Gwent Strategy Articles

[quintivarium]

GWENT STRATEGY ARTICLES: COMMENTARY
The Challenge of Syndicate

The Syndicate coin mechanism poses at least two special problems for both developers and players: consistency and tempo. This article looks at each, explains how it becomes an issue, and then discusses ways the issue can be mitigated. It does not take much observation to note that SY seems to be very hard to balance – it is often either at the top of the meta or virtually unusable, and I think these two issues have a lot to do with that.

The consistency issue with syndicate revolves around the need to balance earners (cards that generate coins) and spenders (cards that use coins). But the big issue is that for SY to be effective, these types of cards must not only be balanced in the deck, they must be balanced in the hand – and in each competitive round. More-over, just where the balance point lies depends upon the opponent’s ability to tamper with either earners or spenders. The only way to deal with either draw randomness or opponent removal is to have redundancy in both earners and spenders – and some high value cards that are basically independent of coins. Unfortunately, no matter how perfectly the deck is balanced, there are significant chances that particular draws are not balanced. Because coins potentially add substantially to the value of cards which interact with the coins, those cards, of necessity play for relatively low value independent of the coins – generally neither earners nor spenders are good without the other. With syndicate, consistency requires not just drawing the right cards, but drawing them in the right order.

I think the game designers have rather brilliantly built mechanisms to mitigate this RNG – by using the one thing virtually guaranteed to be available when needed – the leader ability (and also the faction stratagem for blue coin). It is no coincidence that every SY leader ability either guarantees coins, or a spender, or both. And except for blood money, all can impact multiple rounds.

As a player, one must first make sure there is sufficient redundancy (of earners and spenders) that it is highly likely you will draw what is absolutely needed (enough coins to trigger key cache and tribute values – enough spenders to efficiently use coins) in the deck It is important you use resources (coins, spenders) with awareness of future needs despite potential bad draws and opponent interference, without over-sacrificing value in the current round. Timing leader charges is important.

The second major issue with Syndicate is tempo – usually tied to the rigid sequencing of cards necessary to collect and spend coins. When Syndicate has few coins, generally they are forced into low tempo plays – usually earners (which almost always get their value from coins and not power), but occasionally low-level spenders (low value or low efficiency) or cards with no direct ties to coins – the latter often low tempo engines. On the other hand, with a bank full of coins, Syndicate is capable of very high tempo plays. If the high tempo plays are too late, too difficult or have too little value, Syndicate performs abysmally. If they are too easy, frequent, or strong, Syndicate becomes unbeatable. I think the dividing line is very narrow.

Again, the developers have addressed this issue by providing many leaders which provide quick coins – giving a little flexibility as to when spenders can be utilized. They have also built into some spenders (e.g. Sea Jackal and Hoard units) disincentives to spend repeatedly in a single turn – a good alternative approach to restrain spending in cases where cool-downs would create unacceptably slow tempo.

Players generally adapt by deck design that includes some expendable but decent tempo cards that work with few coins and little set-up. Otherwise, the issue must be dealt with strategically. Syndicate is noted for its weak initial round – but with coin carryover and very high tempo spenders, it is notoriously hard to bleed without going down cards. Good Syndicate players assess their first round and play it to give best chance to win one of the first two rounds while reserving sufficient potential to succeed in a third round.

As previously suggested, Syndicate depends upon leaders for balance more than any other faction: Blood Money gives access to critical removal when coins to fuel usual removal might be lacking. Lined pockets provides 6 coins at will when additional coins would be most useful – as well as accelerating coin generation from crime cards (which are often an important source of coins). Off the books also gives 6 coins flexibly while allowing easier access to tribute abilities. Congregate can be used for needed tempo or an emergency coin.

But the remaining three leader abilities significantly increase Syndicate’s flexibility and ease of use. Pirates Cove twice guarantees spenders when spenders might not otherwise be available – reducing the crippling effect of not drawing spenders when they would be needed. Jackpot significantly reduces timely dependence on spenders by giving value to most instances of over-profiting and provides benefit for unlimited earning. It also gives a huge one-time infusion of coins to virtually guarantee value for units that need large stashes of coin. And Hidden Cache not only provides a good starting pool of coins each round, but also, by reducing required hoard values, it allows the spending of more coins early in the round without adversely affecting hoard cards. Choosing the correct Syndicate leader for a deck can significantly impact the problems of consistency and tempo.

This article was written both to help newer players better understand Syndicate – how to play it and how to play against it – and to help more veteran players recognize how sensitive the balancing of the syndicate faction really is and why certain calls to “balance” cards (or leader abilities) would completely kill the card. Hopefully I have succeeded in those goals.

 

[Vaultmaster2000]

Many thanks for a great series of topics. As a newbie I found these invaluable!

 

[quintivarium]

Thank you for the feed back — I’m glad you found this useful.

 

[quintivarium]

Sorry for the recent dormancy of this thread -- my schedule has been very busy. And, if I'm honest, this thread is nearing completion -- most of the important ideas have already been discussed. Finally, I must admit that DRK3's hiatus from the forums has reduced my motivation to "keep up". Anyway, the article following is on a topic I consider absolutely critical for top level play, and is one where many players appear weak. So without further ado, let me go to the article.

GWENT GAME PLAY STRATEGIES
Foresight

One of the biggest shortcomings of many Gwent players is a failure to consider the impact of possible opponent responses to various plays. Much like in a game of chess, ideal play requires looking ahead. What will be the opponent’s optimal response to each of your possible plays? How can you optimally respond to that response? Etc.

But recognizing this is much easier than acting upon that realization. Gwent is far more complex than chess in that you don’t know with certainty what options your opponent will have – or in some cases, exactly what the impact of that response will be. Thus, evaluating possible plays is partly calculation, partly probability analysis, partly judgment. Moreover, the objective is not always clear either – it’s not just about maximizing points, its about minimizing opponent’s points, it’s about limiting opponent actions while keeping your options open, it’s about setting up future rounds as well as winning the current round. But there are still techniques that can help with this planning process – and this article attempts to address some of those.

First, there is one option your opponent will ALWAYS have to any play you make – the option of passing. Before playing a card, you should always have a plan for what you will do if the opponent passes. If you are not happy with the consequences of an opponent pass, you need to seriously consider other options. In rare instances, your best hope for the game might be to bluff and hope your opponent doesn’t take a good pass. In other rare cases, there may be no better options, but usually passing yourself is better than playing a card and having no good reply if your opponent passes.

Second, before playing a card, you should always ask what threats your opponent is setting up or could up, as well as what threats you can potentially develop. You can then decide whether it is better to respond to an opponent’s threat or to develop your own. You should also consider whether any of the threats can wait. But generally, you will want to respond to your opponent if his threat is bigger and develop your own threat if it is bigger.

If you decide to deal with an opponent threat, you should consider how the opponent might deal with your response – moving a row-locked unit is not likely to be effective against movement Scoia’tael and spawning a token to protect a tall unit from Keltullis will not be effective if you opponent can easily remove that token. If you are using some form of removal or control, you should also consider the probability of having greater need for that control later against a still bigger threat. And you should consider whether this is the optimal time for that control. It is not a good idea to immediately play curse of corruption on Melusine if your opponent can simply resurrect it – better to wait until the resurrection has been used on something else.

