developing deck’s characteristics will help you to design and play the deck better. This article attempts to help you in recognizing key characteristics of a deck.
 

DRK3

Forum veteran
On your article

GWENT COLLECTION STRATEGIES
Card Selection Part III – Evaluating Cards
You said the following:
But Heatwave does not entirely cancel out the Ball when played – a four-point body Thirsty Dame remains on the board. Thus, we could say that Ball trades up to Heatwave by four points (plus engine value) in a single turn.

I am not sure i agree with your system.
I consider the Masquerade Ball - Heatwave the perfect example to explain this, so good choice.
But since Ball is 15, and heatwave is 10, then remains a thirsty dame, which is precisely 5 provisions, i consider that an equal trade, not a trade-up for Ball.
I say this because in "trades classification" provisions is usually the main criterion, while points, although also important, are secondary.
 
I am not sure i agree with your system.
I consider the Masquerade Ball - Heatwave the perfect example to explain this, so good choice.
But since Ball is 15, and heatwave is 10, then remains a thirsty dame, which is precisely 5 provisions, i consider that an equal trade, not a trade-up for Ball.
I say this because in "trades classification" provisions is usually the main criterion, while points, although also important, are secondary.
I appreciate this comment, first, because it does point out a miscalculation, but more importantly, because It raises an issue that I think is important.

In terms of provisions, I agree, it makes sense to consider Heatwave for Ball as an even trade, not a trade up for the heatwave player, for precisely the reason you pointed out. I should have counted the provision value of the unit left on the board.

But I stand by the validity of considering trade value in terms of points per turn as well as in terms of provisions. During deck-building, provisions are one of the limiting resources -- considering how provisions trade is important for creating a strong deck. But during play, provisions are relevant only if a card explicitly references them (like Epidemic only targets four provision units), or as a rough estimate of a card's future value. It is points that win games, and turns that are the limiting resource. In the final round which side would you prefer to be on -- the side that played Ball, which got destroyed by Heatwave, but left a Thirsty Dame, or the side that played Heatwave, and is now behind by a four body engine on the board? My point is that both points per provision and points per turn have value -- and the more important one depends on context. I think the metric of points per turn is often under-valued.
 
GWENT GAME PLAY STRATEGIES
Anticipation and Avoidance


It is often tempting to examine the current board state, and then to choose a move that optimally changes that board state without looking any further ahead than that. In general, this is not good play. One of the keys to successful Gwent strategy is anticipating opponent plays and mitigating them by either avoiding the danger (playing around a card) or pre-empting the play. Of course, this has two stages – anticipating the opponent’s probable upcoming actions and appropriately addressing them.

ANTICIPATING PLAYS:

Before playing any card, I find it important to ask four questions. The first is natural; almost all players think about it. The last three are often neglected to a player’s detriment.

The first question, the obvious one, is what will this play do? What units will be boosted, damaged, or destroyed? What will the score become? How many cards will remain in players hands? What statuses will remain? Etc. This is the primary, but far from the only, measure of the value of the play.

The second question, one that should probably be asked before the first, is what dangers and threats are currently present? Do I have an important unit that is poisoned (and, hence, vulnerable to being removed)? Does one player have a lot of upcoming engine value, and if so, how will that impact the remainder of the round? How is the round score likely to shift over the next couple of turns and does that jeopardize the match? Is row space going to become a problem? Has my opponent set up a big play? Etc. If I identify dangers, I can play to fix them, or I can pass before they come to fruition.

The third question is, how will my opponent likely respond to my play, and what will that mean for me next round? This is probably the hardest question, because I don’t in general know what choices my opponent will have; all I can do is consider possibilities. But I don’t have time to consider the outcome of every possible card – and even if I could, doing so it only helpful for cards my opponent could reasonably be expected to play. So, I need to assess which plays are likely given what I know of my opponent’s deck and hand.

One play is always an option – passing. A player should always ask what they would do if the opponent passes. If there is no good response to that, the play being considered must change. Otherwise, one uses either experience or common sense to consider other likely opponent actions. If you play a King Foltest, a Gezras, a Melusine, a Tunnel Drill, a Kolgrim, a Kikimore Queen, or any other powerful engine, what will a sensible opponent do? Typically, they will remove it, lock it, or otherwise disable it. (And if they did not do so, you should be especially suspicious – maybe they were unable to do anything, but maybe they have a nasty surprise in mind.) What will you do in response to this natural answer? If your answer is “lose”, consider a different play. Can you do anything to prevent this answer? Can you do anything to make the answer less devastating?

The fourth question, again one I would probably consider early, is why did my opponent make his last move? Suppose I am playing monsters and an opponent chooses to Heatwave an Old Speartip at 12 points rather than a Witch Apprentice already at 16 points. In the absence of another reason for this choice, I would assume the opponent can and will do something about the apprentice later – maybe a Spores or a Yrden. This strongly impacts how I strategize the rest of the round.

But this question should be asked not only to deny threats; it should be asked to seize opportunity. For example, suppose a Nilfgaard opponent opens round 1 by triggering Lamp Djinn, then playing Tourney Joust on it. Hopefully you recognize this is a very bizarre play. There is no apparent reason to trigger Lamp Djinn so early, and absolutely no reason to give it a shield. So, why would your opponent ever choose this move? Assuming the opponent is decently capable in the game, the only real reason for this move is that your opponent had no better choice. And if he had no better choice, he probably has no proactive plays. Can you productively exploit that? If not, what do you think will happen to any unit you put on the board? You certainly do not want to expose a valuable target!

ADDRESSING POSIBLE PLAYS:

If you have reason to believe an opponent reasonably might have access to a harmful play, you now must consider how to address that play. First, you must decide if you even should address it. If you will lose to a certain play no matter what you do, you should never give up points to play around it. Playing around it won’t help you win but doing so might cause you to lose to other cards. Conversely, if you only lose to one possible play, no matter how unlikely, you should always play around it. Winning by 1 point is as good as winning by 100 points. Otherwise, you weight the cost of playing around a card to the benefits of doing so, accounting for the probability of that card being available.

Some sorts of playing around cards become very natural with experience and are almost always wise: avoiding tall units when possible (minimizing the relevance of tall punish), dividing boosted units between rows (reducing the effectiveness of Yrden), avoiding certain point patterns in cards (to play around Regis or Falibor or Igne or Scorch or Schirru, etc.), playing a defender before a vital engine, boosting vital cards out of easy removal range when possible, and the like. Some measures are conditional, but still natural, for example, row stacking to minimize the opponent’s ability to get value from weather or Maddoc, avoiding row stacking to decrease the value of Lacerate or Crushing Trap. And some are inventive and almost unique. If a Nilfgaard opponent opens with Operator into Kingslayer this virtually telegraphs a mill deck. There are at least four ways to play around this: 1. Try to win 2-0 so the third round when your deck is thinned to nothing doesn’t ever arise. 2. Don’t use deck thinning: tutors or other draw cards. Save those cards you have in your deck. 3. Destroy the Kingslayer on you side of the board with Alzur’s Thunder or a similar card. This prevents Duchess Informant from spawning more milling cards. 4. Pass without playing a card. That way, you draw no new cards to start round two and your opponent is unlikely to be able to thin your deck to nothing. The best of these options depends upon your deck and round one hand.

I cannot, in a reasonable article, examine all possibilities. It is important you learn to think through consequences and implications of every play – both your plays and your opponent’s.
 
Last edited:
GWENT CARD COLLECTION STRATEGIES
Skellige Faction Overview


Mood: Every raindrop whispers of dark forces – learn to use them.

Lore: Skellige is a land of contrasts: beautiful, mysterious, brutal.

