Gwent Strategy Articles

+
GWENT GAME PLAY STRATEGIES
Bleeding


Bleeding is the term used to describe the round one winner playing into round two in order to draw out important cards of the opponent or to shorten the third round. Successful bleeding (and successful defense against bleeding) is a key element of Gwent strategy. This article will discuss elements of a successful bleed; the next will discuss defending against a bleed.

Successful bleeding begins before the start of round two, with two decisions: whether is bleeding appropriate, and which round two mulligans will shape the hand to bleed most effectively. Deciding whether to bleed or not was already discussed in the article on Round Two pass strategy (found here). But let me summarize a couple of important points. First, a bleed can have four different objectives: to win the second round and hence the match, shortening the long round when one’s deck benefits from a shorter round, driving dangerous cards out of an opponent’s hand to prevent their use in the critical third round, or exploiting round control to either develop carry-over or to force your opponent into playing better cards than would otherwise be needed as your opponent can neither afford to pass nor to fall too far behind. But it comes with the risk of losing a card if you cannot stay ahead of your opponent on score.

Before mulliganing for the second round, if you intend to bleed, you should consider how deep you need / are willing to go into the round. If you are wanting to win the round, you will use all cards, and clearly want the best hand you can get. If you are shortening round three, you should decide just how short the round needs to be. If you are wanting to bleed out critical cards, you need to decide whether you can stay ahead without using your own critical cards, and then whether you would be likely to draw those cards in the round three draw/mulligan phases. The deeper you can play into the round without losing a card, the more likely you will force out good cards. Note that your opponent must guard against a 2-0, so that opponent will usually need to keep some good cards in hand; you do not. Therefore, if conditions are right, you may want to mulligan those cards you would not want to use in round two. If you are playing for carryover, you want to either insure you do not lose a card or that the carryover is worth the lost card. Generally, you would play as few cards as possible to achieve your carryover. And if you are playing to draw out better opponent cards than you play, you want cards that threaten points but are not that valuable in the final round, or cards that trade up in provisions against likely answers. You must threaten a 2-0 or your opponent will simply play junk cards and you gain nothing. On the other hand, you don’t want to be using cards that would be better for you in round three.

Once you decide whether you will keep or mulligan your round three win condition cards before round two (you keep them if you don’t want to risk not drawing them later, you get rid of them if you want to play deeper into you hand than keeping them would allow), you need to consider the cards you do need for a good bleed. Generally, you should not expect to be successful in a short bleed – assuming you did not win round one on even, but went down a card, your opponent essentially can afford to play one card more than you can to win round two. If you attempt to bleed playing only one card, it is very likely that your opponent will win the round with two much cheaper cards than the one you played and that good card you played would have been better saved for round three. That is not to say you cannot opportunistically abort a bleed if it has served its purpose (for instance, if your opponent immediately plays the card you were trying to bleed out of his/her deck), but you should never count on a short bleed. You can also abort a bleed if you believe your opponent will have to go a card down to catch up and that playing round three a card up is less risky than continuing the bleed. Also, unless you are willing to play round three down a card – which could be the case if you have a very strong short round, or you desperately need to (and can!) get at least one threatening card out of the opponent – you should not expect to successfully bleed with bad cards. If you cannot, at some point get and stay sufficiently far ahead of your opponent that they don’t have reach to catch up, you will go down a card. Thus, you will be balancing playing good cards with reserving good cards for round three. Remember, a bleed is rarely useful if you are playing better cards than you force your opponent to play, but allowing an opponent to only play bad cards is not effective either. Having engines to play early will usually demand an opponent response, holding one or more high tempo plays to use immediately before passing to try to get sufficiently far ahead that the opponent can’t catch up is also important.

When playing a bleed, I suggest selecting those cards you are willing to commit (exclude any cards you need to reserve for round three), and then to play the hand as though those cards were all you held to try to win the round. Of course, if you are given a pass opportunity (you are ahead of your opponent on your turn), you can consider passing if you have achieved the bleed objectives. And if you reach a point where, if the opponent responds to your play by passing, your best response is to pass yourself, you should probably pass before playing – even if you go down a card, otherwise you will go down two cards.

Finally, do not play a bleed robotically – watch what your opponent plays. Be prepared to exploit obvious signs of weakness, even if that was not your original plan. Conversely, look for ways to step out if your opponent is unexpectedly resilient. Always ask whether you have achieved your objectives, or if you should try for new objectives.

Like many others, bleeding is a skill that comes from practice. Do not assume that a bad bleed is always a bad idea – sometimes it is the only hope in a matchup. And do not always assume that a successful bleed was perfect strategy – sometimes even good bleeds would have been played with less risk going directly into round three with a dry pass. But understanding bleeding is critical to Gwent and pays off in the long run.
 
GWENT GAME PLAY STRATEGIES
Defending the Bleed


When you have lost round one, and your opponent chooses to bleed you, you will be faced with defending the bleed. In defending the bleed, you have three objectives: first, to avoid losing the round (and the match 2-0); second, as much as possible, to deny you opponent his/her bleed objectives; and third, to punish the opponent for attempting to bleed through favorable trades and/or gaining card advantage. Assuming you lost round one up a card and not on even, you have one big advantage over your opponent which you can exploit – your extra card, which gives you an extra play and hence, an ability to win while still deploying fewer points per turn. Of course, your big disadvantage is that you must win the round. If you are not familiar with the strategy of bleeding, I strongly suggest you read the article (found here) on bleeding before tackling this one.

If you assess that a bleed is likely, your defense begins before the round starts – in the mulligan phase for round II. Even if a bleed seems unlikely, it is probably wise to play around the possibility of one occurring to the extent that is feasible. Ideal in defending a bleed is to have answers for likely engines your opponent could play, and enough high tempo cards to keep pace with any point-slam your opponent might use attempting to pull out of your two-card reach. Unlike your bleeding opponent, you do not have the luxury of mulliganing all your round three cards – at least not if you might need them to carry round two. And you must be as careful of bricks as you would be in round three – your opponent could force you into a situation where you must play them.

In playing against a bleed, I suggest trying to match your opponent’s level of commitment unless there is a strong reason to do otherwise. Especially if your opponent has not yet reached the seven-card threshold, that opponent could still stop the bleed without losing a card: you don’t want to waste a good round three card unless your opponent has committed an equally significant card. But you also want to stay within one-card reach so you don’t go down a card. And you want to play aggressively enough that you are sure to win the round if the opponent chooses to commit to a bleed. After the seven-card threshold has been passed, your opponent has made a clear commitment, and you can step up your commitment as well.

As with any round, you want to try to develop engines early – but when being bled, you also need to be attentive to tempo. If your opponent is slamming a lot of points, do not play a slow engine unless you remain within reach and expect you can continue to remain within reach, or unless you expect to need the engine value to avoid losing.

You also want to exploit your ability to know what your opponent has committed before making a response – this allows you to seek favorable trades and to commit as little as is necessary to achieve your desired end. Be attuned to longer range strategy. For instance, if you want your opponent to discontinue the bleed, it is not wise to pass his/her point total as you then encourage the opponent to keep playing to win back the card they would otherwise lose. But you also don’t want to play so feebly that they continue the bleed attempting to 2-0. Ideally, you get close enough that you threaten pulling ahead without actually doing so. If you want them to continue the bleed, do not telegraph strong combinations you might have upcoming. If you think you can surpass your opponent’s point total and stay ahead, do so as you then gain a card – don’t allow a pass opportunity by playing something low tempo. On the other hand, unless you think you cannot stay ahead, it is unwise to play your high-reach card simply to pull ahead – playing more slowly encourages your opponent to do the same, and you can save your high-reach card for when it will give lasting value.

Finally, the cases where you pass before your opponent does should be extremely rare. These so-called hero passes should only occur if you believe you would lose the final round anyway if you played another card, if you cannot think of a situation where your opponent’s possible cards (including leader!) would surpass your current point total, or if you are playing an opponent who has demonstrated sufficiently poor play that you are confident they did not consider their ability to catch up before taking their last turn. Normally, you want to assume that your opponent made a wise move – and needlessly throwing down a card that cannot help win a round is an unwise move when passing instead is an option, so don’t assume you opponent has done this.
 
GWENT DECKBUILDING STRATEGIES
Deck Polarization


Assuming provision cost is an accurate measure of card value in its optimal deck (which appears to be valid at least for the best cards), one objective of deck building is to maximize the average provision value of cards played. Deck polarization exploits the mulligan concept to this. Because of mulligans, it is possible to return low provision cards to the deck while keeping high provision cards. Thus, high provision cards have a higher probability of being played than low provision cards. By ensuring there are enough low provision cards in the deck to provide low provision mulligans, the average value of cards that are played can be significantly increased. The process of including cheap (4 provision) cards in the deck and thereby increasing the average provision value of other cards is called deck polarization, and it is an important consideration in all top-level competitive decks.

The remainder of this article is going to include significant statistics, but I think the statistics are important to understanding deck polarization at a level needed to use it most effectively. In fact, some elements of this statistical analysis are surprising: it allows certain deck designs that I believe some expert players would not consider sufficiently polarized.

Through my statistical calculations, I made the following assumptions:
  • That the deck is on red coin. (Blue coin allows an extra mulligan in round one which usually alters probabilities only slightly, but which makes calculations about 20% more tedious. I do not think there will be enough ultimate difference to justify the effort of a blue coin calculation.)
  • That there is no thinning of decks, playing cards from decks, or drawing of cards other than at the start of rounds and during the mulligan phase. Moreover, I assume no cards are added to the deck. This allows me to consider only one basic case and keeps the analysis feasible.
  • That a player takes all available mulligans. As I am interested in computing probabilities tat certain cards are drawn at some point in the match, it makes sense to give this event the highest probability of occurring.
  • The deck contains 25 cards. This tends to be the optimal number for virtually every deck.
  • That the only card characteristic of relevance is its provision cost. Other characteristics of cards are not relevant to the basic polarization concept.
The following probabilities are useful, but tedious and technical to compute. After I present them, I will explain their usefulness. (Note: I have used the American convention of representing a decimal point by a period, e.g. 0.13 represents 13 / 100.)
  • The probability of previously mulliganed cards being redrawn 0 times in the match is approximately 0.0303
  • The probability of previously mulliganed cards being redrawn a total of one time in the match is approximately 0.2273
  • The probability of previously mulliganed cards being redrawn a total of two times in the match is approximately 0.4394
  • The probability of previously mulliganed cards being redrawn a total of three times in the match is approximately 0.2626
  • The probability of previously mulliganed cards being redrawn a total of four times in the match is approximately 0.0404
The number of times we redraw a previously mulliganed card is directly related to the number of cards in our deck that we never draw. On red coin, we will draw a total of 16 cards at the start of rounds, and we will draw another 6 cards to replace cards we have mulliganed. Thus, we could potentially see 22 cards – if none of the mulliganed cards are ever drawn again. Every time we redraw a previously mulliganed card, the number of cards we see is reduced by one. And the number of cards we miss is simply 25 minus the number we see.

In any given match, we will have nine unplayed cards – those unseen will have random provisions, those that have been seen would have been mulliganed (and are ideally weak cards). We thus have the following amongst unplayed cards:

  • Probability 0.0404 – 2 mulliganed and 7 unseen cards
  • Probability 0.2626 – 3 mulliganed and 6 unseen cards
  • Probability 0.4394 – 4 mulliganed and 5 unseen cards
  • Probability 0.2273 – 5 mulliganed and 4 unseen cards
  • Probability 0.0303 – 6 mulliganed and 3 unseen cards
If our goal is to maximize the average provision value of cards played, we simply need to guarantee that all mulliganed cards cost 4 provisions. If we assume a leader granting 15 provisions, a deck is built with 165 provisions. This is an average of 6.6 provisions per card. If we play 16 average provision cards, we play a total of 105.6 provisions in a match. If, however, all mulliganed cards are 4 provisions, we can calculate the average provisions of played cards is 7.092 and we play a total of 113.5 provisions. That is a difference of 7.9 provisions per match.