If you are developing a threat of your own, you should consider how your opponent will likely answer that threat, and what you will do if the threat is answered in a predictable way. You should not refrain from playing a threat simply because it can be answered – especially if it is likely that it can always be answered. But you should consider ways of playing it that reduce possible answers or make those answers undesirable for an opponent. So, for example, if you have Vysogota of Corvo, you know he is easily killed by almost any removal. It is better to delay playing him until you can do something to protect him – such as boosting him with a Kerack Marine the turn he is played – even if that gives you fewer potential charges for Vysogota. And if Vysogota can’t be protected against, say, Boiling Oil, you could consider playing him next to a locked Raffard’s Vengeance so Boiling Oil at least purifies the Vengeance. Sometimes when you can not avoid a counter to a key card, you can try to coax (or bleed) the counter out of your opponent’s hand before you play the key unit. Sometimes, you might want to play the key card in early rounds (hoping your opponent has not yet drawn the counter). The correct approach is clearly situational.

You should also consider likely opponent cards when positioning units. Against Nilfgaard, Assassination loses effectiveness when units are adjacent to others – so play important engines between other cards. On the other hand, Syndicate decks often play Salamandra Mage, so you can minimize the value of this card by avoiding playing three units all adjacent to one another.

For longer rounds or with certain archetypes, it is also important to consider row-space – especially if you have row locked units requiring a filling row. Especially against Nilfgaard, disloyal units can worsen the situation and should be anticipated.

There are far too many cases of situations where advanced planning is important to expect this article to deal with all of them. But consideration of likely opponent plays will result in significantly improved gameplay.

 

[quintivarium]

GWENT GAME PLAY STRATEGIES
An In-depth Look at Thinning

Thinning is an important, but sometimes confusing technique in Gwent – important because it is a tool to play more “good” cards in an average match; confusing because the term is used in multiple, subtly differing ways.

In its most general use (what I will call the basic definition), thinning is simply the process of removing cards from one’s deck (hence making the deck thinner). However, when used in this way, “thinning” has no inherent strategic value and is of no real interest. But there are ways that thinning can provide strategic value, and some players use the term only for situations where thinning provides this value. Even more confusing, there ate at least three different ways that thinning provides value, and “thinning” to some players may not include all of them.

One way that basic thinning potentially provides value is through deck quality improvement. By removing weak cards from a deck, one increases the probability of later drawing high value cards by increasing the proportion of high value cards in the deck. Note that not all basic thinning accomplishes this – thinning in the third round after all draws have occurred has no value. And using a tutor to draw a good card does not improve the average value of cards in one’s deck (generally it worsens average deck quality) so most forms of tutoring do not count as thinning in this sense either. Let me term this quality-improvement thinning. I suppose moving a card to the bottom of one’s deck (as is done by Emhyr, Doadrick, Vanadain, Maxii, or Eavesdrop) could count as thinning in this sense – even though they do not reduce the deck size. But be aware that tools which move cards to the bottom of the deck (unlike deck thinning) do not assist with random card probabilities.

A second way that basic thinning provides value is by increasing the probability that a specific, desired card can be drawn. Odds of getting any specified card in a draw from a deck improve as the number of other cards in the deck decreases. But this is subtly different than quality improvement thinning because it does not require the average value of a card drawn improve. For example, all forms of tutoring do leave fewer cards in the deck to compete with a desired card in any remaining draw and would count as this type of thinning. However, the average value of cards in the deck may decrease. I will call thinning that improves chances of drawing a specified card odds-improvement thinning.

Finally, a third way basic thinning could have value is by allowing more cards in the original deck to be utilized in a match. A card like Dandelion: Poet played in the third round cannot improve draws (because no draws remain). But he does increase the number of cards a player utilizes from his/her deck. On the other hand, a combo (not that this is a good combo!) like Fisher King (placing a bad card on deck-top) followed by Dimun Pirate (to discard the top card) in round 1 would count as quality-improvement thinning but does not help one utilize more cards. Let me term the type thinning discussed here as utilization-thinning.

Because of these different interpretations, one must be cautions when using and interpreting the term thinning. The most important thing to remember is that randomly removing cards from a deck has no strategic value – if one wants to attribute value to thinning, it must accomplish some productive purpose in a match.

Thus far, I have discussed three ways basic thinning could produce strategic value. But generally, thinning involves trade-offs – it has drawbacks as well. The most obvious drawback is over-thinning – removing so many cards from you deck that you have nothing left and effectively lose value every time a further card would-be drawn. With reasonably careful deckbuilding, this is usually not an issue unless your thinning is “assisted” by an opponent milling your cards. But any deck that thins substantially must be very careful against Nilfgaard – even non-mill Nilfgaard decks could pull a couple of cards from your deck.

A more serious drawback to most deck thinning is that it produces significant potential for “bricks”. A brick is a card that, due to circumstances of its play, loses significant value. For example, playing Menno when you have no tactic cards left in your deck is worth only two points because you lose the potential value of also playing a tactics card. Playing Roach from your hand effectively wastes a turn because he would generally jump to the board from your deck. Playing a Wild Hunt Rider without dominance prevents other wild hunt riders from being summoned from your deck. These are examples of “bricks”. To my knowledge, every card with the potential to thin also has opportunity to brick if drawn at an inopportune time. Sometimes, one must resist taking a mulligan for fear of drawing a brick. Sometimes, one’s ability to play deep into a round – as well as one’s choice of cards to play – is restricted by bricks in hand. When designing decks, one must weigh the benefits of thinning against the cost of bricks. One needs to be particularly careful when including multiple thinning cards in a deck, as each thinning card then becomes a potential brick

As an example, let me take Skellige’s “discard package” (Coral, Birna, Morkvarg, Skirmisher). This is a package I hate. It has the potential to thin one’s deck by three (Morkvarg + 2 Skirmishers) and can play for 31 points of tempo over 2 turns. But it places 5 potential bricks in one’s deck. Neither Skirmishers nor Morkvarg are cards you want to play from hand. And Coral or Birna, without good discards in hand are very dangerous. Maybe I am just unlucky, but despite its prevalence in the current meta, I find, on average, that I lose more value due to bricks (or playing around potential bricks) than I gain due to thinning. Some players try to avoid bricks by providing “hedge” cards like (Heymaey Skald) – but these can brick as well. And before you know it, your “package” starts to consume a third of your deck. Moreover, at 34 provisions for 5 cards in the basic discard package, I am paying slightly more that the average card cost to include it. On the other hand, I am perfectly happy to play both Hunting Pack and Impera Brigade in my Nilfgaard decks (assuming my deck has sufficient ways to meet their respective conditions). Despite being only 16 points of tempo over two turns, the cost of 20 provisions for 4 cards is below average cost, and far fewer draws result in bricked cards. Essentially, the only way I brick is to draw two of the same card in hand at the same time – which doesn’t happen often.

A third drawback of some thinning tools (e.g., Knickers) is that they can jump from the deck at an inopportune time when they become essentially wasted. They still thin, but they yield no other value because of timing. Some of these cards offer enough control that inopportune play can be avoided, but this could come at an undesired cost as well.

Thinning is an often-touted thinning tool, but it can be very much a two-edged sword and usually calls for moderation.

 

[quintivarium]

GWENT GAMEPLAY STRATEGY ARTICLES
Baiting, Bluffing, and Avoiding Tells

Sometimes, you can benefit significantly if your opponent cannot guess your deck or hand. Sometimes you get a great benefit if your opponent misreads your deck or hand. With weaker opponents, poor or non-existent reads are common, but as your competition gets better, you must assist the process by how you play. Preventing an opponent from predicting your hand/deck can result in any of the following: the opponent choosing a faulty strategy, the opponent wasting removal on relatively meaningless cards, the opponent saving removal out of fear of cards that don’t exist in your deck, the opponent choosing the wrong level of commitment, the opponent passing or not passing at the wrong time, the opponent playing around the wrong cards. In this article, I want to examine ways to exploit your opponent’s limited ability to know your cards: how to bait an opponent into using cards at inopportune times, how to and when bluff an opponent into overestimating your strength, and how your choices of play influence your opponent’s perception of your cards.