Major Strategic Facets:
  • Graveyard manipulation – Whether it’s through units re-appearing from the graveyard or powers increased by units in the graveyard, Skellige decks usually use the graveyard in some way. Noteworthy cards: Harold an Craite, Eist Tuirseach, Lippy Gudmund, Crowmother, Hjalmar an Craite, Sigrdrifa’s Rite, Bride of the Sea, Corrupted Flaminica, Derran, War of Clans, Freya’s Blessing
  • Damage based control – Many Skellige decks dish out substantial damage – both in small pings and in large blocks. Noteworthy cards: Blood Eagle, Hemdall, Wild Boar of the Sea, Crach an Craite, Morkvarg: Heart of Terror, Tyrggvi Tuirseach, Junod of Belhaven, Holger Blackhand, Sigvald, Hammond, Skjordal Drummond, Vabjorn, Champion’s Charge, Raiding Fleet, Offering to the Sea, Gerd, Terror of the Sea, Herkja Drummond, Gigascorpion Decoction, Delerium, Bear Witcher, Dimun Light Longship, An Craite Longship, An Craite Raiders
  • Damage benefits – Many Skellige units benefit from damage – both friendly and enemy. Some get boosts from every instance of damage dealt, some benefit from bloodthirst, some go berserk, benefitting from their own damage, some do damage to power abilities. Noteworthy cards: Olaf, Dracoturtle, Dagur Two Blades, Knut the Callous, Svanrige Tuirseach, Artis, Madman Lugos, Blueboy Lugos, Harold Houndsnout, Hym, Giant Boar, An Craite Greatsword, Brokvar Archer, Bear Witcher Mentor, Bear Witcher Quartermaster, Svalbold priest, Mardroeme
  • Storm –Skellige can generate wind and storm – and use it to advantage. Noteworthy cards: Fulmar, Melusine, Melusine Cultist, Tears of Siren
  • Discard – Some Skellige decks utilize discards to grow strength. Noteworthy cards: Birna Bran, Coral, Morkvarg, Tuirseach Skirmisher
  • Transformation – Beware the Skellige unit transformations! Transformed units shed their former characteristics – including damage. Noteworthy cards: Svalblod Totem, Vildkaarl, Arnvald, Drummond Berserker
  • Healing and heft – Skellige has available substantial healing abilities. Together with hefty base powers, and transformations, Skellige units can be difficult to remove. Noteworthy cards: Haern Caduch, Restore, Heymeay Flaminica, Yoana, Raging Bear, Tuirseach Veteran, Hacfrue Singer, Hermit
  • Pre-emption – A handful of Skellige cards can pre-empt many opponent actions. Sukrus prevents a single unit from taking damage; Arnaghad prevents opposing units from surviving deployment, Savage Bear prevents all forms of boosts. Noteworthy cards: Arnaghad, Kambi, Dire Bear, Covenant of Steel, Sukrus, Gremist
Faction Focused Mechanics:
  • Bloodthirst – Units with blood thirst gain extra abilities when a specified number of enemy units are damaged.
  • Rupture – Only one unit has rupture (Tyrggvi Tuirseach) – the ability to give a status that damages a unit by its bas power at the end of its next turn.
  • Berserk – Units with berserk gain traits when they have received a certain level of damage.
  • Veteran – Veteran units gain one base power each round.
Weaknesses:
  • Some decks struggle with proactivity – and blue coin in general.
  • Some Skellige decks suffer inconsistency either due to no appropriate tutors or excessive interdependence of combinations.
  • Heavy reliance on a few, badly balanced cards.
Other Influential Cards: Gedyneith, Cerys an Craite, Jutta an Dimun, Ermion,

Subjective Evaluation: I have a bias toward Skellige. I love the Viking / Celtic feel; I love the self-damage and the healing; I love the variety of possible decks and variants of decks; I love the assortment of unique cards that change gameplay without being overpowered (Artis, Kambi, Dire Bear, Arnaghad, Dracoturtle, Crach an Craite – even Melisine, although it is borderline OP). But because I love the faction, and I like being the underdog, I detest the over-powered garbage like what powered the warrior meta deck, and later, Eist. A small handful of ill-considered cards have ruined the reputation of the entire faction.
 
GWENT DECKBUILDING STRATEGIES
Synergy


One of the most important goals in deck building is to combine cards that work well together (are synergistic) and to avoid combining cards that work against one another (are anti-synergistic). At least in principle, both players should have access to equal numbers of equally powerful cards. Effective deckbuilding is about making your cards work better (at least on the average) than your opponent’s cards do. In a lot of cases synergies are obvious and many decks are built around exploiting one or more synergies. Sometimes synergies are more subtle but can still be critical for a deck. Anti-synergies are usually subtle and may only appear under certain circumstances. This article is to help a reader to recognize and use synergies. A future article will deal with avoiding anti-synergies.

While it is impossible to make a complete list, it is helpful to identify typical sources of synergies. Those that I have noted include:
  • Card category (some units give bonuses to or receive bonuses from cards with a particular category like “elf”)
  • Statuses (some cards give useful statuses or gain benefits by having statuses bestowed)
  • Keywords (not only do some units directly interact with others containing a certain keyword – e.g., Fiend boosting Deathwish units, but some units might help trigger keyword conditions – e.g., Artis helping to trigger berserk conditions.)
  • Damage (some units benefit from certain types of damage inflicted, e.g., Greatswords)
  • Boosts (some units benefit directly from other units being boosted – e.g., Lyrian Scythman)
  • Card effects (some cards benefit from effects generated by another, for instance, Vrihedd Brigade benefits from the movement caused by Gaetan)
  • Bonded (bonded units gain additional ability when played together)
  • Cooperative effort (some units work together to accomplish this either separately cannot, for instance Ballista’s damage pings can help set up a kill for Kaedweni Revenants)
  • Resource management. (Some cards help create resources/situations other units can use. The most obvious example is Syndicate coin generators creating coins for spenders. Another example is spawn cards creating units for boost all cards like Bone Talisman)
  • Tutoring (some types of cards have specific tutors that help draw the card.)
  • Duplication (some cards particularly benefit from multiple copies, e.g., Cintrian Royal Guards benefit if first copied by Operator.)
  • Draw/Discard (Some cards benefit by having other cards drawn. Some benefit by being discarded.)
  • Carryover (some cards benefit specifically by having carryover in the form of boosts or armor before they are played to the board)
  • Defense (Some cards help to protect others. This protection can be direct as in the form of defenders or purifiers. It can also be indirect in the form of decoys for enemy removal cards.)
I am sure there are many other forms of synergy I have over-looked, but this list is a good starting point.

Once synergies have been found, one also needs to consider how useful they can be. Generally, the key issues in evaluating a synergy are how much benefit the synergy gives, how many resources the synergy ties up, and how hard the synergy is to pull off. For example, Dulla Kh’Amanni and Runewright can be combined in an obvious synergy to create a Desert Treasure. But is this a good synergy to include in my deck? First, I analyze that it uses 14 total provisions and requires two cards. Since cards average about 6.6 provisions each (exactly 6.6 if the leader chosen grants 15 provisions), I note that this is a very slight commitment in resources – provisions are not significant over other cards and using two cards leaves lots of room in the deck for other card packages. Value is a bit harder to judge exactly. I deliberately chose this as an example because neither Dulla nor Runewright contribute obvious value to other cards, so I can at least consider the combination in isolation (most combos in competitive decks are highly interconnected). And the two cards each play alone for a respectable 6 points. But then there is the desert treasure which spawns and plays a random legendary unit – I could get something great; I could get utter trash. Although there are a few exceptions, twelve points is about the best I could hope for, and 0 is about the worst. If I figure the average is about 6, the cards would play for an average of 9 points each if the combination is pulled off. It is not real obvious how many points one should expect per turn – and this changes as cards are power crept. But based on observations of top professional players (yes, I actually tallied the totals), in August 2021, the average turn was worth between 7.5 and 11 points depending upon how much control was used in the matchup. Nine points per turn for this combo is reasonable but not spectacular and the RNG makes it a bit hard to use in some contexts. Finally, I consider the difficulty of completing the combo. I essentially need both Dulla and Runewright in hand during the same round. I can play them in either order, but I need the first to stick until the second can be played. The odds of drawing both of two specified cards by the third round depends slightly upon whether one is blue or red coin (blue coin gets an extra mulligan) but is roughly 65%. And neither Dulla nor Runewright have tutors other than Oneiromancy or Royal Decree) to make the combo easier. So, even if you are not forced to play one card before the other is drawn, there is a roughly one in three chance that you will not hold the cards to pull off the combination. Of course, neither card is horrible without the combo, but neither is something I would even consider on its own. Both Runewright and Dulla have substantial bodies that are not trivially removed and preventing Desert Treasure is not likely to be prioritized to an extent that an opponent will waste tall removal on either card unless there is no other obvious target, so I do not worry too much about an opponent preventing the combo. Thus, overall, I see this as a moderately difficult combo to play for marginal and highly random reward. I think it is little wonder that it is rarely seen in serious play.

Most two card synergies in Gwent suffer from the same issues that the Dulla / Runewright combo suffered from – being too inconsistent for the value returned. Thus, good decks include ways to improve either consistency or value of synergies.

The most obvious way to increase consistency is tutors, but many tutors contribute no value in points, while costing provisions – one must always ask whether the consistency is worth the expense.

Some cards can take advantage of leader synergies. For example, to effectively run Brouver Hoog, I need dwarves with armor. Since only a small handful of dwarves originally have armor, I might want to pair Brouver with Dwarven Chariot which grants armor. But then I must draw both. Or I could use the leader Mahakam Forge that gives all dwarves one armor. I don’t have to draw a leader ability. Of course, I might still want a Chariot to reestablish armor my opponent removes, but that’s a different topic. And drawing Brouver himself might be an issue. But it’s much more likely to draw one card than both of two cards.