There are a couple of observations. First, observe that, at least due to mulligans, one need not polarize the deck by including very high provision units – it suffices to have enough low provision cards. (This seems to run against the advice of some experts; however, I have not considered the effects of tutoring.) Second, observe that you must have enough low provision units that they are in hand when you need them for mulligans. Every time you do not have a four-provision card available to mulligan, you can expect to lose about three provisions of average potential value. Third, observe that the probability of never redrawing a mulliganed card is very small. I would plan on wanting to mulligan at least five low provision units, but the sixth is unlikely to be necessary. I recommend beginning with 6 four-provision cards in a deck (more if you think you will want to play some of them)..

But consider also, the effects of violating some of our assumptions. If the deck is on blue coin, we get seven mulligans total, which significantly increases the chance of mulliganed cards being redrawn – and even give the possibility of redrawing as many as seven cards. We have more options to get rid of low provision cards from our hands, but those cards we do get rid of are more likely to come back into hand. We will always be able to mulligan three distinct cards, which might suggest we want slightly more low provision cards in our deck, but probably not many more. Also, the average number of unseen cards will decrease, giving less risk to very high provision cards.

If the deck is thinned, we will have fewer unseen cards, and will be more likely to see previously mulliganed cards again. We may need slightly fewer low provision cards (unless the low provision cards are thinned). Other assumptions follow a similar pattern.

Deck polarization is a useful tool to maximize the potential of decks; this guide is meant to help you understand its underlying basis.
 
Gwent Resources and References:

This article is intended as an index to a wide variety of useful on-line Gwent references and resources. I have attempted to limit this to resources that are either timeless or appear to be regularly updated. I do not pretend this is a complete list – there are doubtless dozens of wonderful sites of which I am unaware. It is also the case that the web is constantly changing; links will doubtless go bad; references will become obsolete. Please add comments if you believe I have missed important sites and let me know if a link is bad. I will update this post as I become aware of need to do so. All references listed here are primarily in English – regrettably I lack sufficient knowledge of other languages to verify usefulness of sites not in English.


Gwent Guides: These guides are to assist players in playing Gwent better

Slama’s Guides (from the Gwent creators)

Aretusa Academy: (several lessons for beginners from Team Aretuza)

Catch Up Guides: Although old, this basic guide remains relevant.

Team Bandit Gang Beginner Resources: (excellent variety and detail from team Bandit Gang)

Spyroza Gwent Youtube Channel: The best medium to advanced level guides of which I am aware.

Team Leviathan Gaming Training Grounds: Excellent (mainly video) resources

DRK3 Miscellaneous Guides: Rife with hidden insights that really make a difference.


Gwent Related Twitch Channels: There are many Gwent streamers on Twitch. Those listed below are the ones I enjoy most, but that is a matter of taste. Search Twitch under Gwent to obtain a much more extensive list.

CDProjectRed: from the game producers

Burza: developer’s channel; site of This Week in Gwent

Spyro_ZA: Serious, competitive streamer who focuses upon strategy. Also, an excellent caster.

Crozyr: Strong player, kind disposition, who often plays memes, and whose chat discussions are thoughtful and (to me at least) very interesting.

Lionhart: Excellent caster, strong player, mellow disposition, mixes gameplay with extensive discussions often peripheral to actual game play. Often casts with Thea Beasty.

Thea Beasty: Competitive, enthusiastic player, positive attitude, but streams irregularly. Often casts with Lionhart.

Shinmiri: Strong, analytic player, tournament caster and analyst.


Gwent Youtube Channels: There are literally hundreds of these – just search Gwent on Youtube using the channels filter. I do not watch much Youtube – I have listed only those channels I either stumbled across and liked or belonging to streamers I have seen recommended.

Play Gwent: The official channel.

Specimen Gwent: A creative meme player

Freddie Babes

Mister Habbla

Spyro: An excellent teacher of the game

Fuchsia Briefs: Entertaining, meme-oriented player

Ace of Plays

Thea Beasty

Devil Driven

Bushy

Ocean Mud

Plain Talk Jon

Lionhart


Gwent Related E-Sports Team Pages: Many e-sports teams have pages containing valuable Gwent resources. Most of the best print resources I have found are from team pages – they are more like to be authoritative and current than other sources of information

Team Aretuza

Team Bandit Gang

Team Elder Blood

Team Leviathan Gaming

Team Kreve

Team Nova


Gwent Glossaries:

Gwent Fandom

Team Aretuza

The Unofficial Gwent Glossary (Riven-Twain)

Team Bandit Gang

Team Leviathan Gaming


Gwent Meta Reports:

Team Leviathan Gaming

Team Elder Blood

Team Aretuza


Gwent Decks:

Gwent Deck Library

Deck of the Day (DRK3)


Gwent/Witcher Lore and History:

Gwent Through the Years: (DRK3)

Maps of the Continent

Journey Stories

Fandom Witcher Wiki
also this

Folklore Foundations

What is a Witcher?

History of Nilfgaard

Most Powerful Mages

Triss Merigold

Eldain

Gwent Lore Blast (by Bandit Gang)

Gwent Card Lore (King Blacktoof)

Overview of Major Nations

Gwent Religions

Famous Witchers
 
Last edited:

DRK3

Forum veteran
@quintivarium I would add a couple of essential sites for Gwent players:

The Voice of Gwent - as far as i know, the best place to see the card database without having to launch the game, plus other options like hearing the cards voicelines or seeing how the cards were on different patches in the past


The Trendy Gwentleman - the best database for cosmetics, much better organized than in-game and with information on how they are (or were) obtainable

 
GWENT DECKBUILDING STRATEGIES
Deck Building on a Budget


There is a lot of advice on deckbuilding circulating. Some of it is very good. But if you are a newer player with limited cards and limited resources to acquire cards for a deck, much of that advice is either not applicable or even counterproductive. This article is designed to specifically address competitive deck building when your resources (cards or scraps) are limited.

First there are three main ways to get started deck building: building from scratch, upgrading a deck you already own, or adapting a deck you do not own. I will address these three strategies in the order I listed them, because most of the advice given for the earlier cases also applies to the later.

Starting from Scratch:
When starting a deck from scratch, you probably want to begin with theme(s) or archetype(s) for the deck. Start by asking yourself these questions. What ideas connect cards you hope to use? What synergies are you seeking? Do you own a sufficient number of these cards for the theme to work? As you begin to hash out your ideas, a few more questions are useful. How will your deck win? How will it generate points for rounds one and two? How will it counter or compete with cards your opponent plays? These are big questions; questions that can be answered for every good deck. And they are likely sufficient to give you a rough idea of the shape of the deck. So far, your approach will not be significantly different than if you had a thorough collection of cards.

But now it is time to start actually selecting cards. Here I have some very unique suggestions.
  • Do not worry about provisions! When your card collection is limited, the cards you are most likely to be missing are legendary cards – and almost all high provision cards are legendary. It will probably be several months before you can field a coherent deck that uses all available provisions on 25 cards. So pick the best, relevant cards you own regardless of cost. If you run out of provisions, you can replace them with something cheaper later – but I don’t expect you to run out of provisions.
  • Start with selecting gold cards and work down in provision toward bronze cards. It is usually easy to find lots of cards that fit a theme and seem exciting to try. But you don’t want to fill your deck before you get to the best cards (which are usually higher provision). As your card collection grows, you have to be selective about cards at all provision levels. When your collection is small, you will probably want to include every good gold card you have that fits your deck. Putting them in first reduces the number of cards you eventually swap out.
  • Give high consideration to cards that play two cards in a single turn. Usually, these cards generate more points in a single play than individual cards. And for you, the extra cost is not likely to be relevant.
  • Limit your deck to 25 cards even if you have provisions for more. This increases the odds of drawing your best cards.
  • Plan on redundancy or at least a plan B for major elements of your deck. You likely don’t have the tutors that players with larger collections have, so your deck will not be as consistent. Expect not to have everything you need available at any given time – and provide cards that will be useful anyway.
  • If you resolve to craft cards for your new deck, craft general purpose, widely used cards in preference to highly specialized cards that only fit your one deck. This maximizes your flexibility when and if you choose to move to another deck. Many deck ideas seem good, but fail in practice because of often subtle factors you can’t foresee. As best possible, you want to avoid wasting your precious scraps on a card you find you can’t effectively use.
Updating an Existing Deck of Yours:
When updating a deck that you already own, you have two significant advantages over starting from scratch: the deck already has a theme, and the deck builds upon a functional core of cards you already own. Thus, if you are building your first deck, I strongly suggest starting from one of the starter decks you own. I would then ask questions like these. How does the deck work (what are its themes, synergies, win conditions)? What are its weaknesses and how can they be addressed? What cards do you almost never want (these are good to replace)? When the existing deck loses, why does it lose and what might you do about it? When the deck wins, what worked well?

Once you are ready to start working on specific cards for the deck, I have the following suggestions
  • In a good deck, every card has a purpose. (Starter decks, for what they are, are very good decks.) Before replacing a card, consider its role in the deck. Make sure that its role is optional, or that you replace it with a card that plays a similar role.
  • When adding a “better” card, make sure it fits the deck to which you add it. When I was beginning Gwent, the first legendary card I obtained (by opening kegs) was Olaf. Olaf has the wonderful order ability to boost himself by twice the amount he is damaged. But the Skellige starter deck provides very few tools to damage Olaf myself and opponents know better than to damage him for me. He could replace an elder bear because he has more power, but I couldn’t get full value from him because he did not fit the SK starter deck. You might be better off not to include powerful cards that are good only in situations your deck cannot create.
  • Cards you frequently mulligan are good cards to replace.
  • A card that does the same thing better than an existing card is a good candidate to replace that card.
  • If you are replacing a substantial number of cards (10 or more), consider whether you might do better starting from scratch – this removes your commitment to features of a deck that don’t fit your vision.
Adapting Another Player’s Deck or Idea:
You probably won’t need to play Gwent for very long before you encounter a deck that seems impressively strong or interesting or fun, and you think that you would like to try that deck. But then you find that the published deck (or your variant of it) calls for numerous cards you are missing. If your card collection is small, it is extremely likely that you will be able to copy the latest and greatest deck with it. You then have a choice: commit the resources to craft the missing cards or to substitute cards you do own for the missing cards. If you are crafting, make sure the deck is one you expect to stick with long enough to be worth the investment. If you are trying to substitute cards for cards you are missing,
  • Make sure you can cover all core elements of the deck
  • Replace cards with others that serve a similar purpose
  • Beware of removing useful synergies
  • Be careful of removing too much consistency
  • Consider replacing groups of cards with other groups. Sometimes you can better incorporate your own synergies than to work the original synergies.
Deck building is an art that takes time and patience. You will not likely create a masterpiece on your first attempt. But it is satisfying to see your own creation working in your matches. It can seem intimidating. But the worst that can happen is you make a really bad deck. Learn from mistakes and enjoy the process.
 
GWENT MODES
A Brief Guide to the Seasonal Event “Battle Rush”


Mode Rules: Both players have just 8 seconds to complete their turn and 15 seconds to complete the redrawing phase.

General (Non-objective) Comments: Perhaps it is because I am a newer player playing on a mobile device where the interface is truly a limitation, but I honestly detest this mode. To me, it is an unending source of frustration allowing no time to check card function; because of imprecision in the controls, often causing the wrong card to be drawn to the wrong location; and because of lag, failing to even register taps and execute orders. I also observe much of the poor behavior of players to revolve around impatience – an attitude this mode supports. It gives no time to deal with “distractions”. And finally, it does not particularly lend itself to learning. It is hard to analyze the consequences of plays and causes of difficulty in 8 seconds, and even if one pauses after each match to reflect, it is harder to remember what happened. But I do recognize that many players find it their favorite game mode by far. It does allow many games to be played in a short time and eliminates the excessive roping that sometimes occurs in matches. And with technology on which the interface consistently works, it eliminates tedious and boring waiting while allowing enough time for most plays. Battle rush can be very exciting. Thus, I write this guide with some hesitation: I want my set of articles on different modes to be as complete as possible and I want to assist newer players with strategies for the mode. But I am neither fully objective nor best informed to write this article.