One of the first lessons most beginning players learn is that high value cards are also high-profile targets. Often several plays in a match revolve around one player trying to set up protection for a valuable engine while the other maneuvers to maintain a counter. One of the most common ways players try to protect vulnerable, but important cards is to bait an opponent into using available control on less important cards. Weaker players often immediately kill an engine to deny it future value – without considering consequences of not having that control later. Better players will first consider your likely cards, and then consider the future value of that removal before committing it. A good, baiting strategy is to hold a strong engine until removal is baited out of your opponent by playing lesser engines. This type of baiting is probably the most common – and it is very effective on weaker players. But to be effective against stronger players, you must lead them to believe they would get no better value by holding onto their counter(s). You therefore want to conceal the presence of that engine in your hand if possible – and/or you want up the ante if an opponent does not counter your card by playing in a way that increases its value. Even if you are playing with closed deck lists (the norm in Gwent, where players do not know one another’s cards), a good player can quickly surmise from the archetypes you play what your major cards will be. The only real way to pull off a surprise engine is to play an unusual card (often weakening the deck), or to force a control decision before the opponent gets a read on your hand. For this reason, cards that force immediate decisions, before an opponent gets information about your deck or hand (say by boosting themselves out of removal range), are better baiting cards than engines that do not force this immediate decision. But cards that can have their value increase by later plays, for example, a Temerian Drummer which doubles in engine value if it is targeting a Tridam Infantry, or a Redanian Archer which becomes much more threatening if charges are allowed to accumulate can leave an opponent the dilemma of stopping a significant threat immediately or enduring it to cope with an uncertain future threat.

Other types of baiting also exist and can be useful. For instance, deliberately playing a weak card to keep round one close and entice an opponent to play further, rather than playing a high tempo card that leads to an immediate pass is a form of baiting. Deliberately keeping three applications of poison in your hand, so you can trick an opponent into thinking a tall card is safe after you have spent one poison on a secondary target is a form of baiting. Intentionally locking a 6-power Hamadryad to entice an opponent to spend a Dryad’s Caress on it (and possibly more boost later) to play into Curse of Corruption is a form of bating. Any way to trick an opponent into playing a card for relatively low value is baiting. Be on the lookout for them, as they can often gain you significant advantage.

In some ways, the opposite of baiting is bluffing – trying to deceive an opponent into thinking you have a card (or ability) available that you don’t have is bluffing. Some bluffing comes at no cost to you but could have significant value. For instance, if you have an odd application of poison (which cannot alone kill a unit), using that poison on a tall or important unit instead of some alternative could scare an opponent into passing and letting you win an otherwise unwinnable round without costing you any points if the opponent does not pass. But this type of bluff can require careful timing. Poisoning a damage engine on turn two of round one will not cause your opponent to pass, as passing before the 7-card threshold is met effectively loses on even. But if you do not soon follow up with the second poison, the first is obviously a bluff. In this case, waiting to poison until turn 6 is also obviously a bluff – why give this engine so much time to damage your units if you are only going to poison it? The best use of a poison bluff would be on turn 3 (after setting up a potential engine of you own), or later, on a different unit.

A second form of bluffing is when you risk losing value when your opponent does not fall for the bluff. These bluffs are generally ill-advised (unless the match would otherwise be lost, or the risk to reward is otherwise very low). A good rule of thumb is that a good player is unlikely to fall for this type of bluff – and losing even a few points to a good player will likely cost the match. And the type of player who would fall for the bluff is likely weak enough that you would have good chances of winning without the bluff. For example, playing another card in a round when you cannot catch the opponent’s point total with every card in your hand (rather than just passing) hoping to bluff your opponent into playing another (hopefully good) card is a novice error that typically just loses a card for no geed reason.

Finally, as keeping an opponent guessing about what cards you hold makes it harder to identify baits and bluffs, as well as harder to know how to play around your holdings. Avoiding “tells” – clues as to the nature of your deck or hand can have significant benefit. For example, if an opponent knows your deck is devotion, that opponent need fear neither Vigo’ Muzzle nor Heatwave. They will thus be far less tentative in playing big engines. Holding devotion cards for as long as possible keeps your deck a mystery. For another example, NG hyperthin, NG clog, and NG mill typically all use the same leader (tactical decision). But countering them is very different. Mill typically plays many low-value, overpriced cards with a goal of gaining significant card advantage in round three. It is usually countered by attempting to 2-0, avoiding the third round completely. Alternatively, it can be countered by an immediate pass (so round two draws do not mill one’s deck and the mill player cannot afford to do much milling round 1). The immediate pass strategy is usually horrible against other decks, so it requires immediate identification of a mill opponent. An attempt to 2-0 generally involves playing all (or almost all) cards in round 1 so there is no point in avoiding overcommitting. Knowing this leads a player to play in a way that optimizes value rather than one that preserves strong cards. Hyperthin is best countered by winning round one, then bleeding round two, either hoping that the hyperthin player either cannot set up the payoff cards and loses 2-0 or must waste enough payoff cards on round 2 that the round 3 is weak. Against clog, the most important thing is drawing and retaining the cards necessary to deal with an eventual defender/Kolgrim combination. The longer it takes an opponent to recognize how to defend against your tactical decision deck, the harder that defense becomes. Playing ambiguous cards for as long as possible is to your advantage. If you have a misleading card (such as Cantarella in a hyperthin deck), playing that is even better.

Sometimes, rather than keeping your deck unknown, you want to keep the cards you hold unknown. For example, if you did not draw Heatwave, but you want your opponent to lose points by playing around it anyway, don’t make plays that would be illogical if you did have it! Don’t target your opponent’s tallest unit with Alzur’s Thunder.

One key point of consideration behind every play is the information that play gives the opponent. And opponents can draw inferences the same way, and from the same sorts of information, as you would. Play accordingly. Keeping an opponent guessing about the content of your deck or hand increases the odds of that opponent making significant misplays.

 

[quintivarium]

GWENT COMMENTARY:
Levels of Play Quality

In this article, I have attempted to identify various levels of quality of play. There is inherent limitation in this analysis: in particular, it is not impossible to have mastered some level of play that I ranked higher than a lower level which was not mastered. But I believe the hierarchy given to be accurate in most cases.

You might also wonder how such a list is useful. And that is certainly a valid question. I have two intentions with it. The first is to help players identify where they fit on the hierarchy to be able to identify weaknesses in their play and to guide improvement. The second is to help players identify the level of their opponent in order to anticipate what can and what cannot be expected / inferred from their play – allowing a player to make better choices him/herself. Let me give two examples. When playing an inferior quality deck (say, to complete a quest), I have frequently encountered players who are clearly slamming down their best cards in round one. I might choose to push the round – even knowing that a pass would saddle me with card disadvantage – because I don’t expect they will pass, and I hope they waste another strong gold. As a second example, I have frequently heard quality streamers use reasoning as follows: “If my opponent held card X, they would never have made play A because that play is suboptimal. My opponent made play A; therefore, my opponent does not have card X.” And then they make a commitment to a line of play assuming the opponent does not have card X, only to discover the opponent had card X after all. This could happen because the opponent cleverly anticipated the streamer’s thinking. But more likely, the streamer assumed a higher ability opponent than was actually encountered.