One of the best ways to enhance consistency is to make a network of cards with interconnected synergies. For example, I notice Svalblod Priests synergize very nicely with Blueboy Lugos. So, I incorporate both Blueboy and Priests into a deck. But often I fail to draw one or the other. Or my opponent targets one or the other for removal – and I am denied the value I sought. But since Priests are bronze, I could include two of them, increasing my chance of drawing one, and possibly providing a replacement for one that is destroyed. Since I may also have to cope without Blueboy, I look for a replacement for him. Armored Drakkar has obvious parallels, so does Dracoturtle, or almost any unit with a beneficial Berserk trait. So, I might include some of those cards. But then, I find my two Priests are inadequate. In a pinch, I could use a Svalblod Cultist instead. I won’t generate points like the Priest, but it will do reliable self-damage. And even better, if I don’t need it for damage, I could use it to heal a damaged Blueboy. With experience, you would probably discover Cultists don’t work very well – they just don’t generate enough points. So maybe you consider Bear Witcher Quartermasters, or Harold Houndsnout, or Raging Bear, or Drummond Villager (beware: bleeding doesn’t synergize with armor, but it’s fine with Blueboy), or …. And maybe, you do like the Cultist’s healing, but you want more efficient and flexible healing – say, with Heymaey Flaminica. Suddenly, you get a lot of synergy that doesn’t depend upon specific cards. You simply need a balance of damage-givers and damage-takers. My one caveat with this approach is to avoid over-synergizing. It is easy to make an entire deck where every card either damages or benefits from damage. But many of these cards will not be high quality in that they don’t generate much value even under good circumstances. And the deck will be rather one-dimensional. In this case, it will tend to rack up decent points, but it will only minimally interfere with the opponent’s strategies, strategies which might produce even more points unless disrupted.

You can also try to increase the value obtained from synergies – although this is not always easy or even possible. For instance, with my Dulla / Runewright combo, I could possibly get more value if I could get two desert treasures instead of only one. Syanna would allow this. So would replaying either Dulla or Runewright – perhaps by using decoy to return the card to the deck, then a tutor to pull it again. In this example, both are terrible ideas – they are hard to pull off, and they add even more cost (in turns and provisions) to the combo for only a small handful of extra points. But a Priest / Dracoturtle combo (an initial 8 points for 15 provisions requiring 2 turns to play that becomes a three-points-a-turn engine), which really must operate for three turns to be worthwhile if you are shooting for either a good points per provision or points per turn ratio, can be enhanced by the inclusion of Mardroeme which plays for another 12 points off a Dracoturtle. This combo is still not great as it runs headlong into tall removal, but that also is another topic.
 
GWENT MODES
A Brief Guide to the Seasonal Event “Banished”


Mode Rules: After mulligan, banish both players’ decks. Whenever a card appears in any deck, banish it.

General (Non-objective) Comments: This is by far my favorite mode. It is fast paced (only 10 cards played rather than the usual 16). Although some players disagree, I find it amenable to multiple decks. There is a standard meta-deck, but I find I am able to compete with numerous alternatives. Because tutors are ineffective, I enjoy the variety that results from people playing the cards that are actually drawn. And it doesn’t require extensive card collections to build a good deck.

Key Considerations:
  • There is only access to cards in hand and in graveyards. Tutoring, drawing, etc. is ineffective. Conversely, cards balanced by opponents' summoning from their decks are now more powerful.
  • Average round length is decreased nearly forty percent from 5.33 to 3.33 cards per round. Slow engines are probably unwise. And there is little tolerance for “junk” bronze cards. Tempo (independent of cards in the deck) is a priority.
  • Card Management is substantively changed. With no further draws, the seven and four card thresholds no longer apply. And with all cards drawn at the start of the game, future holdings are completely determined by choice of plays.
Deck Building Strategy: Based upon the premise that cards negatively impacted by cards in the opponent’s deck are no longer balanced, the obvious first attempt at a deck building strategy is to incorporate as many of those cards as possible into one’s deck. Because NG has three such cards (Imperial Golem, Tibor Eggebracht, and Vilgefortz), and no other faction has any (except for The Scoundrel, who then misses out on a bounty), it is not surprising that the meta in this mode is NG.

But there are other deckbuilding considerations. Because of the short average round length, engines are generally of low value. Because of the limited number of draws, specific two card combinations are ill advised (the probability of drawing both cards is significantly less than in normal mode). Because engines and combos are less frequent, “big cards” tend to be less big. Thus, removal and control are less valuable. And the gap between high provision and medium provision cards is smaller. With so few cards available in an average round, every card is important. Generally, it is better to have three 8-point cards than two five-point cards and one “big” fifteen-point card.

I think the key to a successful deck in this mode is packing it with moderate to high tempo cards – and avoiding weak cards you hope to never have to play. In the seasonal of September 2021, I have done very well with an SK pirates deck. My best units are Arnaghad and Crach an Craite – both of which also offer some control. Both Defender and Sukrus suit the deck perfectly, and otherwise I prioritized cheap pirates and ships that play for high immediate value: Dimun Pirate, Tidecloak Hideaway, An Craite Raiders, etc. I would expect MO pointslam to also work very well.

Perhaps the big point of this article is that NG is not the only faction that shines in this mode. In fact, because NG does not have good, low cost, high tempo cards, once the top is loaded, the remainder of an NG deck is quite weak – and this results in vulnerability to bad draws when there are no tutors, as well as difficulty carrying two competitive rounds.

Game Play Strategy: There is one way in which this mode is very badly balanced – it highly favors blue coin! The stratagem is a large advantage when round I can be (and usually is) very short, and an extra mulligan helps considerably with consistency when there are no other draws. If you are blue coin, you want to exploit this to either win round I or force your opponent to commit much more heavily than you to catch up. But be careful – falling behind on cards will usually lead to defeat with very short rounds. If you are red coin, unless your opponent either misplays or is caught off guard by a surprisingly big play, you cannot expect to win round one on even. If you push, it is usually to win round one but a card down, or to force out better cards from your opponent than you play while losing up a card. Do not be afraid to pass early – there is no seven-card threshold.

Otherwise, you know your card holding for the entire game. Consider every round to be a round in which you are bleeding. Ration your cards carefully. Consider the cost of catching an opponent, as well as the likely cost of an opponent to catch you. Don’t play one half of a combination unless you expect to also play the second half in the same round. Try always to save more than you anticipate your opponent will save. Visualize what future board states and rounds will look like.

And experiment. This mode is great for trying different decks and cards as no game lasts very long. And this mode is excellent for learning good play techniques. With probability out of the picture, you can learn to look ahead, to anticipate future board states, to experience how much commitment is too much for a round.
 
GWENT DECKBUILDING STRATEGIES
Avoiding Anti-Synergy


In building decks, it is obvious one seeks to find synergies between cards – factors that help cards, working together, to be stronger than the cards are on their own. Related is the idea of avoiding anti-synergies – cards which, when combined, are worse than the cards taken individually. But unlike synergies which are usually easy to spot, anti-synergies can be subtle, and might even escape notes unless one actively looks for them.

Conflicting (or Unsupported) Goals: Probably the most obvious anti-synergy is between cards with conflicting goals. Examples include adding Sigi Reuven (who wants multiple unique gang categories in a deck) and Sacred Flame (which wants as many Firesworn units as possible), combining Heymaey Flaminica (who heals units on a row) with Bear Witcher Mentor (who is boosted by the number of damaged units), or adding Chimera (which wants multiple copies of a unit to boost) with Keltullis (who want few friendly units). Similar is the idea of including a unit that is basically unsupported by the deck. A Lyrian Scythman can often obtain very good value for its provision cost but adding it to a siege-based deck (which usually doesn’t boost many units) is pointless. Likewise, Vincent Van Moorlehem will often play for good value on his own, but he is much more likely to play for value if he is played in a deck capable of bestowing statuses to the enemy.

Excesses: An often over-looked anti-synergy is between excessive numbers of cards that perform similar tasks. It frequently occurs that, since one type of card seems fantastic in a deck, a player decides to include three or four similar cards. But each card successive weakens the next. For example, locks are often a good thing. But not every card your opponent plays will need to be locked – and having 6 in a single hand is going to be overkill. Having a lock for King Foltest might save you 30 points in a match. A second lock for a Ban Ard Student might save you 8 points, and a third for a reinforced ballista might save 5 or 6 points. Locks after this likely save you almost nothing. The same is true of tall removal, of wide removal, of purify, of bleeding, of vitality, of healing, …. Of course, excessive somewhat depends upon the current meta. If tall units are few and far between, having multiple tall punishers is excessive; if every other unit played is tall, you will benefit from several tall punishers.