Key Considerations:
  • There are no changes to rules regarding cards. Good plays in ordinary Gwent are good plays in Battle Rush if you can complete them.
  • Despite improvements to the interface decoupling the queueing of commands with the completion of animations, it is still best to avoid cards and leader skins with lengthy animations as they become distracting and prevent observation of effects before decision making.
  • Incomplete orders are carried out randomly and often to a player’s detriment. Failing to click off of an order will cause all remaining charges to be randomly used and failure to complete the deployment demands of a card will cause a discard without the card being played.
  • Cards requiring lengthy or multiple decisions (for instance, Shupe’s Day Off or Fisher King) may be unwise uses of time. Decks with multiple order units and many actions that must occur in a single round should also be avoided.
  • There is no time for extensive calculation, careful planning, or checking card powers.
Deck Building Strategy: In three words: keep it simple. Decks that are hard to pilot are not well suited to Battle Rush as you really can’t think through actions. Decks that require execution of multiple orders or precise placement of cards may not allow time to complete actions. Syndicate might be a poor choice as tracking coins is a calculation you might prefer not to have to make. Beware of long card animations (I would avoid animated cards altogether – which can be done by setting the deck builder’s animation parameter to show all cards and only selecting basic cards from the list.) Be very cautious in leader selection and in leader skin. Stay with cards with which you are familiar – looking up properties (such as which row you must deploy the card to for a desired effect) wastes much time. So does having to search you deck for a card whose art you don’t immediately recognize. In fact, including cards with different color tones helps prevent grabbing the wrong card. On the other hand, mixing in non-meta (but still good) cards with which your opponent might be unfamiliar – or even playing a deck that forces an opponent out of rote play mode can be very effective in reversing time management issues.

Game Play Strategy: Because all cards function as usual, the physical strategy of the game is unchanged. The only real change to the game is mental state. Avoid distracting situations (such as making a cup of tea or even eating a snack while playing). Use your opponent’s time be considering your next play and take no more time on your own plays than you truly need to prevent your opponent from doing the same. Create dilemmas for your opponent to consider and keep him/her off-balance with unexpected moves. The time issues you face are issues your opponent also faces, so turn them to your advantage. And finally, trust your instincts. It is usually better to make a bad move than no move at all.
 
Last edited:

DRK3

Forum veteran
As Battle Rush's biggest fan and advocate (and ready to fight anyone who claims otherwise :mad:), i admit all of the criticisms quinti placed on the mode are valid.

I am a PC Gwent player, ive never had the chance to try it on mobile, but i assume even my crappy desktop gives a better experience in this particular mode than the one obtained in the best of mobiles, its probably close to unplayable there, unless you restrict your decks to the simplest pointslam.

Also, i can confirm that even on PC, and even to the most experienced of players who has the entire cardpool memorized, this mode can be quite frustrating, because no matter how lightning fast you are, the game doesnt keep up with inputs, and despite improvements still has some really slow animations and transitions.

Quite often, i "bite more than i can chew" in Blitz mode (the non-official name for 'Battle Rush'), trying to do some chain or combo that ends up failing, probably more than 50% of my defeats are something like this, while my opponents are playing "fire and forget" cards :giveup:
And even though i love this seasonal, its definitely not one of the seasonals where i get the best winrates, its probably closer to the bottom...

So yes, its not a mode to learn the cards, or very appropriate to beginners and mobile players.
But you CAN learn other skills, like thinking and adapting much faster, planning much more ahead, and taking advantage of the surprise element to paralyze opponents, and make them do terrible plays or even discard cards or forfeit.

Some extra hints:
-(this slightly goes against the guide above) if i need to plan a complicated move next turn, i dont press the pass button and use the extra time to do such planning
-use the mulligan time, which is very excessive IMO, to do a general plan of the entire round
-avoiding SY if you want an easier time is definitely a good advice... but if you're an idiot /mascochist like moi, at least avoid single coin fee spenders (coerced blacksmith is a true nightmare) or any spenders with animation (the selfpoison bros)
-play the card before using lengthy leader abilities like doublecross or pincer maneuver, otherwise you're more likely to discard a random card from hand
 
GWENT DECKBUILDING STRATEGIES
Balance


One of the core principles in deckbuilding is balance. Here I am not referring to all card or factions having equal effectiveness in play. Balance here refers to keeping an appropriate balance between all aspects of the created deck: balance between power and damage, balance between proactive and reactive plays, balance between immediate and future value, balance between consistency and strength, balance between effectiveness and surprise, balance between types of responses. It is a concept with some flexibility, but one disregarded at significant peril.

Balance is important for multiple reasons. First, each successive instance of a certain type of card tends to have diminishing return. Second, excessive instances of one type of cards reduces your deck consistency. And finally, balance is vital to having the flexibility to make the most effective responses to your opponent’s actions. Let me take several examples.

Suppose you have three tall removal cards in your hand. The first can target your opponent’s most powerful unit. The second cad get your opponent’s second most powerful card; the third tall removal only gets the third most powerful opposing card. With rare exceptions, the third most powerful card is significantly weaker than the most powerful card. The optimal balance would be to take just enough tall removal that your final removal card remains less valuable than card it can remove, but one more removal card would be more expensive than the unit it removes. Of course, this depends upon the opponent’s deck. But, based upon the current meta and decks you are likely to encounter, you should ask yourself what type of card you might expect each removal card you take to target. Similarly, every control card (e.g., locks) has a similar diminishing return.

But this principle is not limited to cards that interfere with the opponent. Take engine cards (cards that gain value over time) as an example. It might seem wise in some decks to have so many engines that your opponent cannot hope to contain all of them. And to a degree, this is true. But each engine played and stopped shortens the round by one turn. If that scenario occurs too often, your remaining engines will no longer carry sufficient value to eventually outscore a point-slam card. And too many engines in a deck may leave you without other cards when you desperately need them – this might mean no removal for opponent threats, insufficient reach to allow you to continue to contest a first or second round long enough for the engines to make an impact, or no tutor for the one card that brings your deck together. So, how do you gauge a good balance in numbers of engine cards. Again, it depends upon the meta, your deck, and the engines you are using. I would use a bit of statistics. An average Gwent round is between five and six turns long. Most matches contain at least one long round. For each engine, I would ask myself how many turns the engine would need to be active to outperform another type of card. Then I would ask how many turns the engine would likely be active – considering time spent deploying other engines and responding to urgent opponent threats. Stop including engines when they would be unable to outperform other cards.

Tutors must also be balanced with cards that they tutor. Multiple tutors pulling from the same card pool will draw successively less useful cards. Too few targets can also cause tutors to brick – or at least limit mulligans for fear of drawing bricked tutors. Tutors generally draw provisions away from cards that play for value – if you draw a 10-provision tutor, you could have drawn a 10-provision value-card instead. Seriously question the need for tutors that consistently draw lower value cards than the tutors themselves. Tutors that draw random cards, to be maximally effective, may limit the types of cards you place in the deck. Tutors can rapidly consume your board space as they tend to fill multiple slots in a single turn. And tutors can potentially over-thin your deck, so you run out of cards in the final round. As there are generally 9 extra, unplayed cards in a deck, this is normally not an issue, but it can be if your opponent also mills cards from your deck. On the other hand, the right tutor can allow access to tech cards you don’t generally want in your hand. Some tutors allow extra points of value to be played in a single turn, improving your deck’s tempo. Tutors that pull low provision cards from your deck thin it, improving the chance of drawing high provision cards later. And tutors can help ensure you draw a critical, powerful card. While decks can be functional with no tutors, normally a few tutors can significantly improve a deck. In gauging the balance of tutors in my deck, I generally want at least two options for cards the tutor could pull in my deck at the start of the mulligan phase for the third round. This allows me to take full mulligans without risking bricking the tutor. I want every tutor to generally play for higher value than an equivalent provision card would have. And I want the flexibility to avoid using deck-thinners if I encounter mill. Conversely, I do not want to avoid tutors when they are essential for deck consistency.

Some deck polarization greatly increases the average provision value of cards you actually play during the match – essential for a top-level deck. But the mulligan system only demands you include a reasonable number (approximately 6) very low provision cards for this purpose. Very high provision (10+ provision) cards only become disproportionally attractive to give value to uncapped tutors like Oneiromancy, Royal Decree, Roderick of Dun Tynne, Blood Eagle, Call of the Forest, Land of a Thousand Fables, Francesca Findabair, Naglfar, Vivaldi Bank, Stefan Skellen, Whispering Hillock, Isengrim’s Council, War Council, and the like. Including too many low provision cards you don’t desire to play simply to make other cards better or including more 10+ provision cards than necessary to give tutor targets makes a deck more binary (good if you draw well, bad if you don’t). But keep in mind that you will naturally draw some very high-level cards without tutors, so you probably don’t need to have a general-purpose tutor for more than half of your best cards. And a binary deck is not inherently bad. On the average it performs as well as any deck. But it will play with higher variability which tends to favor the less skilled player.

Every deck also needs enough pro-active, “opening play” type cards. Unless you lose 2-0, you will always need to go first in at least one round, and, if on blue coin, in two rounds. Moreover, you might not draw all your proactive cards when you need them. Finally, you need to account for situations where you need a pro-active card at other points in round: if your opponent has played a special card or artifact that placed no units on the board, or whenever potential targets have been eliminated or do not exist. Certain opposing decks do significantly increase the number of proactive cards that are useful, but I generally expect to want to play at least four proactive cards per match. Given not all such cards will be drawn, I would want at least 6 “opening play” suitable cards in every deck – and more if noninteractive, highly reactive, or heavy removal decks are prominent in the meta.

The opposite of proactive cards, reactive cards are less essential. But without sufficient reactive abilities, I am counting on my proactive point slam and engines to outpoint anything my opponent plays. And unless I can find a lot of good pro-active cards for my deck, I will again suffer from diminishing returns on these cards. Moreover, there enough totally dominating cards in the game that forgoing an ability to interrupt them is dangerous. Unless I can outscore an uncontested Brouver Hoog or Melusine – ideally after my top engine is countered by my opponent, – I must include reactive cards to counter them. And that means I must counter whatever my opponent uses to protect them. Typically, you need either a handful of good control cards, or significant control built throughout the deck. And this calls for reactive cards.

Even high tempo cards are best in moderation. While high tempo is extremely valuable in a deck, typically that tempo costs extra provisions – 70 provisions worth of low tempo cards will typically play for more total than 70 provisions of high tempo cards. And there are limited number of high tempo cards available. As you include more of them, eventually you will have to resort to lower quality cards. And since most engines are low tempo, demanding high tempo restricts your ability to play competitive long rounds.

Finally, I even like to vary my control. Having purifies for defenders and veiled units, locks for strong engines, removal/reset for instant value cards, wide punish for spam, etc. feels very good and generally plays better than having nothing but removal. But, again, balance is the keyword. If I have too much response, I cannot play my own strategy.

Building decks that balance offensive and defensive plays as well as decks that have variety in achieving objectives usually results in more successful decks. Developing that balance often takes conscious effort.
 
GWENT MODES

A Brief Guide to the Seasonal Event “Seesaw”


Mode Rules: On the end of the Player’s turn, damage player’s odd-powered units by one and boost player’s even-powered units by one.

General (Non-objective) Comments: This is a nice mode in that it changes the game without either reducing it to random chaos or dramatically changing balance (except for two cards that should ALWAYS be teched against).