So, from lowest to highest, the levels of play I have observed are:

• Near Random Players. These players play their cards without regard to any discernable logical pattern. These are players who play damage cards without targets, bloodthirst cards before establishing bloodthirst, engines on the last turn of a round, etc. Most players begin at a higher level than this.
• Greedy Algorithm Adherents. In mathematics and CS, a “greedy algorithm” is one that chooses the highest possible value at every step. Thus, these players will play whichever card they hold that they perceive as playing for the most value. There is no sense of future value, and no sense of overcommitment. These players typically burn gold cards round one regardless of the score or the importance of those cards later.
• Card Optimizers. These players tend to choose whichever card in hand will play most above its expected value. They differ from greedy algorithm adherents in that they will play a low value card when they can expect maximal value from it; they may even save high value cards for a moment when those cards are developed to be worth more. But they will still make plays like Heatwaving a Temerian Drummer the moment it’s played rather than waiting for an even more important target. And they might seize upon Simlas into 5 Waylays even if they don’t need the points to win the round. Many beginners start at this level.
• Textbook Strategists. These players understand basic, textbook strategy. They will not obviously overcommit. They will know whether their deck should bleed or play for a long round. They will play for final say if their deck calls for it. But they generally do not adapt their strategy to their opponent. If their deck has a good long round, they go for a long round 3 – even when the opponent’s deck is even better. They will not adjust their level of commitment round one to adapt to how their opponent plays. Play at this level appears generally good but may not hold up to careful analysis.
• Players Displaying Tactical Ingenuity. These players will consistently set up their cards as best their draw allows, and they choose lines effective against what their opponents attempt to play. They tent to think well both short and mid-term, but often their overall, long-term strategy is spotty.
• Strategically Attuned Players. These players use sound judgment on all plays, considering long-term as well as short term consequences.
• Responsive Analysts. These players not only play their cards in a fashion optimal for their deck, they are aware of and adapt to their opponent’s plays. Much as a good chess player, they are analyzing several turns ahead, considering possible opponent responses. They envision an opponent’s probable hand and use inferences from their opponent’s play to shape that vision.

In addition to this hierarchy of play quality, there are other features of good play that don’t fit this system in that players at all levels may or may not be good at these elements. These features of quality play include:

• Consistency. Not making blunders like grabbing the wrong card. or playing a card to the wrong row, or miscounting points, etc.
• Mathematical Calculation. Keeping track of counters, adding points correctly, using probabilistic analysis correctly, etc.
• Card Knowledge. Not confusing cards, knowing card nuances (like the order effects will be calculated and how two cards will interact), knowing which cards are possible counters and whether they would likely be in the opposing deck, etc.
• Creativity. Coming up with original approaches and out-of-the-box thinking, being highly adaptive when facing the unexpected.

I believe this to be a fairly comprehensive way to evaluate play quality, but please add comments if I have overlooked anything.

 

[quintivarium]

GWENT COMMENTARY
RNG

Introduction:
RNG is an abbreviation for random, randomness, highly random, and the like. It is a phenomenon of most games, and probably all card games. On the positive side, it creates excitement, requires deeper analysis, demands adaptation, and creates variety. On the negative side it reduces the impact of player decisions, creates frustration, and can even solely determine the outcome of a match – trivializing strategy. In this article, I look at RNG in Gwent: where it arises, how it can be controlled by players, situations where it improves the game, and situations where it is destroying the game. Ultimately, I want to try to quantitatively answer the question, “Is there too little, too much, or just the right amount of RNG in Gwent”?

First, I can think of four places where RNG arises: the order of cards in the decks, variable effects of cards (which divides into random targets/choices and random values), the start of game coinflip, and the opponent match-up. Let me look at each of these in turn.

Order of Cards in the Deck.
A core feature of most card games (including Gwent) is the process of shuffling cards to draw a random hand from the deck. It is the variety of possible hands that makes each game unique, and this variety creates strategic challenge as players must decide an optimal order of play based upon which cards are held. There are a few games (such as chess) which hold players interests through strategy alone (with no random influences), but these games are few and generally only interest a small proportion of the gaming population. On the other hand, when cards drawn are so imbalanced in quality between players that no reasonable play decisions can impact the outcome of the match, the game become frustrating, boring, and pointless.

Gwent does offer at least four ways that players can mitigate the effects of draw order: mulligans, tutors, thinning, and deck manipulation. Mulligans allow you to replace undesired cards in hand with new-drawn cards. This allows you an opportunity to replace “bad” cards with something you hope will be better. They allow you to include cards that tech against certain matchups and can be avoided in matchups where they are useless. Moreover, they encourage certain deck-building strategies like polarization. (With polarization, a player deliberately chooses several very low provision cards with the intention of never playing those cards from hand, but always mulliganing them. This allows a higher average provision allocation to cards one does intent to play from hand. On the negative side, it also augments the impact of bad draws.) Tutors help to call highly desired cards from a deck. This allows players to build a deck around a card (or a small collection of cards) with substantially reduced risk of not drawing those cards. It also allows significantly increased chance of being able to use extremely high provision cards. And some tutors allow a bit of flexibility in response options to opponent plays. On the other hand, tutors reduce the need for players to adapt play to account for cards drawn. Thinning removes cards from a deck – thereby increasing the probability of drawing the remaining cards. It can be used to either remove low provision cards (giving higher average provision value on remaining cards), or to utilize more cards (and hence, more total provisions) from the deck.

If all cards were identical, card order would be irrelevant. When all cards are different, but tend to play for similar values, draw order RNG has no negative consequences on the need for players to adapt to the draw and the role of chance in determining the match winner. But if all card played for similar value, the strategy of the provision system is lost. Moreover, all cards playing for roughly equal value does eliminate most of the significance of the strategic manipulation of deck order. Do note that much of this is at the deck-building level rather than the play level, however. When many players appear to basically copy from a few well-designed decks built by others, one might question the true value of this strategic impact on the game.

On the other hand, when typical playing value differs too significantly between high and low provision cards, player impact on deciding the winner of the game is essentially eliminated. Let me look at some mathematics to determine how significant this can be.

To be able to reasonable make the necessary probability calculations, I will assume an unrealistically simplified situation. Although simplified, for reasons that become clear after the analysis, I don’t think the simplifying assumptions change the essence of the conclusion. Suppose a deck is completely polarized between 12 four-provision cards and 13 nine-provision cards. (Note that this is a total of 165 provisions – a typical allotment for many leader abilities.) A typical Gwent game consists of playing 16 cards from a 25-card deck. Assuming no draw-manipulations (like mulligans), the number of 9 provision cards a player draws follows what is known as a hyper-geometric distribution. For these parameters, the following can be computed:

• probability of 6 or fewer nine-provision cards is about 0.06
• probability of 7 nine-provision cards is about 0.18
• probability of 8 nine-provision cards is about 0.31
• probability of 9 nine-provision cards is about 0.28
• probability of 10 nine-provision cards is about 0.13
• probability of 11 or more nine-provision cards is about .003

This means the average difference in the number of 8-provision cards drawn between the players is about 1.28. Moreover, the probability of a difference of 2 or more is about 0.36, and the probability of a difference of 3 or more is about 0.13. If you want the average game to be decided by player skill and not luck of the draw, you need the difference in value of 9 provision cards and 4 provision cards multiplied by 1.28 to be less than the amount of difference good and bad play makes. To have less than 30% of games decided by “luck of the draw”, you need the difference in value of 9 provision cards and 4 provision cards multiplied by 2 to be less than the amount of difference good and bad play makes. For less than 10% of games decided by “luck of the draw”, you need the difference in value of 9 provision cards and 4 provision cards multiplied by 3 to be less than the amount of difference good and bad play makes.