Brick Risk: Cards that play for far below their potential value are called “bricks”. For instance, a card like Roach which is summoned for free from your deck would be considered a brick if you waste a turn drawing it from your hand. You never want to be in a situation where you play Roach from your hand. Other cards like Geralt of Rivia only have much value if a particular type of target is available. Generally, the more potential bricks in a deck, the greater chance that you get a bad mulligan, or that you don’t want to risk taking a mulligan you would otherwise want. There is no hard rule for how many bricks are too many as that very much depends upon the ability of a deck to rectify potential bricks during play (either by playing them in early rounds or by opportunities to swap cards out of hand), but having too many bricks is always an anti-synergistic liability.

Resource Competition: A fourth form of anti-synergy is between too many cards that compete for the same resources. Syndicate decks with too many spenders can’t generate enough coins to make all the spenders useful. Multiple monster cards that consume units out of the graveyard find increasingly poor targets. A Dracoturtle’s armor can only withstand so many self-damage pings before becoming exhausted. Defenders can only defend one row, so vulnerable units that are row-locked to different rows cannot both be protected. Etc.

Dilution or Corruption of Tutoring Pool: Many tutors randomly target cards with certain characteristics. Often players may wish to make cards the tutor pulls deterministic by insuring there is only one qualifying target for the tutor. For instance, a Portal will eventually summon two four-provision cards from your deck to the board. If an ST player wants to pull Dwarven Mercenaries, that can be guaranteed provided no other four-provision cards are in the deck. A card like Ihuarraquax summons the highest provision card of both players to the melee row. If you include Ihuarraquax in your deck, you don’t want it to draw a card with strong deploy effects. Thus, you do not want to include a deploy based card if it would be (or tie) for highest provision card in your deck – and you probably don’t even want it to be the second highest (in case you have already drawn your highest provision card).

Shared Vulnerabilities: When many cards in the same deck are all vulnerable to similar factors that are largely out of the player’s control, the cards are anti-synergistic. A classic example is basic Vampire deck. Many vampires benefit from bleeding enemies while many other cards in the deck give bleeding. But this entire mechanism is vulnerable to decks with few unveiled units to give bleeding, or decks with many units that transform, are consumed, are easily purified to remove status. Moreover, bleeding is generally low tempo, so vampire decks can struggle if their entire arsenal for removal involves bleeding.

Timing: Timing of plays can also be a source of anti-synergy. It is generally a bad idea to incorporate many units with very low adrenaline traits – you will want to save these cards for the very end of, usually, the third round. But only a few cards can be the last cards you play. As another example, both Pyrotechnician and Sabretooth Tiger benefit by being on the board before the opponent plays any units. It is unlikely that you can play both first. Some cards even include internal anti-synergies. Bronze cards with veteran status are innately somewhat anti-synergistic in that you generally want to avoid playing weaker (i.e., bronze cards) in the final round, but the final round is precisely when veteran cards obtain the most power. And Carlo Varese damages an enemy unit by one for each card in your hand, but if you wait until late in the round (which is when an opponent usually plays the strongest cards), there are few cards remaining in your hand and Carlo does little damage.

Anti-synergy is often not immediately glaring in a deck. Sometimes it is only revealed in testing. But conscious attention to possible anti-synergies will improve the deckbuilding process.
 
GWENT CARD COLLECTION STRATEGIES
Syndicate Faction Overview

Mood: The law is what you make it – no – rather it’s what I make it.

Lore: Syndicate figures tend to be greedy, self-serving, and often twisted.

Major Strategic Facets: Syndicate revolves around its unique coin mechanism; it’s strategic feel revolves around coin management – especially how (and how many) coins are earned, and how (and when) coins are spent.
  • Earning Primarily Through Leader – Decks that rely primarily upon their leader for coins tend to place low emphasis upon coins and tend to feel the most like traditional, non-Syndicate decks. These decks typically play cards that do not use coins, cards with low hoard values, and cards with insanity and they tend to mix engines with removal. Noteworthy Cards: Pasiflora, Jacques Miraculous Child, Novigradian Justice, Collusion, Madame Luisa, The Sausage Maker, Azar Javed, Doadrick Leumaerts, Prophet Lebioda, Dire Mutated Hounds, Sukrus, Hammond, Pogo Boom-Breaker, Greater Brothers, Tatterwing, Nathaniel Pastodi, Sir Skewertooth, Harald Gord, Rico Meiersdorf, Payroll Specialist, Sly Seductress, Casino Bouncers, Mutated Hounds, Assault, Arena Ghoul, Kikimore Warrior
  • Earning Through Units – These decks make coins through unit profits, but often largely through coin generating engines. Strategy often revolves around keeping earners on the board. Noteworthy Cards: Sigi Reuven, Imke, Boris, Caesar Bilzen, Roland Bleinheim, Ludovicus Brunenbaum, Horst Borsodi, Roderick de Wett, Salamandra Mage, Firesworn Scribe, Tax Collector, Mutants Maker, Beggar, Fisstech Trafficker
  • Earning Through Crime Specials – Often these decks can quickly accumulate coins, but play for low tempo while doing so, followed by massive bursts when coins are spent. Timing of and commitment to those bursts becomes critical. Noteworthy Cards: Ferko the Sculptor, Pickpocket, Eavesdrop, Payday, Stolen Mutagens, Cutup Lackey, Halfling Safecracker, Slander, Fisstech, Dip in the Pontar, Shakedown, Swindle, Smuggle,
  • Earning Through Bounties – These decks depend on removal for their sustenance and have heavy control features. Noteworthy Cards: Witchfinder, Professor, The Scoundrel, Caleb Menge, Fabian Hale, Ignatius Hale, Kurt, Hysteria, Confession Extractor, Which Hunter, Vigilantes
  • Boost Focused Spending – These decks have an engine type feel, focusing upon growing friendly units with earned wealth. Noteworthy Cards: Fallen Rayla, Deis Irae, Sacred Flame, Salamandra Abomination, Townfolk, Coerced Blacksmith, Sea Jackal, Salamandra Lackey, Fence
  • Damage Focused Spending – These decks have a control feel as wealth is devoted to damaging and removing enemies. Noteworthy Cards: Tinboy, Whoreson Junior, Moreelse, Graden, Whoreson Senior, Tavern Brawl, Edwald Borsodi, Tunnel Drill, Whoreson’s Freak Show, Arena Endrega, Bloody Good Friends, Bloody Good Fun
  • Spawn Focused Spending – Many Syndicate cards support spawn including several that spend coins to do so. Noteworthy Cards: Ulrich, Cleaver, Grand Inquisitor Helveed, Igor the Hook, Adriano the Mink, Walter Veritas, Damnation, Procession of Penance, Fallen Knight, Cleric of the Flaming Rose, Congregation, Eternal Fire Priest, Eternal Fire Disciple
  • Power From Saving – Horde, and many tribute based units like coins to be saved. These decks often utilize significant carryover. Noteworthy Cards: Phillipa Eilhart, Sacolla, The Flying Redanian, Salamander, Hvitr and Aelydia, Lieutenant Von Herst, Saul de Navarette, Sewer Raiders, Passiflora Peaches
Faction Focused Mechanics:
  • Bounty – When a unit with bounty is destroyed, the enemy gains coins equal to the unit’s base power.
  • Tribute – When a card with the attribute Tribute is deployed, its owner is given the one-time option to pay the tribute cost for an additional, beneficial effect.
  • Intimidate – cards with the intimidate attribute are boosted (by one unless otherwise specified) whenever a crime card is played.
  • Profit – Cards with the profit attribute gain the profit value in coins when first played.
  • Fee – As an order-like ability, cards with fee can spend coins for the effect listed. Unless they are given a cooldown, they may utilize the fee ability until there are insufficient coins remaining to fund it.
  • Insanity – Units with insanity can utilize their fee ability even when there are insufficient coins by taking damage rather than paying the fee. If coins are available, the fee is paid and taking damage is not an option.
  • Hoard – Cards with hoard abilities produce the hoard effect at the end of any turn when the player has at least the hoard value worth of coins in the bank.
Weaknesses:
  • Not drawing either earners or spenders at the right time
  • Careful use of consistency cards is required
  • Typical decks contain so many gold cards that many often go undrawn.
  • Is often highly impacted by very minor appearing changes – especially changes in the coin economy.
Other Influential Cards: Bincy Blumerholdt, Vivaldi Bank, Salamandra Hideout, Adalbertus Kalkstein, Gellert Bleinheim, Cleaver’s Muscle

Subjective Evaluation: I originally did not like the coin mechanism as it reminded me of games like magic where one had to play resource cards (lands) to trigger desired effects – and I liked Gwent because it was different. Over time I have softened toward Syndicate, but I still have play mainly low coin type decks. Although Syndicate plays are often highly choreographed (due to the need to sequence earners and spenders), the faction is relatively hard to master – especially if you start from scratch with your own deck.
 