Key Considerations:
  • The mode damage/boost is always applied before other turn end effects.
  • This mode has a learning curve! With practice, long term effect of actions become more natural to calculate.
  • The average, long term mode effects on cards that receive no other power adjustments are very small as successive turns alternate boost and damage. On the average, even powered cards increase in power by ½ point and odd powered units decrease by ½ point.
  • Success hinges on finding exceptions to the alternating boost damage effects. These include timing play of cards so that they gain a boost on your final turn of a round, avoiding one-point cards which are destroyed before boosting restores value, playing cards (in a timely way) that have an odd-valued impact on other cards point value, and playing cards that benefit from boosts or damage (on other cards or self).
Deck Building Strategy:

Two cards, Cahir and Dagur, have the potential to dominate this mode unless dealt with. While including these cards is optional, preparing to oppose them is not. And that means also being prepared to deal with cards your opponent might use to protect them, duplicate them, or replay them. Both cards are easily handled by locks or tall punish – but expect to need to get through (or around) a defender. Don’t be surprised to see Cahir copied by Letho and replayed by renew. Don’t be surprised to see Dagur replayed by Sigrdrifa, Fucusya, or Lippy. Black Blood is great against Cahir as he typically boosts before your opponent can react. A little graveyard hate (Squirrel or Xavier) is useful to prevent either Cahir or Dagur from returning. Yrden deals nicely with either Cahir or Dagur as well as with other opposing cards that have been grown by exploitation of the mode boosts. And Dudu punishes opponents who play these cards.

On the proactive end, cards that boost or damage by an odd number can be used shift the alternating boost/damage so that it more often works for you than against you. Armor or shields can extend the time you have to favorably ping a unit but will be quickly depleted unless you have ways to move a unit off odd power.

Cards that benefit from damaged or boosted units are also very good in this mode as there tend to be a lot of both damage and boost. Cards like Drakar and Dragonturtle no longer need the help of other cards to benefit from armor removal. And Dire Bear and Sukrus can be used to partially prevent the mode effects.

In fact, SK seems well endowed with cards that might benefit from this mode as it has many cards like Blueboy that benefit each time they are damaged. Just be careful as the mode effect may not be sufficient to make otherwise weak cards strong.

Game Play Strategy:

Basic Seesaw gameplay strategy can be summarized easily: ending a player turn with cards on even is good for the player, ending the turn with cards on odd is bad. This is especially true of units receiving regular, one-point boosts or damage from engines, bleeding, or vitality as (after mode effects) these cards will remain on even or odd for multiple turns. Otherwise, I have only two comments. Even though there are almost always boosted units, the units boost gradually over time and don’t need to be dealt with on a final turn. Final say has about as much value as it would in normal mode. On the other hand, if you know the round length, you can consciously choose to deploy units in an order so that their boost (rather than damage) comes at the end of the final round – thus having round control is advantageous.
 
GWENT GAME PLAY STRATEGIES
Reading Your Opponent


INTRODUCTION:

In Gwent, as in many games, knowledge is power. This guide is about reading your opponent’s plays (and even ways of playing) to draw inferences about the cards in your opponent’s deck and even in your opponent’s hand.

One caveat with which I should begin – the quality of your inferences is directly proportional to the quality of your opponent’s play and deck. First, if only because it is the first information you receive, you want to attempt to identify key elements of your opponent’s deck. Second, you want to assess your opponent’s playing strength, as this impacts the validity of inferences you draw from his/her play. Third, you will want to draw inferences about your opponent’s hand. In some cases, you can even read your opponent’s mindset to significant advantage. It is important to recognizing that deck building and play are often different strengths – either because one player has different skills in the two area or because a player has not chosen a deck commensurate with that person’s playing ability. Some weak players may download a strong deck from other sources; some strong players may play a deck below their level to complete a quest, try new cards, or simply for a challenge.

READING THE OPPOSING DECK:

When a match begins, you are given immediate, useful information – your opponent’s faction and leader. If your opponent is playing a meta deck, this might tell you virtually everything about the deck. If not, there are rarely more than two fundamentally different decks playing the same leader in a given meta – although there could be variants of the main deck. Of course, you should not automatically cling to an assumption that your opponent is playing a meta deck – especially at lower ranks or in unranked or seasonal play. But it does makes sense to assume a typical, strong deck until you have reason to believe otherwise.

Especially for blue-coin blue coin (at least with the present card pool), the first two or three plays tend to be quite consistent within a given deck and usually involve setting up bronze engines (or with highly reactive decks, making the best proactive plays available). Even if a deck is not a meta deck, often the character of these first few cards give good insights into some of the deck’s card packages and likely focus.

For example, in the current meta (October 2021), there appear to be three meta NR decks: one that focuses on obtaining massive carryover from substantial numbers of meditating mages, one that attempts to build massive value alumni, and one that is a more mid-rangy deck mixing siege engines and mages. NR also has a lot of material for effective non-meta older or meme decks such as Foltest-based resummon type decks, witcher decks, carry-over/griffin type decks, Shield decks, or even Vysogota-based decks exploiting multiple card plays. Meditating mages tends to play Pincer Maneuver as it needs the consistency to guarantee the mages and Tissaia first round – but some versions play Inspired Zeal. Alumni and Siege decks both likely play Inspired Zeal – as would any deck using duals or Roche: Merciless. But Alumni could reasonably play Pincher Maneuver as well. Should you see a different leader, you are probably in the realm of off-meta / unusual decks. In addition to clues from a leader, most of these decks will have tell-tale plays within a few cards: Alumni decks will want to be building value on Leticia as soon as possible (although they might protect her with something like defender first). They might also start accumulating value on one or more students. Alumni decks will have both Aretuza and Ban Ard students and will play both as soon as possible; meditating mages may have just one or the other type of student and are unlikely to carry Leticia. Meditating mage decks will likely play cards that duplicate mages in round I; Alumni are likely to save the duplication for alumni in later rounds. Siege decks are likely to play a siege engine or at least a soldier (cards unlikely in either of the other two decks) – although they might play students as well.

Even if you encounter off-meta leaders or strange cards, what you do see is still useful: certain cards synergize, while others are inconsistent if not anti-synergistic. Suppose you see a Griffin Witcher Adept. This is a card that has no role in any of the current meta decks. Moreover, its value stems from having other witchers – especially Witcher students. And because Witchers do not carry a human tag, it is unlikely to include Draug. It likely will contain Keldar and Erland – but if you see Immortal or Kaedweni Cavalry as well, King Roegner becomes a real possibility. In any case, a Griffin Witcher Adept is unlikely to be a “filler card”; it suggests a complete deck archetype.

Seeing a Temerian Drummer tells a very different story. A Drummer could go with almost anything and could be a filler card. But it still tells a story in how it is used. If it is played as a first card – with no target, it could be removal bait or it could be a set up to help move a vulnerable card into a harder removal bracket. Either way, it hints at upcoming engines as NR is very unlikely to be wanting for proactive cards. On the other hand, if it is played onto another card, the nature of that card has probably already revealed a lot about the deck, although there are a few cards that might still leave you guessing. Drummer might be played onto Dun Banner simply for deck-thinning or as preparation for Foltest, or it might be played non-committally onto a Kerrick Marine or something. But even then, odds are very good that the next card says more.

But when reading a deck, you do not need to know every card in the deck. At first, it is sufficient to gauge your opponent’s deck’s need for last say and its effectiveness (relative to your deck) in long or short final rounds. This allows you better judgment on how hard to compete for round I.

Beyond that, what you are often most interested in is what removal tools you opponent might have. Simply identifying a net deck usually gives you solid information on this. For other decks, look for evidence of devotion (which usually limits removal). Provision commitment can also give clues – most decks run about 11 or 12 gold cards and 3 to 5 high provision (greater than nine provision) cards. If those cards are part of an identified card package, they are not likely Heatwave. It is wise to remember removal that has been used – it is unusual to run more than two 5-damage special cards (although cards like forest protector allow one to be replayed). And some archetypes are far more removal heavy than others. Also, some deck types are not very compatible with certain removal. A deck that runs very tall units should not also run Curse of Corruption!

Sometimes, you are interested in deciding whether to use or conserve your own removal. You usually want to conserve your removal for your opponent’s best cards. When decisions can wait (as is often the case with Heatwave), it is advisable to delay the removal until late in the round when the best target is more obvious. When decisions must be immediate (as in a unit boosting itself out of your removal range), you should gauge how much that unit will hurt you relative to future cards your opponent could play. Try to guess your opponent’s win conditions and plan your plays to counter those win conditions. Usually, card packages and archetypes will make these win conditions obvious.

ASSESSING YOUR OPPONENT’S PLAYING ABILITY

Many inferences you may want to draw are based upon assumptions that your opponent is selecting the best possible play – an assumption that is often not valid, especially if your opponent is not skilled in the game. With experience, you can usually tell a weak player by the end of round 1. The biggest tells I find are: over-committing round one, poorly timed passes, playing decks with numerous unnecessary anti-synergies, targeting the wrong cards (failing to recognize my true threats), not reacting in a timely or appropriate way to things that need a measured reaction (often just blindly following prescribed patterns), and failing to play around obvious responses I have or could reasonably be expected to have.

Be careful to distinguish between careless play and low-skill play. Even the world’s top players sometimes make careless mistakes – misremembering, misclicking, miscounting, etc. Most of the mistakes I flagged above will be due to low-skill levels. Drawing inferences from the play of a weak player is ill-advised. Against these players, it is better to rely only upon what you know about the game and not what you surmise from your opponent’s play. Bad plays are telling; stupid plays are not.

READING YOUR OPPONENTS HAND

Figuring out cards in your opponent’s hand can often be even more useful than knowing cards in that player’s deck. Clues as to what was or was not drawn are often given in play. Usually, it is awkward turns made by good players that give the most information. Whenever a card is played for suboptimal points, you should ask why. Unless the opponent is playing around something (you would not necessarily need to have that something), a suboptimal play usually signals a weakness in hand. For example, killing a four-strength card with a Gigascorpion Decoction almost certainly suggests the player has no cheaper form of removal; opening a match by playing Pact on a Lamp Genie likely suggests a lack of proactive plays. Playing gold cards during a bleed when bronze cards would be as effective probably indicates a hand which has run out of low provision cards. Slamming twenty points of tempo to build up a 25 point round one lead suggests a desire to force an end to the round. On the other hand, playing low value bronze cards while falling further behind in round one probably suggests an unwillingness to contest the round. If that unwillingness comes when your opponent should want to contest the round, they likely have an inability to win it. Whenever you see an awkward play, consider the weakness it shows and ask whether you can exploit that weakness – even if doing so deviates from your usual plan.

But you don’t have to wait for your opponent to reveal weaknesses. You can also play in ways that tend to highlight them. You can see how your opponent replies to a low-stakes engine to gauge removal ability before playing a high-stakes one. You can observe how an opponent responds to an inert card (like Elder Bear) to gauge level of proactivity. Reaction to bronze order cards can often reveal what your opponent feels are threats given the hand the opponent holds.

READING YOUR OPPONENT’S MINDSET:

During play, you can get surprising insights as to what your opponent is thinking by what and how the opponent plays. Time spent on moves can be a tell, places where the cursor hovers can give much information, and how aggressively the player addresses your plays is also informative.

Players innately play at different speeds. Some play almost instinctually, others are very methodical about every move. Fast players are almost always experienced enough to be thoroughly familiar with all cards; they may or may not be prone to careless errors. Slower players could be more novice, or they could simply be very calculating. When players change speed from usual play, they are generally needing extra thought (unless they were distracted by real life!). I often notice this later into round one when players start to seriously consider every pass opportunity. They could be faced with a card they can’t quite handle, or a difficult choice between two cards. A player slow making mulligans is likely debating whether to take more mulligans or not – they are unlikely to be missing critical cards for the current round and may be afraid of bricking.

When you can see when a player’s cursor hovers over cards, that also gives information. When a player hovers over every one of his/her cards a few seconds on multiple turns during a round, he/she is probably reading card text – and not real familiar with his/her deck. When he/she alternates between two cards, he/she is often debating between the two – and the card played might give clues to the nature of the card not played.

If a player is slamming gold cards – even if significantly ahead in round 1, I figure he/she is inclined to over commit – and push a little deeper than I normally would. If a player seems to ignore my cards, I might try to slip in something that ought not be ignored. If a player responds very passively to my cards, they are very likely to continue to be passive, while if they respond aggressively, I expect to see that continue as well – at least as long as they are able.

DRK3 has addressed these ideas in greater detail in his miniguide found here. It is worth reading.