So let’s look at some cards and see how the current design is working by this standard. Typical “good” 4 provision cards probably have an average value of about 7. It is certainly possible to get 13 value form 9 provision cards. If we accept a difference in value of 6, player agency must make at least 7.5 points of difference through a game if we want the average game decided by skill. If we want 2/3 of all games decided by skill, we need 12 points determined by player choices. This increases to 18 points if we want 90% decided by player choices. If we consider an average turn to be worth about 10 to 11 points, the difference in play in the last two cases must be more significant than squandering an entire turn! Examined another way, if a player loses one point of value every turn by bad play, they will still win over 13% of their games through lucky draws. This level of misplay is not uncommon with weak or inexperienced players. But how often do good players make this level of bad (or outstanding) plays? To me, this is convincing evidence that the point gap between low and high provision cards is too great, creating bad levels of draw RNG. And 9 provision cards are NOT really what I would consider high-end.

Let me redo this computation on a deck with 17 four-provision cards and 8 twelve-provision cards (164 total provisions). Omitting details, the average difference in number of 12 provision cards drawn is 1.25, the probability that one player draws at least 2 more 12-provision cards than the other is about 0.37, and the probability one player draws at least three more 12-provision cards is about 0.12. If 12 provision cards tend to play for 16 points, the situation is significantly worse. In 12% of all matches, draw luck would be worth 27+ points – almost 3 full turns. This is not acceptable at any level of play.

Now, in these calculations, I did ignore tools players have to reduce draw RNG (without doing so, the probability calculations become horrible complex and conditional). For the same reason, I assumed decks completely polarized between two different provision level cards. But based upon the relatively small difference between when I used a 4-provision / 9-provision split and a 4-provision / 12-provision split, I think it is reasonably safe to say that, on the average, one player will draw roughly 1 and ¼ more “good” cards than the other. In about 1/3 of all matches, one player draws 2 more “good” cards. And in about 1/10 of all matches, one player draws 3 more good cards. It may be more controversial to state that at present levels of average difference between top-level and bottom-level this presents more point swing than can be made up by quality of play – but it is certainly my belief (and one that I am by no means alone in holding). This can be fixed only by significantly reducing the impact of drawing poorer cards by chance, by reducing the typical difference in quality of draws, or by increasing the effect of good vs. bad plays. I think it is almost impossible to make player choices at top levels of play have more significance. The only way to substantially reduce the difference in probability of one player drawing significantly better than another would almost require re-writing the game rules and might eliminate the strategically interesting aspects of a random draw. Thus, I think a high priority of developers should be in narrowing the play-value gap between high-provision and low-provision cards.

Variable Card Effects:
Many cards in Gwent have random effects. For instance, Wheel of Fortune deals 1 to 10 points of damage, Runestones offer a choice of playing three randomly chosen bronze units, and Mage Assassins, when moved to the top of a deck, are summoned to the board and deal two damage to a random target. In all cases, this randomness can have significant value difference depending upon circumstances.

This randomness is also not always bad. If strategy can be used to favorably influence the likelihood of a favorable outcome, this randomness adds richness to the game. For instance, some cards give random choices that are influenced by player choices (for instance, Portal summons random 4-provision units from deck. Thus, limiting the types of 4-provision units in the deck can guarantee a good outcome. Pyrotechnician has orders to damage self and a random enemy unit by 4. Timing its play to be able to likely hit desirable targets is part of the game strategy – as is playing a poor target in response. Sometimes randomness just adds strategic richness to a game. Suppose an engine has 5-power. If you have a card that does 5 damage, the only strategic considerations in playing that card would be whether you have a better play, or whether that damage card will have a better target in the future. Now suppose your card randomly does 4, 5, or 6 damage. Your decision making now needs to account for the 1/3rd change you fail to destroy the target. Certainly, more thought will be required in deciding to play the card. But some players enjoy taking chances. And there is excitement in seeing the unusual.

But, again, it is highly undesirable to have randomness like this determine the outcome of a match too often. So, the main question becomes, “How much random fluctuation is too much in a card?” A second question is, “Are there types of random outcomes that are inappropriate?”

Regarding the main question, two mathematical concepts are critical: expected value and variability. Expected value simply means the average value obtained by the randomness. Variability refers to the extent to which the value of randomness can vary from instance to instance. For example, a card which does anything from 1 to 10 damage has the same expected value as a card which does either 1 damage or 10 damage with equal probability. But the latter always swings wildly (either 1 or 10) while the former will often do four or seven. The first card is less variable. Higher variability gives randomness more impact.

Another relevant mathematical principle is that when a random result is rolled multiple times, the expected value of those rolls is the same as for a singly roll, but the variability in the expected value is reduced by the square root of the number of random rolls made. Thus, if randomness occurs over many trials, the average result is not highly variable, even though the individual results are. Thus, randomness will be far less likely to determine the match when lots of random decisions are made than when one random decision is made.

Finally, it should be noted that high variability always favors the weaker player. Suppose the stronger player always scores 100 points, while the weaker player always scores 90. The stronger player always wins. If we add variability – the weaker player now scores from 70 to 110 points (with equal probability). On the average, the weaker player still scores 90 points. But that player now wins 25% of the time. And if variability is increased to the point where the weaker player scores 0 to 180 points, that player’s chance of winning increases to 44.4%. If we want matches determined by skill and not chance, either variability must be small, or highly variable cards must have a cost (in expected value) to help offset that variability.

Further mathematical analysis requires use of two parameters: the average difference in points generated by “good” vs. “bad” play, and our tolerance for randomness to affect the match outcome (i.e., the probability that the poorer player wins the match). The first significantly depends upon the quality of the players and is hard to measure. At top levels of play, from observation, I would estimate it at about 10 points per match – but this is definitely arguable. The second is subjective – I am willing to accept 20%.

Now I must turn to some tedious statistics. For those not interested in the details, simply skip the next 3 paragraphs.

Finally, for simplicity, I am going to assume that the difference in points with equal quality play and balanced cards/decks is normally distributed with mean zero. (This assumption is reasonable if most plays have roughly equal variability, it will likely underestimate the role of variability if there are few, highly variable plays since individual plays tend to have either uniform distributions or distributions with one of two possible outcomes and both these distributions have higher probabilities of extreme results.)

If a weaker player is to win 20% or less of the time, I need a standard normal distribution z-score to be such that proportions of scores less than z = 0.8. This score (from a standard normal table) is z = 0.84. Because, under my assumptions, I want random scores to vary by less than 10, I need 10/sigma < .84, or sigma to be less than 11.9.

In a standard game of Gwent, 32 cards are played (16 by each player). If each were to have equal variability, each card would need to have standard deviation less than 2.1 (since the standard deviation of a sum of n equally variable random numbers is square root n times the variability of one such number). If 16 cards vary, and the rest are fixed, the standard deviation of each must be less than 2.975.

I will take 2.975 points of value as the maximal allowed standard deviation for a card, as that would prevent any one player from being able to select cards with sufficient random effect to sway a match. Thus, since the standard deviation of a uniform distribution is given by (b – a) / Sqrt (12) where b – a is the difference between largest and smallest possible values, top and bottom values of a single card can reasonably vary by slightly more than 10 points. Since the standard deviation of a binary random variable that takes on one of two values with probability p (and the other value with probability 1 – p) is given by difference in values * Sqrt (p (1 – p)), a card equally likely to have a good and a bad outcome can make a difference of slightly less than 6 points to be in this range, where a card where the probability of a good outcome is only .1 can have a difference between good and bad outcomes of slightly less than 10.

Let’s look at certain Gwent cards to see how they fare on this basis. The previously mentioned Wheel of Fortune card (one that is rarely played) does damage from 1 to 10. This is within a reasonable variability range. And at 5 provisions for 5.5 points of damage, it is slightly above average in performance for removal cards, which probably average one provision for 1 card. (But I think its variability is unattractive even to players who like risky cards.)