Where is the Strategy in Clog?

Let me begin with the warning that unlike most articles in this thread which address relatively objective, fact-based aspects of the game, this article contains much more opinion. It is motivated by a question asked by @Barracuda88 in a different thread, a question that boils down to, how does clog require thinking and adaptation? Because my reply does not really fit into that thread, and because I think it illustrates many generalizable strategic aspects of Gwent, I have chosen to answer the question here.

For me, strategic thinking about a clog deck begins well before I even play a card as I make my round 1 mulligans. All I know at this point is my initial hand, my opponent’s faction and leader, and the coin-flip result. But it is not too early to start strategizing. There are some goals with a clog deck that never change: in round 1, I want to play as much clog as possible. Although I can also beneficially clog in round 2, if possible, I want to try to prevent my opponent from drawing as many good cards as possible – and this would begin with the draws after round 1. If I am on blue coin, I want to avoid losing on even (which happens easily with clog decks). If I am on red coin, I want to be strong enough to play deep into round 1 (as most of my round 1 goals require that). I want to thin my deck, both for future consistency and to improve Kolgrim, although this can wait until round 2 or even early round 3 if necessary. And I want to avoid holding bricks, of which there are many (most thinning cards) in typical clog decks. Depending upon the likely nature of the opposing deck, I need to evaluate the importance of winning round one, the importance of final say, and my willingness to go a card or more down (with Kolgrim, there is sometimes, but far from always, opportunity to survive several cards down provided you win round 1).

From here, let me be a little more specific in context. Let’s suppose I’m playing clog on blue coin against ST precision strike. Blue coin can be tricky as I must not lose on even or I will probably either lose on even or need my win con (Kolgrim) to avoid losing on even. Most clog decks have relatively few proactive plays, and several of those involve clogging (Cynthia, 2 x Infiltrators). Before taking my first mulligans, I am already thinking. What would a good round 1 hand look like? How many clog units do I need? How many tempo cards? Do I need engines (like Nauzica Seargents)? What do I need to remove from my hand? Should I keep round 3 win-conditions (like Kolgrim or my defender) in hand for consistency, or do I need cards I can play round 1? Do I dare take my final mulligan in lieu of possible bricks? Hopefully, it is clear that I do not want to merely get rid of “bad” cards.

So how does my (limited knowledge) about my opponent come in? Well, in the current meta (September 2021), Spellatael is popular with precision strike. And the deck may or may not include Schirru – which is another issue for me as I have lots of units playing for four or five points. I cannot clog special cards, and I may not want to clog a lot of the lower provision cards my opponent plays. Thus, finding clog targets may be hard. My opponent potentially has several very high tempo plays, not to mention a strong Gord finisher. I would like final say to deal with Gord, but realistically, I am in danger of losing round one on even. Losing round one at all is likely bad as I would probably need Kolgrim in round two to defend the bleed. On the other hand, playing down cards in round three is not horrible – Kolgrim should be able to out-perform Gord – and he is likely safe from removal if I can play him behind defender – especially on adrenaline. I will also need at least two proactive plays in round one – in case my opponent plays Dunca: a card I can’t lock and don’t want to counter with clog.

Thus, as I choose mulligans, I will focus on tempo (thinning) as that gives me the best chance of winning round 1. Clogging will be tricky – Infiltrators are dangerously slow, and Viper Witchers and Coated Weapons will both struggle to find reasonable targets. Clogging round 3 is usually not my goal with this deck, but it might be my best option in this matchup! I also need to avoid numerous bricks. But this is clearly a bad matchup for my deck; I may need to take risks to have hope.

At this point, I want to observe that strategy is not just tactically interacting to neutralize opponent’s cards – it is also trying to plan the flow of the entire game. Usually, the less a deck interacts tactically, the more important it’s long-term strategy – and clog is no exception.

Now let’s suppose I enter round 1 with a good hand – if my hand is poor, I will need some significant breaks to have much chance. What should I play? Cynthia seems like a very nice, proactive play – it clogs; it plays 6 points; it summons Roach. But it also telegraphs that I am playing clog – and armed with that information, my opponent will fight hard to win round 1. If the deck plays portal, using it to summon infiltrators has the same issues (not to mention the risk of summoning Mage Assassins). Nauzicaa Sergeant would be a good choice, setting up an engine, delaying clues to my deck type, and setting up an Impera Brigade (if my deck plays them). I suppose one could validly argue that Nausicaa Sergeant is always a good opening play – but I would challenge this against a more removal-based opponent. If my opponent plays Dunca, I now have another decision – coated weapons could remove it, but it sets Dunca up to be played in a later round. And it again reveals the nature of my deck. Alternatively, I could thin further with either hunting pack or Impera Brigade. Or I could play Blightmaker into Mage Assassin, for an even higher tempo thinning move – but this could waste two damage on a Dunca I might choose to remove later anyway. Which is best? Round 1 will likely go quite deep; I would rather go down two ore even three cards than lose the round – I don’t expect to pass! Dunca could earn an extra 8+ points, in later rounds it will not likely earn more than 5 extra – returning it to an opponent deck is not bad. On the other hand, maybe I want to tempo my opponent out of the round before revealing my deck. Of course, a Dunca on the board encourages my opponent to keep playing for carry-over. The decision is very close – I don’t know whether I would choose correctly without actual experience – even though this decision significantly impacts the tenor of the entire match!

Here I think I will end my analysis – I am not really an expert on either of these two decks. And the major points of this article have already been made: a good player will be considering strategy for the entire match as soon as the smallest piece of information becomes available; that strategic thinking is not limited to tactical interactions between cards; and even the often called “brain-dead” decks, when played well, demand difficult strategizing.
 
Where is the Strategy in Clog?

Let me begin with the warning that unlike most articles in this thread which address relatively objective, fact-based aspects of the game, this article contains much more opinion. It is motivated by a question asked by @Barracuda88 in a different thread, a question that boils down to, how does clog require thinking and adaptation? Because my reply does not really fit into that thread, and because I think it illustrates many generalizable strategic aspects of Gwent, I have chosen to answer the question here.

For me, strategic thinking about a clog deck begins well before I even play a card as I make my round 1 mulligans. All I know at this point is my initial hand, my opponent’s faction and leader, and the coin-flip result. But it is not too early to start strategizing. There are some goals with a clog deck that never change: in round 1, I want to play as much clog as possible. Although I can also beneficially clog in round 2, if possible, I want to try to prevent my opponent from drawing as many good cards as possible – and this would begin with the draws after round 1. If I am on blue coin, I want to avoid losing on even (which happens easily with clog decks). If I am on red coin, I want to be strong enough to play deep into round 1 (as most of my round 1 goals require that). I want to thin my deck, both for future consistency and to improve Kolgrim, although this can wait until round 2 or even early round 3 if necessary. And I want to avoid holding bricks, of which there are many (most thinning cards) in typical clog decks. Depending upon the likely nature of the opposing deck, I need to evaluate the importance of winning round one, the importance of final say, and my willingness to go a card or more down (with Kolgrim, there is sometimes, but far from always, opportunity to survive several cards down provided you win round 1).

From here, let me be a little more specific in context. Let’s suppose I’m playing clog on blue coin against ST precision strike. Blue coin can be tricky as I must not lose on even or I will probably either lose on even or need my win con (Kolgrim) to avoid losing on even. Most clog decks have relatively few proactive plays, and several of those involve clogging (Cynthia, 2 x Infiltrators). Before taking my first mulligans, I am already thinking. What would a good round 1 hand look like? How many clog units do I need? How many tempo cards? Do I need engines (like Nauzica Seargents)? What do I need to remove from my hand? Should I keep round 3 win-conditions (like Kolgrim or my defender) in hand for consistency, or do I need cards I can play round 1? Do I dare take my final mulligan in lieu of possible bricks? Hopefully, it is clear that I do not want to merely get rid of “bad” cards.