CONCLUSION:

A wise player uses all information available. That means information from the cards you cannot see as well as those you can see. There is much you can surmise from your opponent’s play – even without direct access to his/her cards.
 
GWENT MODES
Completing Quests and Contracts


Quests are challenges given daily, or weekly through Journey, seasonally through certain seasonal reward trees, or irregularly as part of a special event. They usually involve completing some task such as playing 40 artifacts. Contracts are special, one-time rewards given for certain accomplishments like scorching a unit of over 50 strength. Contracts can be found under a tab in your user profile.

Quests and contracts are not really a separate mode (most can be completed in any online mode) but play while pursuing a quest or contract can be very different from standard play. And before I delve deeper, I should also note that most contracts and nearly all quests can be naturally completed just through one’s standard course of play. This article, however, is mainly concerned with modifying normal play to complete quests or contracts in a minimal number of games.

Quests and contracts that require winning matches normally require applying standard strategies to decks that are only slightly modified to enhance quest requirements. But I believe many players often overlook that many quests and contracts do not require winning. When one is willing to sacrifice winning a match for some other goal, interesting options become available. Let me offer several strategies I have found useful.

Many quests or contracts simply require playing significant numbers of cards of a certain type. It is obvious to load a deck with the desired type of cards for this kind of quest. But to count, you must play these cards, not merely have them in your deck. Usually, summoning them is also inadequate. I have two tricks to help here. First, cards of the correct type that tutor or play other cards of the correct type will increase the required count by two (or sometimes even more) in the same turn. I have also discovered that this type of deck building is also competitive at lower levels – multiple plays in a turn often generates a significant number of points as well. Second, if you need a type of card (special or artifact) that is limited in a deck, remember that your deck can contain more than 25 cards. By running 30 or more low provision cards in a deck, I can increase the proportion of cards of the desired type, which increases odds of drawing them. This does create very weak decks. And while I have given up on the goal of winning, I usually want to avoid being 2-0’ed because this shortens the match which means I play fewer cards. But, often, I have found that deliberately falling behind by many points is enough to prompt my opponent into passing on round one. If they pass, I don’t mind going down 6 cards if I can win the round – I’m not trying to win the match!

Some contracts require your opponent to hold certain types of cards. For these contracts, consider “helping your opponent out”. For example, Flawless Execution requires you to destroy 5 or more enemy units in one turn. You can take mass damage cards (like Lacerate) – you can store up damage charges. But it really helps if your opponent has a bunch of low strength units for you to destroy. If spawn is not present in your current meta, getting your opponent to play these weak units can be a challenge. So set yourself up with a leader like Patricidal Fury, or with Noonwraith to spawn rats on the opponent’s side of the board, or with lots of weak spying units – anything to get those weak cards on your opponent’s side. Similar in spirit, I was able to complete “The Bigger They Are, which requires scorching a unit of over 50 strength, but loading my deck with cards like Pact and Swallow and Garrison. that boost any unit – and playing them on my opponent. Yes, I went down about 5 cards and lost the round, and eventually the match, but I completed the contract.

Some contracts may appear almost impossible. “Poor Man’s Gwent” requires winning a match using a deck with 100 or fewer provisions – which means 25 cards all of which are 4 provisions. I completed this because other players recognized what I was doing and helped me by forfeiting. But this can be legitimately won in certain seasonal modes where your hand or deck is changed before you play cards. And some contracts that appear impossible are not as hard as they appear. Hidden plan requires you to win an online match after passing the first round with 10 cards in hand. I completed this quite accidently. I was playing a deck that typically has two strong rounds, when, for about the fifth match in a row, I drew an unplayable round 1 hand. I passed the first round out of frustration but decided to stick around to see what round 2 might hold. With 5 mulligans, my round 2 hand was impressive. And since the deck could play two strong rounds, round three was not bad either. The need to play at leas three cards to avoid “wasted” draws is over-emphasized. Some decks can handle a premature pass. My deck in this match probably played better passing immediately than it would have if I had played 3 junk cards first. Had I played, I would have had insufficient Mulligans to get my good round 2 hand.

There are nearly 800 contracts. There are probably at least 100 different quests I’ve seen. Even if most do not require extraordinary measures to fill, I cannot reasonably discuss each one separately. The goal of these examples has been to generate ideas that can help complete difficult quests/contracts – especially by making plays inconsistent with conventional strategy for winning matches.
 
GWENT GAME PLAY STRATEGIES
Knowing Your Cards


What I am going to suggest in this article is not rocket science – it is obvious. But misplaying cards because one overlooks details or forgets their function or mixes them up with other cards is one of the biggest and most common errors one can make. And it is an error not limited to beginners.

I recently spent a large reserve of scraps to craft cards I was missing. And I frequently find myself making inexcusably bad plays because I am careless with my own cards. Some of the frequently occurring mistakes include:
  • Playing the wrong card. This usually happens to me either because I mix up the powers of two cards, or because I grab and play the wrong card. I recently played a Wild Boar of the Sea when I meant to play Armored Drakkar. I have been playing Drakkar frequently for years – and craving a Boar for about as long. I certainly know the difference. But both are 4 power ships with a similar amber color tone. Any time I have similarly colored cards in my deck, it seems I need to learn to be careful before playing one.
  • Overlooking row restrictions. This is a common enough error that a warning for it is built into the game. But the warning can be accidentally turned off. And it doesn’t occur at all if a card has different abilities triggered depending upon the row in which it is placed. I may be atypically scatterbrained, but I am often aware of the row restrictions, but in the heat of a match, find myself choosing an optimal row placement rather than a required row placement
  • Failing to distinguish between deploy and order effects. Deploy effects are not invoked when a card is summoned or spawned (rather than played). Order effect must often be delayed a turn until the order can be executed. Although the end effects might be the same, how and when the cards are played and countered will be dramatically different.
  • Overlooking statuses. Unfortunately, (at least on my mobile device), many status symbols are very hard to distinguish against the card background – and the two most critical (veil and shield) are the hardest to see. Although missing a status happens most often when it involves my opponent’s cards, it can also involve my own. Wasting good damage on a shielded unit, or locks on a veiled unit can be very frustrating.
  • Missing a boost or damage effect when calculating reach. There can be a huge number of turn-end (and turn start) effects. It is easy to overlook one.
  • Forgetting initiative restrictions. Initiative cards must be played before any other click. You cannot use abilities, leaders, or play tutors before using the initiative card.
If, like me, you are prone to these careless mistakes, it might be a good idea to play a deck a few times in training mode simply to make certain you know the cards.
 
GWENT GAME PLAY STRATEGIES
Handling Bad Draws


It happens to all of us. We’re feeling good; we have the perfect deck; we know how to play it. And then we just cannot seem to ever draw the right cards. At first, we might think our “perfect” deck is inconsistent, but upon reflection, we realize it is just dumb luck. This article is about making the best of bad situations. Bad draws can occur at any point in the match where draws are made, but they tend to have different impacts and different “solutions” depending upon when they occur. Thus, I divide this article by the round in which the bad draw occurs.

Round One Draws:

Draws can go wrong in round one for multiple reasons, but typically bad hands can be classified as bad because they are too weak or bad because they are too strong. Weak hands simply can’t compete on points; strong hands can’t compete deeply into the round because too many cards should not be used.

In either case, one should reconsider one’s round one objectives. Trying to force a round one win with a hand incapable of achieving this – simply because you “need” final say – is likely to only worsen your situation. But simply acquiescing to a long final round in a match-up where a long final round is a certain loss is no better. One proactive thing you can do is to identify new win conditions given what you have drawn and play toward those. Sometimes the alternate win condition may require that your opponent also draw badly; sometimes it may be as simple as needing a good hand in round two; sometimes it can be achieved by tricking your opponent into unnecessary defensive plays or into an overaggressive line of play; sometimes it can be achieved by using the cards you have in an unconventional or unplanned way. Another thing you can do is to intentionally guide the match toward more favorable conditions in later rounds by improving hand quality and focusing on long range strategy. Surprising opportunities open when you are not focused on winning a round.

Hands that are bad because they are too strong may simply contain a lot of cards that are very good, but that you would prefer to use round three. In these cases, I ask whether it would be possible to simply switch win conditions – can I safely use round three win cons to carry round one and use round one win cons to carry round three. Often this is feasible. If it is not, by starting with high tempo plays (of which you should have several), you could bait your opponent into either using his good cards as well (it is not an overcommitment if your opponent commits as hard as you). You might also get a good, early tempo pass. On the other hand, if you have drawn a lot of gold cards whose value is not yet established (e.g., Gord) or that derive value from your opponent’s good cards (e.g., Heatwave), the exchange of win cons is not viable and playing your cards ensures they don’t get full value. Ideally, you pass early to avoid overcommitment. But you must weigh the cost of overcommitting to the cost of giving up round control and final say. By the way, you might consider mulliganing gold cards to reduce your hand strength, but this must be weighed against the risk of not re-drawing the good cards you mulligan. The extent of this risk depends upon the consistency of your deck.

Drawing a hand in round one that is dysfunctional due to bricks or simply lack of effective cards probably requires a different thought process. Weak hands will not lead to over-commitment, but they are very unlikely to stay competitive through the round. If you are blue coin, you can easily lose on even; if you are red coin, you are unlikely to be able to force any commitment from your opponent. But one thing holds true in both cases – improving the quality of your hand is paramount. Depending upon your deck you need to draw good cards or get rid of bad cards (possibly both). A deck with many of its provisions tied to a few cards needs to draw good cards, while a deck with many intermediate cards is likely to replace bad cards with good ones if it can only get rid of the bad cards. To better your odds of drawing good cards, you want to thin your deck and judiciously use tutors. Of course, this is useless advice if you failed to draw either thinning cards or tutors. And to get rid of bad cards, you either need to play them or you need to remove them from your hand by mulligans. The difficulty with playing a lot of weak cards is that you will likely accrue card disadvantage playing too deeply into a round you cannot win. The problem with mulligans is that you only get two of them – which is typically far fewer than the number of cards you don’t want in hand. It seems a hopeless dilemma. So rather than focusing on what you cannot do, consider what you can do.

If you have engines – even bad engines, you can still get good value over a longer round – you might be able to compete better than it looks at first. If you have point slam without engines, you still have good reach – especially over a two-turn time period – you might be able to play aggressively enough to encourage your opponent to commit more heavily than you do. If you have carryover, you can still set it up. If you have removal, you can deny your opponent’s carryover. If you have incomplete threats, even a threat set-up (one you cannot complete) can bait out valuable response cards. If nothing else, with all those bad cards in hand, you should have high deck quality. Although it runs counter to conventional wisdom, I have found that dry-passing round one can work with some decks (those that typically have two strong rounds to resist a bleed, strong engines to win a potential long round, and good carryover or point slam potential to compete in a short round). Although I effectively lose on even and give up round control and final say, the five mulligans I get to start round two often leave me with a very good hand, and I have three turns before I reach the 7-card threshold where I am at risk of going down a card for round three.

The point here is to find the potential in what you have and make the best of it. Consider bad round one hands an opportunity to practice long-range strategy. How many good cards should you spend in a round you cannot expect to win? Is going down a card a lesser evil? Are you in jeopardy of losing 2-0? What keeps your opponent off-guard? When is the right time to concede the round? All of these questions have situational answers. In many ways, it is the “bad luck” that makes Gwent interesting.

Round 2 Draws:

In large part, the shape of round 2 is established by the play of round 1. It may seem anachronistic, but often the best approach to dealing with bad round 2 draws begins in round 1. As you play round 1, you should always be asking what condition your rounds 2 and 3 will be in after each play. If your opponent has a quick burst able to win a short round 2 unless you draw well, you must never allow yourself to play deep into round one unless you are confident you can win the round – don’t give an obvious 2-0 opportunity. If you drew well round one, you likely have relatively few good cards left in you deck – save some golds in your hand for round 2. If you are going to lose round 1 against an opponent likely to favor long rounds and dry pass round 2, save a cheap bronze.as a dry pass card – that way you don’t have to hope to draw one.