Golden Nekker is frequently criticized as being either too powerful or too random. Let us examine these complaints. Note that I am not accounting for all implications of its deck building restriction. I am also assuming that it does not brick – that it can draw a card of each allowed type. Because it draws three cards, and its net effect is the sum of the three, it follows neither of the distributions I described earlier, but I think we can still work with it. Let us suppose that each of the three cards drawn is uniformly chosen from cards that have a uniform distribution of provision costs ranging from 4 to 9, and that each card plays for roughly provision cost + 3 points of value. (This is a figure I have found to be fairly in line with Gwent cards.) It would then play for an average of 19.5 points – which is way out of line for a 9-provision card. The standard deviation of its value would be Sqrt (3) * 5 / Sqrt (12) = 2.5. On the surface, this is reasonable variability. But in computing value, I have not discounted the value of playing cards that are not chosen but randomly assigned. And in computing variability, I have discounted the variability in randomly picking cards that may or may not be appropriate for the situation, not to mention the randomness that might already be present in those cards. I don’t think these assumptions are significant enough to change an appraisal that Golden Nekker is badly over-powered. They may be significant enough to make me question whether the card is too variable.

Kingslayer is another hated card. For 6 provisions, its average value is 4 plus the average value of the card destroyed – the average value of the card that would be played in its place. Since, in general players mulligan lower provision cards, it is probable that the cards in deck are of lower average value than the cards in hand. Thus, the average value of a card destroyed is likely to be less than the average value of a card destroyed. There is no justification for claiming that Kinslayer is over-powered. Some do complain about its variability. Let’s take a polarized deck, with 8 twelve-provision cards and 17 4-provision cards. Again, assuming cards play for 3 points over their provision cost, we can figure 12-provision cards are worth 15 and 4-provision cards are worth 7. However, we can assume that a 4-provision card destroyed would have been mulliganed, so Kingslayer onto this card is worth essentially no additional points, while Kingslayer onto a 12-provision card will deprive an opponent of 15 – (15*7/24 + 7*17/24) = 5.67 points of value. This card is binary, with p=8/25 of a good result. The variability for such a card can be computed as 5.67*Sqrt(8/25*17/25) = 2.64 which is within the tolerance for card variability of 2.975. I conclude that Kingslayer does not introduce excessive variability. Moreover, I would argue that a card which plays for substantially under the average value can be granted more variability.

Another card worth mentioning here is Aerondight. But the randomness of Aerondight is really due to the card obtaining far more value on blue coin than on red coin. Although my methodology may be similar, I would prefer to deal with that card under coin-flip variability.

Finally, I will mention Ornate Censor. Censor is a card that can vary widely in value. But since that variance is due more to the matchup than the card itself, I will discuss it there.

Although there may be rare exceptions, I believe the developers have kept individual card variability within reasonable bounds.

Regarding the question of types of variability that are unacceptable, I think we would all agree that a card which read, “Win the match with 50% probability, otherwise lose” would be horrible. Even if it read, “Win the match with 10% probability, otherwise lose.” Even if it cost 50 provisions. Thus, one additional reasonable condition on randomness is No single random result should determine the outcome of a match. I cannot think of any others, but I could be overlooking something.

An important recap of this section are two principles:

• The maximal standard deviation from random effects should not exceed about 12. The maximal standard deviation of individual card should not exceed 3.
• No single random effect should be so powerful as to win the match regardless of other considerations.

I will use these principles in the following sections.

Coin-Flip Variability:
At the start of any game of Gwent, one player must go first. That player is chosen by coinflip, which is random. Based both upon playing and (presumed) developer statistics, the stratagems accurately compensate the player who goes first for the disadvantages associated with that role. So, when I refer to coin-flip RNG, I refer to the ability of decks to take advantage of coinflip – to play either better on red or on blue coin. Because players have control over the design of their own decks (and could create decks equally good on either coin), I will consider the randomness of getting the wrong coin against a player who has deliberately teched to take advantage of a certain coin-flip.

Because deck design is very wide open, it is difficult to discuss every case – I will group cases – often making general, crude estimations (in most cases, these estimates are good enough).

First, why does coin flip matter in the performance of a deck? There are three possibilities: 1. The deck has a weak first round. Usually, these decks have some form of carryover that helps with later rounds, or the deck’s bronze units are particularly weak and gold units must be conserved. 2. The deck strongly prefers either first or final say. 3. Particular cards in the deck gain more power under one coin than under the other.

If you have a weak first round, on red coin, you can always simply pass, giving up round control, but never card advantage. But on blue coin, you risk losing on even. I will simplify this case by supposing the RNG is so strong that you always lose on even on blue coin and have no ill-effects on red coin. I have earlier observed that a turn is generally worth about 10 to 11 points. Losing on even effectively costs you one turn. A coin flip thus has a 50% chance of costing nothing and a 50% chance of costing, say, 11 points. The 11 points is borderline, but within a range that can be reasonably made up by quality play. I would not consider this a problematic level of RNG – especially since you don’t have to play a deck that has a weak first round.

Decks that strongly prefer first or final say tend to prefer blue coin. Winning the first round with reasonable commitment is essential to gaining round-control to enable final say. The five-point average stratagem value allows those decks a better chance of winning the first round with equal commitment. If your deck strongly favors either first or final say, and you don’t like the coin-flip RNG, again, I say simply change your deck. But here you could be facing an opponent whose deck does. But the 5-point stratagem value is well within reach of points possible by superior play. Thus, again, I don’t the coin-flip RNG as problematic.

Finally, certain cards can be chosen to exploit coinflip. Most striking here is Aerondight – an echo special card that begins at 0 damage and adds one point of damage each time you end your turn with a lead. On blue coin, at turn end during round 1, you will typically have played 1 card and 1 stratagem more than your opponent. That should almost always allow you to be ahead. On red coin, at your turn end, you will typically have played 1 stratagem less than your opponent. If your deck is high tempo (Which Aerondight decks should be), but your opponent’s is not, it is reasonable to catch a 5-point stratagem in 2 turns. If both decks are high tempo, you might never catch up. Thus, on blue coin, Aerondight will gain value equal to the number of turns in round 1. Let’s assume that to be four. Generally it is to an opponent’s disadvantage to push an unwinnable first round deep. That makes the difference between a good and a bad Aerondight about 4 points after round 1. But if you win round 1 (it is safe to expect the blue-coin Aerondight player will always do so and a red-coin Aerondight player will do so only if the opponent plays a low tempo deck), you can push round 2 as deep as you wish (I would assume about another 7 rounds). Because you go first this round as well, I would assume a high tempo deck can maintain a lead (having played an extra card) for about 5 rounds. That gives another 5 points of added value to Aerondight. Thus, your Aerondight plays for about 9 points by the end of round 2. If you go second on a 7 turn round 2 against another high tempo deck, your odds of holding a lead at the end of a turn are roughly even. So, a blue coin Aerondight against another high tempo deck only gains another 3.5 points of value – after as little as zero in round 1. This makes a 5.5 point difference by the end of round two (an amount likely to close a little by the end of round three as you would go first on round 3). Thus, with echo, Aerondight under blue coin will play for about 11 points more than Aerondight under red coin – if it is playing another high tempo deck. Against low tempo decks, the difference will be significantly less. As argued in the previous section, an individual card should have standard deviation no more than about 3. To obtain an estimate on the variability of Aerondight, we need to know the statistical distribution of the difference between its value on blue vs. red coin. And this is very complex. In situations like this, a three estimate approach often used: a maximum, minimum, and most likely value. Only the maximum and minimum value are used to estimate the standard deviation – and it is the difference in these values over 6. From our previous analysis 11 would be the difference between ideal (blue coin) conditions and awful (red coin conditions). 11/6 is only 1.83. This could very well be an under-estimate (I’m not convinced that a Beta distribution, which the three-point approach estimates, is appropriate here), but it does not suggest that coin-flip makes Aerondight too random.