So how does my (limited knowledge) about my opponent come in? Well, in the current meta (September 2021), Spellatael is popular with precision strike. And the deck may or may not include Schirru – which is another issue for me as I have lots of units playing for four or five points. I cannot clog special cards, and I may not want to clog a lot of the lower provision cards my opponent plays. Thus, finding clog targets may be hard. My opponent potentially has several very high tempo plays, not to mention a strong Gord finisher. I would like final say to deal with Gord, but realistically, I am in danger of losing round one on even. Losing round one at all is likely bad as I would probably need Kolgrim in round two to defend the bleed. On the other hand, playing down cards in round three is not horrible – Kolgrim should be able to out-perform Gord – and he is likely safe from removal if I can play him behind defender – especially on adrenaline. I will also need at least two proactive plays in round one – in case my opponent plays Dunca: a card I can’t lock and don’t want to counter with clog.

Thus, as I choose mulligans, I will focus on tempo (thinning) as that gives me the best chance of winning round 1. Clogging will be tricky – Infiltrators are dangerously slow, and Viper Witchers and Coated Weapons will both struggle to find reasonable targets. Clogging round 3 is usually not my goal with this deck, but it might be my best option in this matchup! I also need to avoid numerous bricks. But this is clearly a bad matchup for my deck; I may need to take risks to have hope.

At this point, I want to observe that strategy is not just tactically interacting to neutralize opponent’s cards – it is also trying to plan the flow of the entire game. Usually, the less a deck interacts tactically, the more important it’s long-term strategy – and clog is no exception.

Now let’s suppose I enter round 1 with a good hand – if my hand is poor, I will need some significant breaks to have much chance. What should I play? Cynthia seems like a very nice, proactive play – it clogs; it plays 6 points; it summons Roach. But it also telegraphs that I am playing clog – and armed with that information, my opponent will fight hard to win round 1. If the deck plays portal, using it to summon infiltrators has the same issues (not to mention the risk of summoning Mage Assassins). Nauzicaa Sergeant would be a good choice, setting up an engine, delaying clues to my deck type, and setting up an Impera Brigade (if my deck plays them). I suppose one could validly argue that Nausicaa Sergeant is always a good opening play – but I would challenge this against a more removal-based opponent. If my opponent plays Dunca, I now have another decision – coated weapons could remove it, but it sets Dunca up to be played in a later round. And it again reveals the nature of my deck. Alternatively, I could thin further with either hunting pack or Impera Brigade. Or I could play Blightmaker into Mage Assassin, for an even higher tempo thinning move – but this could waste two damage on a Dunca I might choose to remove later anyway. Which is best? Round 1 will likely go quite deep; I would rather go down two ore even three cards than lose the round – I don’t expect to pass! Dunca could earn an extra 8+ points, in later rounds it will not likely earn more than 5 extra – returning it to an opponent deck is not bad. On the other hand, maybe I want to tempo my opponent out of the round before revealing my deck. Of course, a Dunca on the board encourages my opponent to keep playing for carry-over. The decision is very close – I don’t know whether I would choose correctly without actual experience – even though this decision significantly impacts the tenor of the entire match!

Here I think I will end my analysis – I am not really an expert on either of these two decks. And the major points of this article have already been made: a good player will be considering strategy for the entire match as soon as the smallest piece of information becomes available; that strategic thinking is not limited to tactical interactions between cards; and even the often called “brain-dead” decks, when played well, demand difficult strategizing.
Listen, not to discount a well-written and elaborate attempt at analysis, especially since you put in all that effort to respond to my question, but you are describing the basics of a match thought process here, which applies, with a few exceptions, to any deck. That ST deck you're facing, well, if I see NG, I know I need to start veiled, so I have to mulligan until I have Dunca or tutor in hand. I know that unless you open with Operator into kingslayer, chances are you either have assimilate or clog, except if you're running enslave, so I have to try and limit my bronze cards in R1, and mulligan for golds, and try to win R1, which is going to be real hard, because aside from those infiltrators and other slow tempo stuff, you have crazy pointslam-thinning combos: dogs, brigage, blightmaker, Tactical Decision+Snowdrop+SW, which you have zero reservations about using in R1, which forces me to use my own leader as well. The outcome of all this is unimportant. The point is, everyone is facing these same decisions every match, so NG is not somehow special to require more adaptation.

ST needs to win R1 while somehow preventing you from getting targets. (Not entirely on point, but for the sake of argument, you don't strictly NEED to win R1 as clog, because you have Letho and Renew, so if I decide to bleed, and you have to resist the bleed with Kolgrim, you are likely going to be able to bring him back.)

Also, this ST, if we're in the current meta, is probably running orbs, so I need to make a lot of decisions on optimal sequencing for seers and whisperers to stick and have to keep count of the orbs, so I know exactly when they are coming out, which affects what cards I play and how long I stay in the round, not just against clog or NG, but in general. You, meanwhile, are thinning and pointslamming while waiting for me to give you targets. Where is the stricter adaptation requirements?

You can boil down your clog strategy to one sentence: You need to find targets while thinning.

Similarly, you can fill a page with mulligan strategy for your Mill deck, but really, you play mill: you play as many mill cards as possible until your opponent runs out of cards, then use Tibor, Vilge, etc.

Admittedly, clog is a bit more involved than mill, but really, unless that ST is unitless Madoc, you will find those targets, because I have to play cards, and even if the targets aren't ideal, that Dunca does pretty much nothing for me in R3 or worse yet during R2 bleed, so it's really OK to coated weapons it.

Once again, the point is NG decks definitely do NOT require more skill to play than other factions. And as for mill and clog specifically, they actually require much less, while being pretty much impossible to actively counter by "good play." Against clog, I can squirm a bit, but again, if I have units, I have to play them, knowing that whatever I play will end up back in the deck, so basically no matter how good I am "at gwent", I will depend entirely on what I can draw in R2 and 3 after garbage dump, over which I have zero control.

This is even worse with mill. You tempo doesn't matter. Your sequencing doesn't matter all. It doesn't matter if you go 3 cards down to win the round. To either of us. What we're both doing is sitting there watching YOU play mill cards and what comes out of the deck. Then, depending on what I drew in R1 and what came out, you either get 2-0d or you win because I just run out of cards, and beyond the first 3 mulligans there's absoluitely NOTHING I can do to affect the outcome of the match. This isn't my idea of a good time.
 
Listen, not to discount a well-written and elaborate attempt at analysis, especially since you put in all that effort to respond to my question, but you are describing the basics of a match thought process here, which applies, with a few exceptions, to any deck. That ST deck you're facing, well, if I see NG, I know I need to start veiled, so I have to mulligan until I have Dunca or tutor in hand. I know that unless you open with Operator into kingslayer, chances are you either have assimilate or clog, except if you're running enslave, so I have to try and limit my bronze cards in R1, and mulligan for golds, and try to win R1, which is going to be real hard, because aside from those infiltrators and other slow tempo stuff, you have crazy pointslam-thinning combos: dogs, brigage, blightmaker, Tactical Decision+Snowdrop+SW, which you have zero reservations about using in R1, which forces me to use my own leader as well. The outcome of all this is unimportant. The point is, everyone is facing these same decisions every match, so NG is not somehow special to require more adaptation.

ST needs to win R1 while somehow preventing you from getting targets. (Not entirely on point, but for the sake of argument, you don't strictly NEED to win R1 as clog, because you have Letho and Renew, so if I decide to bleed, and you have to resist the bleed with Kolgrim, you are likely going to be able to bring him back.)

Also, this ST, if we're in the current meta, is probably running orbs, so I need to make a lot of decisions on optimal sequencing for seers and whisperers to stick and have to keep count of the orbs, so I know exactly when they are coming out, which affects what cards I play and how long I stay in the round, not just against clog or NG, but in general. You, meanwhile, are thinning and pointslamming while waiting for me to give you targets. Where is the stricter adaptation requirements?

You can boil down your clog strategy to one sentence: You need to find targets while thinning.

Similarly, you can fill a page with mulligan strategy for your Mill deck, but really, you play mill: you play as many mill cards as possible until your opponent runs out of cards, then use Tibor, Vilge, etc.

Admittedly, clog is a bit more involved than mill, but really, unless that ST is unitless Madoc, you will find those targets, because I have to play cards, and even if the targets aren't ideal, that Dunca does pretty much nothing for me in R3 or worse yet during R2 bleed, so it's really OK to coated weapons it.

Once again, the point is NG decks definitely do NOT require more skill to play than other factions. And as for mill and clog specifically, they actually require much less, while being pretty much impossible to actively counter by "good play." Against clog, I can squirm a bit, but again, if I have units, I have to play them, knowing that whatever I play will end up back in the deck, so basically no matter how good I am "at gwent", I will depend entirely on what I can draw in R2 and 3 after garbage dump, over which I have zero control.