If you play round 1 wisely, you will rarely have a hopelessly desperate round two hand, but your round 2 can still be far from what you might have hoped. Maybe you didn’t draw a critical counter. Maybe you lack tempo or engines to comfortably bleed or defend a bleed. Maybe you missed a key card. Maybe you mulliganed into a brick. Maybe you just drew the three worst cards left in your deck. A lot can still go wrong even after a well-played round 1. How you handle these things depends a lot upon the flexibility you have. If you lost round 1, you can’t prevent a bleed. If your opponent has a clearly superior round three, you must bleed even with a rotten hand.

If you are forced to play from a weak hand, it is very important to keep that weakness hidden from your opponent – an opponent who knows you are weak is more able to exploit that weakness. Hide your bricks. Play cards you would play even if you had strong cards in your hand.

If you must play from a weak hand, exploit tempo as you are able. If you have one good play and you are bleeding your opponent, you might want to start with that play to attempt to draw a committal response. If you are defending a bleed, you might hide your one good play hoping to lure your opponent into a pass from which you can use the card to recover.

Consider your leader. Can using leader charge in a timely way get you out of the round? Does the leader offer more value with bad cards than with good cards?

Play greedy. It is more likely you will need every point you can squeeze out of the hand than that you will be able to save a good card until later or successfully play around a dangerous threat.

If you won round one, but feel you must bleed, plan your exit strategy. How deep into the round can you go? With what are you satisfied to have your opponent give up? Can you hold on to a play that gives you a graceful exit opportunity?

On the other hand, if you have choice in how you compete in round 2 (you have round control and viable long round potential), you should consider how you can still use round 2 to your advantage. Often, you should be happy to dry pass – getting out of a bad round. But if you hold a large number of nearly entirely bad cards, remember you can only ditch two of them through mulligans, the others must be played. It may be better to play them in a round you can afford to lose. And if your opponent’s hand is much higher quality than yours, virtually every card played will trade up. This might be worth going a card down into the final round.

Round 3 Draws:

As with round two, the best way of dealing with bad round three draws is to avoid them. Design decks to thin out bad cards. Play rounds 1 and 2 to conserve your gold cards so your deck quality remains at least as good as your opponent’s. And don’t take a final mulligan into a potential brick unless you are desperate to get a particular card. Finally, in a round 2 dry pass, do not play an echo card for the first time if you have an otherwise suitable play. Because the echo card returns to the top of the deck, it effectively reduces the new cards you draw by 1, decreasing the probability of drawing other desirable cards.

Unless you, through deck design or play, set up a bad round 3, a bad draw in round three usually means either missing a critical card, or failing to draw your good, gold cards. Round three is almost entirely about generating (and preventing your opponent’s) points. If you don’t have enough points in the cards in your hand, your options are few. Again, you want to be greedy, to nurture as many points as possible. You need to look for plays that lead your opponent astray. And you hope that opponent also drew poorly. Play toward any win condition you can find.

After the Match:

When an “unlucky” match finally ends, take a few minutes to reflect upon it. Just how unlikely was your bad luck? If it was a 1 in a thousand occurrence, you can just write it off. But if it was more like one in three, your deck probably lacks consistency. Can you add more thinning? Do you need tutors? Should you forgo unlikely combinations?

Assuming you lost, what would have been needed to win? Was the loss really due to your draws, or was it your play, or will your deck always lose this match? These questions help you to decide how and whether to fix your deck.

Similarly, if you won, how did that happen? What did you do to enable the win? Was the cause of the win a foreseen win condition? These answers help you to play better with the deck in the future.
 
GWENT COLLECTION BUILDING
Continued Progression


Many Gwent beginners initially progress fairly rapidly. Ranked play ensures that they play against other beginners with equally limited experience and card collections. But with each advancement, the competition gets tougher. And as long as a player wins, that player advances. The result is a tendency to advance until the competition is generally more experienced and plays with better cards. Winning becomes virtually impossible. For most players, this is a frustrating – if temporary – moment. Because of daily log-in rewards, many daily quest rewards that do not require winning matches, and journey progression based upon winning rounds rather than matches, those who persist rarely remain “stuck” forever. This article is about ways to most productively continue one’s progression – especially from the perspective of a free-to-play player.

Generally, a little prevention can save a lot of trouble later. So even though the next few paragraphs may be too late to help some players, let me discuss ways to help avoid getting seriously stuck before discussing what to do when you are stuck.

First, it is important at all stages of the game to make use of what you have rather than cursing what you don’t have. As a new player, what you initially have are starter decks. And the starter decks are very good! They contain cards that are balanced, that work together, and most importantly, that rely on core strategic principles of Gwent rather than special case gimmicks. It can be exciting to build your own creations – and eventually you will almost need to do so. But those creations will be sounder after you have mastered some of the core play elements. You also have access to ongoing guidance – not just in threads like this one or in instructional videos which can be easily found – but through the game structures, most notably the beginner reward trees. These trees can be found by clicking the keys, then going to the blue tab with a crown icon. The trees here offer nodes with trophies. After you buy a node, you must complete a quest to receive the reward. Many of the rewards on these trees are epic and legendary cards that will nicely supplement the corresponding starter deck, allowing you to change that deck in generally productive ways without needing lots of resources. I strongly encourage you to use these trees (they are by far the cheapest ways to consistently get good cards), and to use the cards obtained (they fit the starter deck and focus on core game-play principles.

Second, conserve resources – especially scraps. New expansions are regularly released. New cards are often power crept (better than older cards). If you have no scraps for key new cards, you will be challenged to compete with those who do. And if you discover your new deck has an easily fixed flaw, it’s nice to have means to fix it. You don’t need to hoard everything, just be conscious of future needs in making present decisions. And never mill cards (unless they are duplicates you beyond what can be used in a deck). The few scraps you gain immediately are not as valuable as even a bad card in your collection. And it will cost you more to replace these cards later.

And finally, avoid shortcuts. You can typically win matches with either better skills or better cards than your opponent. It can be pleasing to trample opponents by playing better decks. But unless your skills advance as rapidly as your card collection, you quickly reach a rank where your cards are no longer better. If you don’t have skills, you cannot advance beyond this point. Making your first action that of buying some meta-deck is likely fun short term, but ineffective long term.

But what should you do if you are feeling stuck now? Most important is to be patient. Winning only 40% of your matches may feel like being stuck – especially if you had recently been winning more like 70%. But even a 40% win-rate is enough to gain crowns, complete quests, and slowly build your resources. And Gwent can be very streaky – I have had decks win ten matches in a row, only to lose ten in a row the next day. That is the nature of the game. But it is also the nature of the ranking system that people will advance until they are no longer capable of advancing.

Sometimes in these cases, simple modifications to the decks being used might suffice to help (usually only for a short time). Sometimes advancing takes practice time to build playing skills. Often advancing requires completely new decks and lots of newly acquired cards. Unless you are willing to spend real money, these things will take time. While you are waiting for a break through with your skills or collection, consider trying other modes. Even if you can progress slightly, continually playing ranked mode when your card collection is limited will eventually advance you to a point where you are regularly pitted against players whose collections are much better – you will stagnate. Seasonal, Draft, or Unranked (training vs. player) all count toward most rewards, offer a different game experience, and do not keep progressing you to harder and harder ranks. I particularly find that unranked gives me opportunities to win because a certain portion of games are against inferior decks – usually because my opponent is trying to complete a quest. It also gives a wider variety of decks than ranked play (especially ranked play beyond level 14) as players are less focused upon winning to advance.

I also advise that you consider your daily quests. Were you aware that you can change a quest once per day? (Click the little recycle icon on the quest). I always change quests that involve winning with a faction I don’t like. If you really struggle to win, try changing any quest that requires winning. Some only require playing games or certain types of cards. This can help you to gain rewards a little faster.

And speaking of rewords, at low level many contracts that offer nice rewards are easily fulfilled. To see what’s available, click your name, go to the contracts bar, and then start scrolling. Look for especially for contracts that grant keys (reward points) for actions you can control (like giving orders to a certain number of units, or damaging your own units). At low levels – especially with unfinished beginner trees – it shouldn’t take a huge number of rewards to get you unstuck.

Gwent is a game where getting stuck on a certain rank will almost certainly occur. Players who are patient move past that point, and you will too. I hope this article helps you to do so a little sooner.
 
INTRODUCTION, OBJECTIVES, AND MOTIVATION

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

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

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


ARTICLE INDEX

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

GENERAL ARTICLES

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

GAMEPLAY:

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

DECK BUILDING:

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

COLLECTION BUILDING:

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

MODES:

Seasonal
...... Banished
...... Irresistable Attraction (Written by DRK3 in Feb. 2020)
...... Power Shift (Written by DRK3 in July 2020)
...... Trial of Grasses (Written by DRK3 in January 2021)
...... Patience is a Virtue (Written by DRK3 in April 2021)
...... Dual Casting (Written by DRK3)
...... Battle Rush
...... Seesaw
Draft
Open Decklist
Tournaments
Completing Quests and Contracts

COMMENTARY:

Where is the Strategy in Clog?


ABOUT THE AUTHOR

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

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


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

SPYROZA whose streams and videos taught me many subtleties of the game
DRK3 for being an excellent sounding board and mentor
Riven-Twain for guidance with technical aspects of creating a thread like this one
Thanks for sharing ideas.
 
GWENT DECKBUILDING STRATEGIES
Idea Generation


So. how does one come up with ideas for new decks? I imagine everyone has their own unique approach. This article discusses some of the approaches I have used or observed others to use. May they spur your imagination and lead to some great decks. And please comment if you have an approach different from these I mention. By the way, the example decks I use as illustrations are not necessarily going to be great decks. They have been neither fleshed out nor tested. Nor were they chosen with the intent of being good decks; rather, they were chosen with the intent of being good illustrations.

Leader Inspired Decks

Gwent has 42 different faction leaders. Each tends to support a certain archetype. One approach to deck building would be to pick a leader, then select cards that seem to fit it. As an example, Suppose I choose Patricidal Fury (SK leader). I ask myself just what I can do with an 11-point token warrior on my side of the board, and three wounded sirens on my opponent’s. At first glance, Arnjolf himself has little value beyond pointslam. As a doomed unit, he won’t go to my graveyard (purifying him doesn’t seem worthwhile) and on the board, he is just points. And the only warrior synergies are three units which can benefit by one point – hardly inspiration for a deck. But the three damaged sirens can be used, either to support units that gain boost based upon damaged enemies or to support units with bloodthirst, especially bloodthirst 3. Suppose I opt for bloodthirst. Not only do I want several bloodthirst three units for redundance, I probably want to include a bunch of cards that distribute damage over multiple units so any surplus bloodthirst units can also be used. Already a deck is starting to take shape.

Card Inspired Decks

Sometimes a single card is so striking that you will want to build a deck (or part of a deck) around it. A classic example would be Syanna. Syanna has an order to repeat the deploy ability of the next unit played this turn. She is also neutral and could be used with any faction. (In fact, she is the centerpiece of decks from all different factions.) Suppose I want to use her in a Syndicate deck. First, I would look for cards with good deploy value (typically, I want two cards – one for redundancy in case the first is not drawn. But I would kind of prefer the two cards work together – and I must be careful in that Syanna implies non-devotion. There seem to be a lot of options: Tinboy, Ulrich, Cleaver, Philippa, Moreelse, Salamander, Caesar, Walter, Fabian, Ferko, Tamara, Gord, Tidecloak Hidaway, Mutated Hounds, Fisstech Trafficker, Blindeye Apothecary. Not all of these can centerpiece a deck (but they all could serve as backup plans), and one must be careful about tribute costs. Still, I believe I could make more than one syndicate Syanna deck! Suppose I choose to go with Gord as my primary target. That would suggest a lot of special cards, why not make them crimes? Logical backup targets could be any of Cleaver, Fabian, Ferko, or Ulrich. Protecting Syanna is a necessity, so we want Azar and Coerced Blacksmith. And again, a deck is taking shape.