Again, with coinflip variability, I believe the developers have done a good job.

Match-up Variability:
Rock-paper-scissors is a perfectly balanced game. It is also no fun. The outcome is totally determined by the matchup (paper always beats rock, etc.).

Matchup is another very complex variable. I am OK with a good deck defeating a bad deck 100% of the time. I am not OK with good deck #1 defeating good deck #2, good deck #2 beating good deck #3, and good deck #3 defeating deck #1 all with 100% certainty.

Match-up RNG can be caused by the general deck, or by a specific card. Discussing general decks at this point seems very involved, and this article is already much longer than I intended – I will look only at individual cards – in much the same context as I did Aerondight in the previous section. I have chosen three cards that I believe (from playing) are particularly bad.

Let me start with my original, despised card – Cahir. Most good players do not include him in decks because he is easily countered. But that assumes either a deck able to get through a defender and able to dish out tall punish, or a deck that does not rely upon boost. If immediately countered (or if no boosts are played, Cahir is worth 5 points. If uncountered (e.g., against something like a Viy deck), Cahir could easily play for well over 65 points. Let’s suppose these are the only two options, and the probability of 65 points is 0.05. Note that Cahir’s expected value is (0.95)(5) + (.05*65) = 8 which is not very good for a 9 provision card. But the standard deviation of Cahir’s value is 60 Sqrt((0.05)(0.95)) = 13.1 If, as I have previously argued, the variability of a single card should not exceed 3, this is outrageous. One must either argue that no deck unable to counter Cahir is a bad deck (and I think this is a difficult argument to make because certain very successful decks such as VIY or Priestesses cannot do so), or one must acknowledge that Cahir is a horribly binary card capable of single handedly winning matches against good decks.

Another card I believe to be very binary is Sihil. Sahil can be held to 1 point of value if it can never hit a one-point target. Decks with self-damage or consume can often manage this. Decks with substantial boos can manage this. Other decks may have no recourse against decks able to spawn one-point units on their side of the board. Against these decks, the value of Sihil is often only limited by the number of bronze cards brought to hand. If 12 bronzes can be used, Sihil has value 1 + 2 + 3 + … + 13 = 91. Worst case, it has value 1. Here I think a Beta distribution is not a horrible approximation to Sihil’s point value distribution. The standard deviation is estimated to be 90/6 = 15. This argues that Sahil is even more binary than Cahir. But there is an important difference. Let’s suppose that it’s most likely that Sihil gets used 4 times (which I think is an underestimate). It’s most likely value is then 10. Using the three-estimate approach, its expected value is (1 + 4(10) + 90) / 6 = 21.8. This is well above the expected value of typical 12-point cards. I admit, Sihil requires considerable deck building sacrifices, but unlike Cahir, one could argue that Sihir is OP as well as binary.

Finally, I want to examine a new card that I think has been overlooked in the flurry of complaints about the Forgotten Treasures card drop. Ornate Senser has insane potential value – at least in decks that can naturally use 1 power units and that generally don’t go tall. If a 26-power enemy unit trades power with a 1-power ally, the value of Senser is 50 points! Let’s consider that our optimistic estimate of value. Against an opponent that doesn’t go tall and that has its own 1 provision units, Ornate Senser may need to be discarded for 0 value. Supposing a typical deck has a tallest unit that gets to 10 power. Call this the most likely estimate. Then using the three-point estimate scheme, Sensors average value is approximately (0 + 4(10) + 50) / 6 = 15, which is really too good for an 8 provision card with no set up. And its variability 50 / 6 = 8.33, which is also far too large. I am led to the conclusion that Censer is also both OP and binary. And badly so.

Conclusion:
I realize that, as I wrote this article, it morphed into something far different than my original intent – and far longer. For that, I am sorry. But I think the analysis here is of significant value. It not only illustrates how statistics and probability can be used to analyze certain Gwent related questions, it provides a methodology for considering how much randomness is appropriate in a quantitative way. And despite reliance upon very crude estimates – I find certain conclusions very concerning. For those who have been vehemently complaining, they are no surprise. For those of us taking a more moderate stance, I hope they are enlightening.

 

[DolphPingus]

Very well written article, quintivarium.
Cards like aerondight, golden nekker, sihil, censer and all the other super binary resources ( hello sigvald ) should be completely reworked or, at least, banished from pro ladder and competitive environment.

Imagine destroying a game because you want to attract hearthstone players that will play nekker for a couple of weeks max, then returning back to base. Hilarious.

 

[quintivarium]

Thoughts on Deck Variety

Through most of my Gwent playing experience, I tacitly assumed that the greater the deck variety, the better. In some ways, and certainly to some degree, I still think this is true. But like many assumptions, it bears some examining.

There are obvious advantages to having as much deck variety as possible:

• It keeps the gaming experience fresh.
• It prevents playing by memory, encouraging original lines of thought.
• It better balances deck building skills with playing skills. (If there are only a handful of viable decks, once they are “discovered”, there is no real point in original deck building.)

So why should anyone question the value of deck variety?

Upon further reflection, I realize there are compelling disadvantages to too much deck variety as well:

• Significant tactical consideration goes into anticipating opponent responses and planning optimal plays given possible responses. When there are on the order of 20 or fewer typical opposing decks, it is feasible to expect experienced players to know the likely cards in those decks. But as the number of common decks exceeds about 20, this becomes increasingly difficult. Once the probability of correctly guessing the likely responses becomes sufficiently low, the value of giving up immediate points to play around anticipated responses decreases to the point where doing so is disadvantageous and tactics become much shallower.
• Significant strategic consideration involves formulating long range plans based upon factor like the value of final say, the relative strength of the decks in long vs. short rounds, the ability of one deck to successfully bleed the other, the importance of splitting an opponent’s combinations, etc. But this requires experience with particular matchups. If a typical pro player plays 6 games an hour for six hours a day over a 3- day season, that player plays 1180 matches a season. If it requires three games to learn the details of a given matchup, such a player can learn details on 360 matchups each season. With 26 viable decks, there are 351 possible matchups. More than this will force even the best players to guess rather than learn optimal strategies.
• Greater deck variety switches creative control of the game from developers to players. This is not necessarily bad, but when developers lose control over which deck concepts are viable, balancing the game becomes much more tenuous.

After this reflection, I am not sure whether I value the advantages or disadvantages more. I suspect some middle ground is most appropriate. But I am not completely sure where that balance should be, or whether Gwent in its present state hits it. I do, however, realize that it is worthwhile to look at the assumptions underlying criticisms.

 

[quintivarium]

GWENT MODES
A Brief Guide to the Seasonal Event “Bearly Balanced”

Mode Rules:
Decks are replaced with elder bears of power 1 - 16. Leaders are disabled. Stratagem is retained.

General (Non-objective) Comments:
This is a new mode introduced September 2022. It is very strategic and generally quickly played, but it gets repetitive when played between two expert players. Match results often boil down to whether the loser of round 1 correctly predicts whether his opponent will go for a 2-0 or a value bleed in round 2. Regardless, this mode is an excellent learning mode. It has very little impact from randomness (but enough to force players to react to draws -- especially round 1); it very highly emphasizes card/point management, passing, value bleeding, considering possible opponent responses, and related core mechanics of Gwent.