This is even worse with mill. You tempo doesn't matter. Your sequencing doesn't matter all. It doesn't matter if you go 3 cards down to win the round. To either of us. What we're both doing is sitting there watching YOU play mill cards and what comes out of the deck. Then, depending on what I drew in R1 and what came out, you either get 2-0d or you win because I just run out of cards, and beyond the first 3 mulligans there's absoluitely NOTHING I can do to affect the outcome of the match. This isn't my idea of a good time.

Fantastically eloquent way to express just how awful it is facing Mill or Clog decks. Strategic guides against them are really limited and down to RNG, so here's my strategic suggestion to everyone reading this - the instant you see a Traehern, Viper Witcher, Cynthia, etc. just quit the game, it's not worth it!
 
Listen, not to discount a well-written and elaborate attempt at analysis, especially since you put in all that effort to respond to my question, but you are describing the basics of a match thought process here, which applies, with a few exceptions, to any deck. That ST deck you're facing, well, if I see NG, I know I need to start veiled, so I have to mulligan until I have Dunca or tutor in hand. I know that unless you open with Operator into kingslayer, chances are you either have assimilate or clog, except if you're running enslave, so I have to try and limit my bronze cards in R1, and mulligan for golds, and try to win R1, which is going to be real hard, because aside from those infiltrators and other slow tempo stuff, you have crazy pointslam-thinning combos: dogs, brigage, blightmaker, Tactical Decision+Snowdrop+SW, which you have zero reservations about using in R1, which forces me to use my own leader as well. The outcome of all this is unimportant. The point is, everyone is facing these same decisions every match, so NG is not somehow special to require more adaptation.

ST needs to win R1 while somehow preventing you from getting targets. (Not entirely on point, but for the sake of argument, you don't strictly NEED to win R1 as clog, because you have Letho and Renew, so if I decide to bleed, and you have to resist the bleed with Kolgrim, you are likely going to be able to bring him back.)

Also, this ST, if we're in the current meta, is probably running orbs, so I need to make a lot of decisions on optimal sequencing for seers and whisperers to stick and have to keep count of the orbs, so I know exactly when they are coming out, which affects what cards I play and how long I stay in the round, not just against clog or NG, but in general. You, meanwhile, are thinning and pointslamming while waiting for me to give you targets. Where is the stricter adaptation requirements?

You can boil down your clog strategy to one sentence: You need to find targets while thinning.

Similarly, you can fill a page with mulligan strategy for your Mill deck, but really, you play mill: you play as many mill cards as possible until your opponent runs out of cards, then use Tibor, Vilge, etc.

Admittedly, clog is a bit more involved than mill, but really, unless that ST is unitless Madoc, you will find those targets, because I have to play cards, and even if the targets aren't ideal, that Dunca does pretty much nothing for me in R3 or worse yet during R2 bleed, so it's really OK to coated weapons it.

Once again, the point is NG decks definitely do NOT require more skill to play than other factions. And as for mill and clog specifically, they actually require much less, while being pretty much impossible to actively counter by "good play." Against clog, I can squirm a bit, but again, if I have units, I have to play them, knowing that whatever I play will end up back in the deck, so basically no matter how good I am "at gwent", I will depend entirely on what I can draw in R2 and 3 after garbage dump, over which I have zero control.

This is even worse with mill. You tempo doesn't matter. Your sequencing doesn't matter all. It doesn't matter if you go 3 cards down to win the round. To either of us. What we're both doing is sitting there watching YOU play mill cards and what comes out of the deck. Then, depending on what I drew in R1 and what came out, you either get 2-0d or you win because I just run out of cards, and beyond the first 3 mulligans there's absoluitely NOTHING I can do to affect the outcome of the match. This isn't my idea of a good time.
I appreciate your well considered and strategy oriented reply. I don't disagree with much that you said, but I want to point out a few things.

1. You very nicely show strategic thought that goes into playing against clog. But let me submit that, if I am playing well, I should be trying to anticipate your likely response -- which means that every strategic consideration of the Spellatael player is also a consideration of the clog player, and vice versa. No deck can be any more or less strategic in a given matchup than the opposing deck. Clog clearly does give rise to strategic considerations when played well -- and I at least, think they are quite deep.

2. Some decks, when not played strategically, may be more easily punished than others. I don't have enough experience to say how often poor play with clog results in losing relative to other decks -- but that is a different argument.

3. I also agree that a lot of strategic decisions will be be almost the same once the matchup between clog and Spellatael occurs. And the outcome will often be based upon RNG. But I maintain that is true between almost any two decks. I maintain that is not inherent to clog as an archetype, but is a flaw in the the game design where there are too few viable decks at any point in time, too many binary interactions, and so much thinning and tutoring that adjustment to card draws is irrelevant -- you either have access to the answer or you don't.
 
I appreciate your well considered and strategy oriented reply. I don't disagree with much that you said, but I want to point out a few things.

1. You very nicely show strategic thought that goes into playing against clog. But let me submit that, if I am playing well, I should be trying to anticipate your likely response -- which means that every strategic consideration of the Spellatael player is also a consideration of the clog player, and vice versa. No deck can be any more or less strategic in a given matchup than the opposing deck. Clog clearly does give rise to strategic considerations when played well -- and I at least, think they are quite deep.

2. Some decks, when not played strategically, may be more easily punished than others. I don't have enough experience to say how often poor play with clog results in losing relative to other decks -- but that is a different argument.

3. I also agree that a lot of strategic decisions will be be almost the same once the matchup between clog and Spellatael occurs. And the outcome will often be based upon RNG. But I maintain that is true between almost any two decks. I maintain that is not inherent to clog as an archetype, but is a flaw in the the game design where there are too few viable decks at any point in time, too many binary interactions, and so much thinning and tutoring that adjustment to card draws is irrelevant -- you either have access to the answer or you don't.
Nothing here to disagree with, but to reorient this back towards the original sticking point, there's also nothing here to prove that NG requires more adaptation than any other faction, and in fact much of the conversation seems to illustrate the opposite, namely, that strategic decisions and thought process are very similar regardless of what faction you play.

One additional point I would like to make (or re-make) about clog and mill specifically, however, is that although they seem on the surface to "play" with their opponents, both are actually built on messing with the opponents' DECKS instead of the game board, which is inherently uninteractive. This is what leads to one-sidedness and overall lackluster level of "strategic" play and thought, when these two are involved, because NG's opponents in this case cannot take counter action or protect his deck in anyway.
 
Nothing here to disagree with, but to reorient this back towards the original sticking point, there's also nothing here to prove that NG requires more adaptation than any other faction, and in fact much of the conversation seems to illustrate the opposite, namely, that strategic decisions and thought process are very similar regardless of what faction you play.

One additional point I would like to make (or re-make) about clog and mill specifically, however, is that although they seem on the surface to "play" with their opponents, both are actually built on messing with the opponents' DECKS instead of the game board, which is inherently uninteractive. This is what leads to one-sidedness and overall lackluster level of "strategic" play and thought, when these two are involved, because NG's opponents in this case cannot take counter action or protect his deck in anyway.
Yes and no. I think good players on either side of a given matchup must use roughly the same level of strategic thinking as they are anticipating one another's moves. That doesn't mean every match-up requires equivalent thought. And we may want to distinguish strategic thought (which I would consider thought about the large scale flow of the round or match) from tactical thought (which I would consider shorter term measures and counter measures revolving around a small number of cards). I would argue that both mill and clog do require a lot of strategic thought (I think more than almost any other deck because flow of the match dramatically impacts the outcome -- as opposed to, say, SK warriors), but I agree that they do not involve a lot of deep tactical thought -- although even here, there are worse culprits. Generally, the more units on the board, the more likely there will be interesting tactical interactions; the more units with ability to continue to make significant impact by future actions, the more interesting the tactical interactions; the more multiple units are potentially impacted by by future actions, the more varied and creative the tactical interactions. For this reason, Villentretenmerth is one of my favorite cards -- even if it is relatively weak (for more detail, see the post here).

You argue that messing with opponents decks is inherently uninteractive, and this is largely true (although a few cards like Maxxi, Courier, and Fisher King at least allow me to adjust my deck some, albeit inefficiently). But where is the interaction with artifacts, with special cards, with cards whose effect occurs upon deploy, with cards that have been removed, with handboost, with boosts to cards in decks, with strategies using cards in the graveyard, with accumulated Syndicate coins? If you are really complaining about lack of tactics due to inherent uninteractivity, there is a lot to complain about!
 