Win Condition Inspired Decks

Perhaps the most common basis for a deck design is to center it on some win condition / play plan. For example, suppose I want a monster / weather deck. My win condition is to score as many points as possible through weather effects. I begin by identifying cards that generate/benefit from weather. And I quickly recognize a problem: while an adequate number of cards seem to generate weather, only Winter Queen, Ancient Foglet, Eredin, Wild Hunt Bruiser, and Naglfar’s crew appear to benefit from weather. None of these are sufficiently good pay-off cards to expect to carry a deck. I consider the one tangential ability (dominance), but again, none of the cards seem strong enough. At best I can use weather as a tool in another monster deck – I don’t think I can focus a deck around it – maybe after some future expansion, but not now. Not all deck ideas work.

Hybridization:

When a deck idea seems incomplete on its own, or when I just want something new from the tried and true, I can try for a hybrid of two or more decks. But be aware, hybrids built from weak archetypes are likely to remain weak unless the combined archetypes strongly complement each other’s weaknesses. If, for example, I wish to build a functional hybrid from my monster weather deck idea, I note that the weather deck was unworkable because it lacked good payoff. It was strong in that it tended to highly interfere with an opponent’s board. I should probably combine it with an archetype that has strong engine / payoff potential, but that needs more reactive options. Witcher’s Sabbath might meet that criteria – say with tall units like She Who Knows, Old Speartip, Bloody Mistress, Rat Catcheress, Golyat, Cave Troll, Pogo, or Griffins. Bringing back Eredin would be nice too. There’s probably still room for some low provision cost tech.

Play-Inspired Decks:

Sometimes you will see a combination or idea that just seems to work well, and you think you want to design a deck around it. (It doesn’t have to be the deck you saw; in many instances you just get inspired by a small part of the deck.) For instance, I have long run Windhalm in Shieldwall decks. He is a nice, two point a turn engine that is easily, but not necessarily cheaply, shut down. When I observe a player combining Damned Sorceresses with Immortals for a four point per turn engine as well, I got the idea to run an all-in shields deck including Roegner and cheap shield granters. The deck will never be more than meme as it is very greedy (with no real control), but it performs well against a wide variety of good decks.

Top-Down Selection:

Begin by choosing a faction. Then start at the top of the deck builder list and pick cards you want to play – you may end up going back to remove things that don’t fit once a deck takes shape, but the philosophy is that strong cards make a strong deck, so start with strong cards. I don’t think I’ve us ST as an example yet, so let’s suppose I want to build a Scoia’tael deck in this way.

I pick a random leader (I will change it later to better fit my deck), then I start looking for inspiring cards. The scenario, Feign Death, is very committal to an elf deck, which I don’t want, so I pass on that, even though it is an excellent card. Oneiromancy is always good – I’ll take that. Pass on Great Oak, Sunset Wanderers is also good, but expensive and doesn’t help define my deck. Renew and Blue Dream seem over-priced – pass. Iorveth’s gambit is too archetype specific and I don’t want to commit to Shupe. Water of Brokilon is too archetype tied, Ale of Ancestors is overpriced, but Portal might be good – if there are four provision bronzes I want drawn. Skipping down, I see Pyrotechnician, Cleaver’s Muscle, Elder Bear, Dwarven Mercenary. I have options so I take Portal. Munro seems overpriced, but Eithne looks good. Vernossiel is too elf specific, but Gezras is always good. I also like and take Simlas. I now notice I have a little over a hundred provisions left with 20 units to go – about 5 provisions per card. I better slow down on high-provision cards, or at least be prepared to throw some back. At this point, it is OK to over-extend provisions as my deck still feels like a hodge-podge. Luckily, the next several cards are all no’s, But I will take Forest Protector, Heatwave, and Novigradian Justice. Luckily, I’m happy to skip cards until I get to Saber-Tooth Tiger. I’m definitely now overdoing the high provision cards, but it’s easier to remove than to re-search the list if I need to add. But my deck is beginning to take a shape where I can make cuts. I have a lot of high-tempo cards, a fair amount of spawn, plus nuisance cards like Tiger and future Pyrotechnicians. I don’t know if I can maintain this tempo through Bronze cards, but I want to try. Neither Oneiromancy nor Heatwave fit; I remove them. With reluctance, I dump Gezras. I certainly want some good engines, but Gezras doesn’t fit the developing deck and is too expensive. Neither Forest Protector nor Simlas is supported yet, but I expect they will be. I am now back to about 100 provisions for 19 cards. With the high end of my deck complete, I start filling in the bottom. I’m looking for 4 provision units to support Portal, Special Cards to support Simlas, nusiance cards, tempo cards, spawn and its payoff. And I will need to select a final leader – but that will likely depend on my still undecided bronze cards

Bottom-Up Selection:

This is essentially the opposite of top-down selection. After picking a faction and a random leader, I start at the bottom of the deck builder list to first choose my bronze core. The philosophy is that if most cards are low provision, let’s pick the best ones we can find, then make the top-end fit. I’ve not yet built a Nilfgaard deck – Let’s try that as an example.

Mage infiltrator can play for 7 points – and offers removal. I’ll take 2. Emissary is a solid 6. Give me two of those. I’ll take two Mage Assassins to go with my later Blightmakers. Van Moorlehem Hunters are nice – locks if I need them, otherwise bleeding. Take Two. Magne Division makes a nice engine – especially when bonded. Again, take two. And I’m at about 125 provisions for only 15 cards – an average of over 8 provisions each. And I’m not even done with 4 provision cards. Mast of Disguise is a nice engine; so is Nauzicaa Sergeant. And do I want any four provision special cards? Notice how top-down selection tends to run you out of provisions, while bottom up runs you out of cards. It’s already time to re-assess. I could go for statuses based upon good bronze cards. I could go for thinning. I could go for engines. I could (with the likes of Alba Pikeman or Thanedd Turncoat) go for damage. I have spying. Any of these could make a strong deck with the right top-end support.

Tag-Based Selection:

Sometimes, one wants to build a deck around a tag (elf, war machine, soldier, etc.) Most tags probably won’t work well as there may either be too few units bearing the tag, or no effective win conditions with the tag. But it could be fun to search for exceptions!

I have often though that SK might be close to having beasts sufficient for a deck – let me see what I can do with that. (I have seen this done already, so I know there is hope.)

I begin searching beasts to see my options. I am especially interested in strong cards and cards that actually use the tag. I see several very good cards (Fucusya, Olaf, Melusine, Dracoturtle, Vildkaarl, …), but only five (Axel, Corrupted Flaminica, Tuirseach Bearmaster, Brokvar Hunter, and Crow Clan Druid) that use a beast tag, and none of these are overwhelming or beasts themselves. Only Axel and C. Flaminica have any potential to benefit by more than three points – and even these are not likely to do much better. With some extreme spawning, I might get Axel up to 12 or 14 points. But the doomed spawn is not going to help C. Flaminica (unless I purify it). Alternatively, Lippy might give C. Flaminica some good boost opportunities, but at a high cost. I am now at a decision point: build an Axel/spawn deck (this was done nicely by DRK3 here), incorporate Corrupted Flaminica into a spawn deck by adding Siegfried (seems draw dependent), create a C. Flaminica / Lippy deck (I’m not sure Flaminica is worth it), or accept that I will not get game winning bonuses from the beast tag and build strengths into my deck in other ways (Fucusya, Olaf, Melusine, Dracoturtle, Vildkaarl, … certainly give me options for this).

My point is not to completely build a deck, but to illustrate how tags can inspire a deck.

Card Holding Based Selection:

Most beginning players have a very limited card holding, and don’t have resources to build every idea that comes to mind – and probably shouldn’t spend a lot of scraps crafting cards exclusively for a highly experimental deck. It is certainly possible to use any of the techniques I have discussed based only on the cards owned.

Coin-Flip Driven Selection:

It is easy for players to get trapped into certain mind sets that cause them to overlook a lot of interesting decks because they don’t fit their “style”. Often these “styles” lead to decks that highly prefer one of the start-of-game coin flips over the other. If this is the case, consciously building a deck based on benefiting from the other flip could open new thinking. I have found that I slightly prefer blue-coin over red-coin, but it certainly seems that many players strongly prefer red-coin. So, for those players, let me take an example where I consciously build a blue-coin deck.

To be conscious about blue coin, I want to mitigate the weaknesses of going first in the match and build upon the strengths of doing so. On blue coin, you get first say in the first round, and if you are to win the match, you will play with first say in another round as well. First say requires proactive plays, and benefits from setting up disruptions to your opponent’s play, and it needs to avoid dependence upon a single card that can be countered or evaded by an opponent with final say. Blue coin gets the benefits of an extra mulligan (which improves consistency) and a stratagem (which provides bonus points round 1, but it gives up some strategic control and must thread a balance between over-committing and risking loss on even.

As an example, I will work with SK – a notoriously red-coin favoring faction. On blue coin, I like engines – they make it hard for an opponent to win on even without significant commitment as they keep building value; I like proactive cards; I like cheap, high-tempo cards; and I like “disruptive” cards. SK has numerous choices here. Damage engines serve multiple of these roles, and two come to mind – Dimun Light Longship and An Craite Longship. To increase the value of the Dimin Longships, I will take Heymaey Protector (another engine), and Heymaey Flaminica (a widespread healer). The Flaminica will also help with some self-damage inflictors, enabling some of the high point SK bronzes to achieve maximal value quickly. Another healer I really like is Havfrue Singer – a healer that can also serve as engine. Then Hermits can generate points rapidly, as well as providing damage and healing triggers for the Singers. I would probably include a couple more disruptor cards. Harold Houndsnout plays for a quick 7 points, but the skulls have good deterrent value. Arnaghad also plays very well with blue coin – he can shut down a lot of potential final say cards, or he can entice an opponent to exit round 1. Finally, I like Raging Bear. It can slam for 8 points to start a round, or can contribute self-damage if that is needed.

These cards alone give a strong round 1; they leave almost 90 provisions for the final 10 cards and allow many different potential decks.

Theme Based Freeform:

While you are unlikely to create a meta deck, it can be fun to create a theme deck – a deck built around some motif – any motif. It could be cards with blue tinted background art, cards whose title contains the letter G, cards suggesting travel, etc. Sometimes creativity can be blocked by two many options; focusing on a theme may restrict those options to a point where choices become easy, and unexpected combinations present themselves.

As an example, my theme will be cards depicting a bird. I will limit my deck to cards that show birds. unfortunately, there is no bird filter in the deck builder, so I must put up with some tedium wading through cards. Perhaps I should start with a list: Sunset Wanderers, Blood Eagle, Unseen Elder, Regis, Syanna, Wild Boar of the Sea, …. Once I complete my list, I will select a faction and build a deck from these cards. I will probably miss the best combinations, I would be stunned to obtain a meta-quality deck, but the process allows me to work with something different. And that can be inspiring.

Formulaic Design:

In a different card game (Spellcraft: Descent into Chaos), one very successful player revealed his deckbuilding secret – it was simply to build a deck based upon choosing cards to fit a formula based on manna costs of the cards. He had good justification for his formula, and it certainly proved successful – although, understandably, some players felt it took the joy out of the game. The nearest equivalent in Gwent would be to choose cards based on provision cost: e.g. choose one 12-provision card, one 11-provision card, three 10-provision cost cards, two 9-provision cost cards, etc.

While I don’t think a formula based upon provision cost would make much sense in Gwent, there are formulas that might. For instance, choose 4 tutoring/thinning cards, choose 2 boost engines, choose 1 damage engine, choose 2 “spawn and play” cards, choose 6 units that damage opponents, choose 4 cards to boost allies, choose 1 location, choose 1 tall removal, choose 1 wide punish, choose 1 purify card, and choose 2 “wild cards”. Or, along a completely different line, insist on 60 points of potential removal, 80 total points of power, 40 points of boost, etc. Of course, these may not be the right formulas, and rigidly following any formula is probably ill-advised, but there are many formulas that can help keep a deck balanced and viable.
 
GWENT DECKBUILDING STRATEGIES
Points, Provisions, and Turns


Introduction

One way of looking at Gwent deckbuilding is to see it as an exercise of packing as many points (both points earned and points denied an opponent) as possible with limited resources (provisions and plays of cards). There are other, generally more subtle, factors caused by uncertainty of card draws, opponent interference, and distribution of points and cards across rounds. But, at its core, a good deck must score sufficient points with the cards that get played.