Yes and no. I think good players on either side of a given matchup must use roughly the same level of strategic thinking as they are anticipating one another's moves. That doesn't mean every match-up requires equivalent thought. And we may want to distinguish strategic thought (which I would consider thought about the large scale flow of the round or match) from tactical thought (which I would consider shorter term measures and counter measures revolving around a small number of cards). I would argue that both mill and clog do require a lot of strategic thought (I think more than almost any other deck because flow of the match dramatically impacts the outcome -- as opposed to, say, SK warriors), but I agree that they do not involve a lot of deep tactical thought -- although even here, there are worse culprits. Generally, the more units on the board, the more likely there will be interesting tactical interactions; the more units with ability to continue to make significant impact by future actions, the more interesting the tactical interactions; the more multiple units are potentially impacted by by future actions, the more varied and creative the tactical interactions. For this reason, Villentretenmerth is one of my favorite cards -- even if it is relatively weak (for more detail, see the post here).

You argue that messing with opponents decks is inherently uninteractive, and this is largely true (although a few cards like Maxxi, Courier, and Fisher King at least allow me to adjust my deck some, albeit inefficiently). But where is the interaction with artifacts, with special cards, with cards whose effect occurs upon deploy, with cards that have been removed, with handboost, with boosts to cards in decks, with strategies using cards in the graveyard, with accumulated Syndicate coins? If you are really complaining about lack of tactics due to inherent uninteractivity, there is a lot to complain about!
I definitely agree about the coins, which is a separate topic entirely, but rest of it not so much. The difference with the special cards and deploy cards is that everyone has them and the interaction, which does not necessarily mean place-remove, still occurs on the board where you're countering the effects of those cards via back-and-forth. I can't counter the effects of mill. There's Vanadain, which is like one single (and not a very good one) card I can think of, yes, fwiw, but I can't get into the miller's own deck and mess him up in return (unless I'm NG). [Just like I can't STEAL coins] . My only real "tech" option against mill is to face it with an unoptimized, unconsistent deck with no tutors and over 25 cards, which is just infuriatingly stupid, imo.

Your other example are also not quite there. There are multiple ways to interact with the graveyard, and some decent ones, as well. Xavier has been a bit of a stud for me these last couple of seasons. Handbuff is both, low tempo on the front, and it still ENDS on the board, when you can interact with the results. No such thing applies to mill and clog effects.

And as for the strategic thinking, we'll have to just agree to disagree it seems, because to me, once again, the amount of strategic thought involved in mill and clog - beyond the standard and basic stuff - is literally zero, and since we've both already expressed our respective views on this subject, to continue would be to go in circles.
 
GWENT GAME PLAY STRATEGIES
Consistency


While random factors always will (and arguably should) play a significant role in a collectable card game like Gwent, consistency is about manipulating probabilities in your favor. It is something established both through deck design and through how the match is played. I have placed this article under the gameplay category because, in my experience, that is where errors losing consistency most often occur – and often, if luck works in their favor, players don’t even realize they misplayed.

There are at least eight tools players can use to improve consistency. The first, probably the biggest, and often the most overlooked consistency tool in the game is the mulligan. Mulligans allow a second chance to draw a desired card as well as an opportunity to remove an undesired card from the hand. But using Mulligans well involves much more than simply removing the lowest value card from the hand. In addition to shaping the hand to best suit the strategic objectives of the current round, mulligans enable other consistency tools. Hence, I will revisit mulligans after discussing other consistency tools.

A very common, well-known tool to improve consistency is thinning. Thinning is about removing cards that are undesirable to draw from the deck, with the objective of increasing the chance of later drawing desirable cards. Thinning a card usually comes with a tempo boost in that the card thinned is used to generate additional points. When a card removes a high value, or random card from one’s deck (as is done by Dandelion poet or Matta Hu’uri), it is arguable whether that should count as thinning. On the one hand, removing a high value or random card does not increase the chance of drawing a high value card later, and hence does not provide a consistency advantage. On the other hand, having fewer unplayed cards does reduce the chance of having an unplayed “good” card. It also reduces the chance of a bad card being unplayed, although not by as much because of the mulligan system. I prefer to consider these cards as a type of value-added tutor rather than a thinning tool, although this is context dependent – they certainly function as thinning from the point of view of playing a hyperthin deck.

Similar to thinning is the strategy of restricting options. If some card (e.g., Portal) only draws, summons, or plays a certain type of card, by restricting the available options (usually through deck building), you can guarantee (or make likely) that a good card is selected. (In the case of Portal, one might include only two high-strength, four-provision cards for the deck, guaranteeing that Portal draws only these.)

Tutoring is the use of one card to draw (and usually to play) another. Some tutors are general purpose (cards like Royal Decree that can draw almost any card of choice), some are category specific (like Ermion who can only play an alchemy card, or like Marching Orders which plays the lowest strength card in your deck). Some are free choice in that you can choose between all available cards of the tutored category; some are random choice in that you can only play from a random selection of possible targets. Some are value-added in that they contribute value beyond that of the tutored card; some are tutor only in that they contribute nothing but the value of the card tutored. Specific purpose tutors often contribute useful deck thinning as well as tutoring and value-added tutors contribute points/tempo to the tutoring – bear this in mind when evaluating the usefulness of including these cards. Random-choice tutors are usually best used later in the match; after options are sufficiently narrowed that they are likely to give a good option. But these tutors must be handled with care to ensure they do not brick by having no targets to tutor. In general, when tutors are used early in a match, they might tutor a card you would otherwise have drawn – they could give a card when you need it, but they are less likely to improve the over-all quality of cards you play in the match. Also, over-tutoring, especially with general purpose, free choice tutors is ill-advised because the provisions spent on tutors are provisions you cannot use on point generating cards. If you are frequently using general purpose tutors to draw cards of lower provision than the tutor itself, or if you are typically left with no unused cards of greater value than the tutor, you would likely obtain better value by replacing it with a point-generating card of the same value. And using these general-purpose tutors early in the match is a kind of reverse thinning in that tutoring a good card reduces the chance of drawing good cards later – reducing your future consistency. Use discretion with them.

Aside from mulligans, certain cards and leader abilities allow the replacement of cards in your hand – these are very similar to Mulligans in general character.

A few cards (Maxii Van Dekker, Fisher King, Blightmaker) reorder the deck in a controlled way. This typically improves your draw consistency in the next round – although some opponents may be able to use a card at the top of your deck against you.

Additionally, flexibility and balance can improve consistency. If you play the least flexible cards over the more flexible ones when you have a choice, you are more likely to have a needed ability later. For instance, if you need a poison, either Fangs of the Empire or Van Moorlehem’s Cupbearer could be used. Play Fangs (unless you absolutely need the extra one point). If you later need another poison, it won’t matter. But if you need a purify, you will be grateful to have the Cupbearer later. It is also advisable to strive to keep a balance of cards suitable for what you expect your opponent play. There is little point in holding four locks as you are unlikely to use them all. It is far better to hold 2 locks and 2 removal cards.

The final consistency tool is redundancy. Drawing, when needed, both cards of a two-card combination is only about a 50% proposition. Redundancy is the act of incorporating other cards that could potentially substitute for a card in a combination. For example, if a Svalblod Priest plays next to Blueboy Lugos, one gets a nice three point per turn engine. Even if Blueboy is not drawn, the Priest is still a decent engine. But Blueboy is not a good value without some card that could injure it; the lack of a Priest significantly worsens its value. Adding a card like Harold Houndsnout that could, in a pinch, substitute as a damager for Blueboy adds redundancy-based consistency to the deck. Although primarily a deck-building tool, redundancy can also be used during play to respond in case a card (like Priest in my example) is removed.

Let us now revisit mulligans. Mulligans are not just about drawing the best cards; they are about shaping the hand you need for a given round. Usually, you do not want a hand filled with gold cards for round one. You especially want the cards that thin your deck, complimented by a good engine or two, a couple of proactive plays, and some other, expendable reach/tempo cards. What you want for round two depends upon the bleed situation. If you are confident of a dry pass in round two, you might prefer to leave bricks in your hand. That way, when you mulligan them for round three, you can be certain they are not redrawn. If you mulliganed them in round two, you risk drawing them again during the mulligan phase of round three. If you expect to be facing/implementing a bleed in round two, you want good cards for the bleed. But if that bleed is likely to run very deep, you may not want your win condition in hand. Tutors here are good as they provide flexibility you might need. In round three, use the mulligans to get the strongest cards you can, but you might need to forgo one or more mulligans if bricking is a serious risk.

Both in deck building and during play, be conscious of long-term strategy and be attuned to probability. Many cards can significantly improve your chances when used correctly. But timing those cards to obtain maximal value from them is important. Consistency is important in all rounds, but especially in round three where every card is guaranteed to be used and overcommitment is impossible. All to often, players burn their only consistency cards to obtain limited return early in the match, only to depend unnecessarily upon luck later. Through the use of consistency cards, good players can create good luck, but good luck is not universally as sign of great play.
 
Top Bottom