The big issue here is determining how to count points, provisions, and plays.

Counting Points

In some cases, counting points for specific cards is easy – Elder Bears have power 6 with no special ability; they play for a clear six points.

Other cards are straight forward but may require some averaging and/or approximation. Terror Crew Axe-wielders have 3 power, two armor, damage an enemy by two on deploy, and do two more damage if exposed. But there is no guarantee that the two deploy damage will have a target. And armor only has value if it is used. And how can you count the possibility of the unit being exposed (having armor removed) or not? The key is to consider the card in the context of the deck and game. For Axe-wielder, count the three power. Add two points for deploy damage (you can almost always find a target for that). As for shields and exposed damage, that depends. In a warrior deck, the shields are unlikely to be hit and the exposed damage would likely not occur (very few opponents would intentionally target Axe-wielder) – I would count it as a five-point card. In a self-damage deck, the shield can absorb unwanted self-damage. And you can force the unit to be exposed. I would count the card as 6 ½ points (a slight deduction because obtaining full value might deny value to some other self-damage card). Similarly, a Kerack City Guard plays for three power, has veil, has an order ability to move any enemy unit to the other row, and boosts self by one if the order is not used. Again, I would count 3 points for the initial power. And I would try to estimate how much boost the unit can be expected to gain. Veil forces an opponent to remove it by damage – something which could happen, but which may prevent that damage from removing a more valuable engine. Otherwise, the limit to boost is how many turns I expect the Guard to remain on the board after it is played – I would estimate 5 unless I have a lot of other engines to develop first. I will not count the movement – it could have significant value, but it cuts off the boost and I may have been generous with boost credit in the first place. I would count it as an eight-point card. In this case, it might also be useful to consider floor and ceiling values. City Guards, will always score four points (3 power + 1 boost in the first turn played). They will play for at most 13 (3 + 10) if played first in a 10 card round.

Some cards are sufficiently conditional that trying to count points (or even average points) is not likely to be fruitful. What is Keltullis worth? He plays for 9 power and destroys the lowest unit on the side with the most units on turn end. How many times will he be triggered? What will he kill? Clearly, he can be a highly influential card in a match, but it is almost impossible to predict his point value. Or take Ihuarraquax. This unit only plays for 4, but on deploy can either summon the highest or the lowest provision cost unit from both your hand and your opponent’s hand. Theoretically, you might say you expect that the net points pulled from the deck would be the same, so he plays for only four points. But this does not count the ability you have to ensure your card pulled will be useful. Even so, you cannot control what nature of card he pulls from the opponent. And this differs with every draw. Trying to assign a point value to Ihuaraquax is going to be more deceptive than useful. Some cards should not be evaluated on points.

The one caveat on counting points is not to double count. For example, if a Barghest consumes a Harpy Egg, the six points from the Harpy summoned through the Egg’s deathwish should by counted with either the Barghest or the Egg, but not with both. In this case, I would count them with the deathwish unit (not the consume unit) because doing so requires less average estimation. But in evaluating the net worth of the Egg in isolation, I deduct a bit because of the need for a consume unit to trigger its full power. And I might add a little to Barghest (when evaluating it in isolation) because the consume likely adds value to another unit.

Counting Provisions

Counting provisions is straight forward. Every card costs a specified number of provisions. Provided cards are counted in isolation, that is the end of the story.

But when cards are combined with other cards in a single play, things become a bit more complex. Suppose a Hunting Pack summons a second Hunting Pack from deck. Have you played 5 provisions or 10 provisions? If you count the former, you have played 8 points of value for 5 provisions (and thinned your deck) – this is respectable. If you count the latter, 8 points of value (plus thinning) for 10 provisions is bad. To count the total provisions of all cards involved dramatically under-estimates the value of playing multiple cards in one turn. On the other hand, counting only one of the cards disregards the impact of the provisions you lose by needing the second card. If, instead of Hunting Pack summoning a second Hunting Pack, it summoned a 13-provision card that did the same thing, you would not want to count it as 8 points of value for 5 provisions.

The best solution I have seen is to first compute the provisions lost by including the cards in the combination., then adding these lost provisions to a base cost of 4. Assuming a 25-card deck, you must spend at least 4 provisions on a card. Thus, it does nothing to inhibit your deck building if you need to include a 4-provision card as a summoning target. But if you need to include a 13-provision card, it denies 9 provisions for the remaining cards. Thus, two copies of a 5 provision Hunting Pack uses 2 of your free provisions that can be used to add value to other cards. Think of it as denying 2 provision points for possible upgrades from basic four-point cards. Thus, a Hunting Pack Summoning a second Hunting Pack effectively plays as 6 total provisions (4 + 2).

Counting Turns

Provisions are a deck building resource. But I submit that turns (plays) are also a deck building resource – and one that is frequently neglected. How do you evaluate Roach? It costs nine provisions and provides a measly three points. But it does this without using a turn. Ciri: Dash can grant an extra turn. It is conceivable that future cards could cost turns. Counting turns is easy – each card in hand is worth a turn. But when counting value, one must consider both points per provision AND points per turn. Elder Bear is a flat 6 points for 4 provisions (a ratio of 3 to 2). Old Speartip is a flat 12 points for 11 provisions (a much lower ratio). But Old Speartip’s redeeming quality is that it is 11 points in one turn, while Elder Bear is only 6 points in one turn.

So, what is a turn worth? And, for that matter, what is it worth in provisions to add points to a turn (as Roach does, or for that matter, as do Dandelion: Poet, Fauve, Ermion, Menno, etc.)? As of about October 2021, I computed average turn point gains of professional players to vary from an average of about 9 to about 12 (depending upon how much control the opposing decks used). This figure is likely to change with power creep. For now, I think it reasonable to consider a turn worth ten or eleven points.

The value (in provisions) of adding points to a turn is harder. Roach plays 3 points for 9 provisions; Knickers plays 3 points for 8 provisions (knickers is much harder to time): both occasionally appear in competitive decks. But the 8 provision spell tutors only play for 2 points (they tutor as well, but they don’t tutor high value cards). And Poet plays for 4 points at 11 provisions. (He is generally considered overpriced.) On the other hand, if you consider Old Speartip and Elder Bear to be about equally good (I do), you gain 6 points at a cost of 7 provisions by choosing Old Speartip. Of course, this exchange does not reduce deck size the way my other examples did. This leads me to the conclusion that the provision value of additional points in a turn is, in practice, either conditional in ways that are not obvious, or it has not yet been accurately identified.

So let me approach this mathematically. I want to compare the point-value provided by cards that do not use a turn to the value achievable were those provisions invested in improving other cards. I will omit some tedious mathematical calculations (unless someone asks). Basically, I note that each provision above four spent on a card increases the value of the card by about one point on the average. Also (assuming no thinning or extra draws) about 5 cards will never be drawn – thus 20% of provisions used to upgrade cards will go to cards that never have a chance to be played. By this calculation, an 8-provision Knickers uses 4 provisions more than a basic four-provision card. Redistributing them will allow 4 extra points of value on other cards. But only 80% of these extra points have a chance to be played. Thus, Knickers should play for 3.2 points of value. Similarly, Roach should play for 4 points, and Dandelion: poet should play for 5.6 points. Given these cards also thin, they may be worth a bit more than the points for which they play, but I think this explains how Roach and Knickers occasionally enter top tier decks, while Poet almost never does.

Conclusion

Points are a measure of value of a card. Provisions and turns are resources that limit what can be played. Effective deckbuilding demands maximizing the value you expect to achieve limited by the resources you have available. Synergies, strategy, and luck can all alter values, but attention to these details will generally lead to better decks.
 
GWENT DECKBUILDING STRATEGIES
Deck Robustness


After several disastrous deck creations that seem to follow standard deck building principles (polarization, draw consistency, balance, and point generation), I have come to the realization that there is one other property that is critical for a good deck – and one I don’t believe I have seen mentioned elsewhere.

I will term this feature “robustness”. And I would basically define robustness as a deck’s ability to withstand disruption (cards stolen, moved, locked, or destroyed together with unfavorable opponent deck configurations, e.g., no unit or clog). This idea is related to “consistency”. But I tend to think of consistency as the ability of the deck to draw desired cards in the right order – where robustness is more related to the deck’s resiliency to opponent actions.

Robustness is something of a subjective concept, but it can be measured by things like points lost to opponent actions. So, a combination Hym onto Olaf with one damage point from leader is worth 19+9 = 28 points. But if Olaf is locked or Heatwaved, the combo is worth only 11, a loss of 17 points.

Another way of measuring robustness is to estimate the number of units you can lose (to locks or removal). Many patience mages decks can ill-afford to lose Leticia. On the other hand, Syndicate Bounty decks typically have enough ways to both give bounties and remove units with bounties that their robustness is much higher. Of course, difficulty of interference also matters – most Viy decks cannot withstand the removal of Viy, but they are still very robust because there is virtually no way to remove Viy if the deck is played carefully.

Surprisingly, while robustness seems to be rarely mentioned, ways of improving it often are. Redundancy (providing multiple cards to fulfill some function), deck balance (keeping a variety of tools and possible win conditions in a deck), and immediate value cards (cards that achieve full value on deploy) all grant robustness to a deck.

Robustness should be a consideration in any serious deck. I maintain that a big difference between most meme decks and most meta decks is the greater robustness of the latter. I also think it is a common error of many players to see a deck perform exceptionally well in match and to then assume it is a great deck without considering what could go wrong in the face of active interference.
 
GWENT: COMMENTARY:
Game Balance

Following the forums, I often see complaints about “balance”. Not to dismiss those complaints, but the word “balance” is quite nebulous and can take on different meanings in different contexts and to different players. My goal here is not to advocate for one definition in preference to another, but simply to point out some of the ways the word can be used. I think a lot of divergent views can be better appreciated if we clearly understand how others are using this terminology.

Let me list some of the ways I have seen the word “balance” used. I have imposed more specific labels to help distinguish different uses.
  • Faction parity – the game is balanced if all factions have roughly equal win rates.
  • Faction balance – the game is balanced if matchups between the top decks in any given faction are equally likely to be won by either side. Note that one can have faction parity through rock-paper-scissors type match ups (e.g. MO always beats ST which always beats NR which always beats MO). Faction balance only allows rock-paper -scissors matchups if the decks involved only belong to the two factions being compared.
  • Archetype parity – like faction parity, but it applies at the level of deck archetypes (e.g. SK self-damage) rather than the faction level.
  • Archetype balance – like faction balance, but at the archetype level.
  • All-rank balance – usually, in discussing balance, one considers decks and cards played at their best – which essentially corresponds to balance at top levels of play. But that is not how most players experience the game. Certain cards are not generally considered overpowered (e.g. Cahir, Dagur) because they are easily countered. But when players have limited collections, they are far less likely to hold the counters – and it is easier to craft one of these cards for a specific use in a deck than to craft the counters that naturally fit an opposing deck. Also, some archetypes may require advanced skill to counter effectively. In particular, I have found decks demanding strategic reaction (e.g. mill) rather than tactical (card by card) response are often targets of complaints even though rarely successful at high levels. Because many balance reactions are based upon actual experiences we need to be aware that balance is not always the same at all levels of play.
  • Peak card balance – the notion that all elements in the set of “best cards” should be roughly equal in effectiveness (relative to provision cost).
  • Universal card balance – the notion that all cards should be equally playable.
  • Strategic diversity- No balanced card or archetype should significantly decrease strategic diversity. Examples are cards so powerful that they must be controlled (locked/removed) as opposed to being outperformed, bled, etc. The most dramatic cases are decks/cards that reduce the game to RNG and strategy becomes irrelevant.
  • Emiprical balance – The idea that any faction, deck, archetype, or card played too frequently is out of balance.
This is probably not a complete list; it should be sufficient to illustrate the importance of being specific when talking about imbalances or overpowered decks.
 
Top Bottom