Key Considerations:

• Excluding the stratagem, both players have exactly the same number of points in deck. The winner of a three round match will be the player who wins his/her first round by the smaller margin (adjusted for stratagem). Computing the margin by which the round 1 loser cannot afford to win round 2 is very useful when making round 2 decisions.
• Small cards have high value – especially in round one. You want to win this round by the smallest possible margin, and small value cards help you to do that.
• Card Management is substantively changed. Since both players are guaranteed access to an equal and unchangeable number of points, there is really no such thing as card advantage for round 3 – extra points always trump extra cards. In round 2, card advantage does provide valuable flexibility even if the point total is the same.

Deck Building Strategy:

Since all cards are replace by Elder Bears, cards in the deck (except for stratagem) are irrelevant. So is faction and leader. (This mode is a good opportunity to complete achievements involving winning with particular leaders). Stratagem is relevant. Those producing 5 points of value (Tactical Advantage, Ceremonial Dagger, Magic Lamp, Aen Seidhe Sabre are clearly better than those that produce less value -- except possibly for Enchanted Armor which has carryover value, although I think extra points round 1 are worth far more than carryover in later rounds..

Game Play Strategy:

Round three is completely determined after the first two rounds: whoever has the most points remaining will win – and whoever has the most points remaining will be whoever spent the fewest in the first two rounds. Thus, the loser of round one must win round two by a smaller margin of points than his/her opponent won round 1 (adjusted by stratagem value), while the winner of round one must either force his/her opponent to spend too much in round two, or the round one winner must 2-0 the opponent.

In playing round 2, if (after the seven-card threshold is passed) the round 1 loser (R1L) ever takes a lead by more than the amount (adjusted for stratagem) by which the round 1 winner (R1W) won round 1, R1W should immediately pass as he/she will have more round 3 points. Thus, R1W can try to play small cards, hoping R1L must commit bigger cards that eventually build that excessive (and losing) lead. This is a value bleed. Alternatively, R1W can keep large cards for round 2 and play for a 2-0, hoping the opponent kept too many small cards in order to defend a value bleed. Clearly, R1W has a significant advantage as it is hard to defend against both a 2-0 and a value bleed – unless R1W won round 1 by a margin that was too great. Clearly, it is helpful for both players to calculate the round two margin of victory that is too great for R1L to be able to win round 3.

As R1L preparing for round 2, you do not know whether to expect a value bleed or a 2-0 attempt. Ideally, you keep enough point value in your cards to expect to be able to outpoint your opponent (this should be possible as you have more remaining points that your opponent). But you want some flexibility with small and medium cards so you don’t have to win round 2 by too much. If the round one margin was narrow, you will not be able to keep this balance and you must guess what your opponent will try to do.

In playing round 1, you should be aware of the advantage of carrying the round: you can choose whether to strive for a 2-0 or to value bleed. Your opponent won’t know your intention, and could defend incorrectly. Thus, you almost never want to pass while ahead in score unless you know your opponent would need to surpass your score by a wide margin or you would end up winning by too much if you do play and your opponent passes. You pass while behind if you are significantly behind, if you believe your opponent can force you to pass in an even narrower margin if you keep playing, or if you must play a card that puts you so far ahead that your opponent would be happy passing.

Generally, both players will reach for the lowest value cards they can access as it is much easier to play from behind (where you know you can avoid winning by too many points) than it is to play from ahead where it is easy to open a wide margin (and allow your opponent a favorable pass).

What I Haven't Said:

1. The most obvious omission is the answer to the question, "How much is too much?" -- in this case, the number of points (adjusted by stratagem value) by which winning round 1 is winning by too much. The answer depends very heavily upon what has been played. Think of it this way: the round 1 loser (R1L) must win round 2 by a smaller margin than the round 1 winner (R1W) won round 1. Both players can essentially cherry-pick their round 2 hand: there is only one card in deck that will not appear in either the original draw for round 2 or draws after mulligans. R1W can choose to either value bleed or 2-0. Thus R1L can either defend a value bleed by keeping low value cards, can defend a 2-0 by keeping high value cards, or can try to do both by discarding mid-value cards. R1W was not pushed enough if R1L cannot always defend either one of these by any choice of strategy (this is only likely if the blue coin player wins by less than the lowest card remaining to R1L). R1W has won by too much if R1L can successfully defend against both a bleed and a 2-0 attempt. Thus, if the third R1L strategy above can defeat a 2-0 attempt and it is certain not to win round 2 by too much, R1W has spent too much in winning round 1. To estimate whether a 2-0 attempt can be successfully defended by R1L, the difference in value between the three middle cards and the three lowest value cards left to R1W will approximate the difference between hard defending a 2-0 and trying to defend both 2-0 and value-bleeds. Exceeding this amount is winning round 1 by too much. On the other hand, if R1L's lowest card can always bring R1L's round 2 score above R1W's score -- but not by more than the amount R1W won round 1, R1L can defend the value bleed. This depends upon the values of the lowest cards remaining to both players. Winning round 1 by more than the value of a middle card in R1L's deck is also generally winning by too much.
2. Because deciding whether to pass depends upon the values of cards remaining available to players, telegraphing the values of cards in your hand gives an opponent useful information in making decisions. Masking this information can cause good players to misjudge passing. On the other hand, it is generally stronger to play cards from lowest to highest. Some judgment should be used -- often keeping an occasional low-value card does not impair your play -- but it does mislead a good opponent.
3. If you lose round 1 on even without bleeding at least one high value card from your opponent (this happens if a blue coin player simply plays lowest to highest, and then passes after falling behind "too much"), there is still about a 50% chance of getting 2-0ed. All the round 1 winner has to do is draw all top end cards for round two, and you can at best tie the round. Since only one card in deck is not seen by the end, all the round 1 winner needs to do is mulligan his lowest card until only top cards are in hand -- which is reasonably likely. Incidentally, this does give a possible way for a red coin player to trap an unwary opponent -- "waste" some middle value cards when you have all top units already drawn to entice a pass and then win 2-0.

Update November 2022

• In this seasonal, the stratagem has been replaced by a three point bear. Now all deck designs play the same.
• This mode is very good for completing contracts requiring winning with certain leader abilities. Weak leaders/archetypes have no bearing on play in this mode.
• Although I identified card advantage going into round 2 gives flexibility, this card advantage can be extremely helpful defending round 2 as you can keep a low value card to defend against a value-bleed whilst high values on the remaining cards defend against the 2-0. Thus, passing while slightly ahead (provided your opponent must play a significant value card) is a very strong strategy.
• Round 1 ties tend to favor the blue coin player as that player will have 3 more points in deck for round two. Of course, more points does not always mean drawing them -- but remember, only 1 card will be missed. Ties also favor the player with card advantage as points distributed across more cards makes it more likely the unplayed cards are low-value.

 

[quintivarium]

GWENT MODES
A Brief Guide to the Seasonal Event “Trial By Fire”

Mode Rules: At game start, all decks are replaced with a pre-built deck from the same faction featuring cards from a recent expansion.

General Comments:

This mode, first introduced June 2022, follows all standard rules of Gwent, simply played with developer designed decks. Thus, unlike other seasonal modes which introduce new rules/features that impact game play, this seasonal mode is just normal Gwent without the deck-building component. Therefore, this article will not address strategic considerations as general Gwent strategy is unaltered by the mode. It will also not discuss deck building as that is irrelevant.

Even though it appears to introduce nothing new to the Gwent experience, I both enjoy the mode and find it a valuable addition to the game. This article will explain why.

Mode Benefits:

• For newer players (who don’t have resources to craft every card), the mode offers an opportunity to experience newly released cards. Actually playing them yourself gives a much fuller experience of the cards than simply having them played against you. This experience can not only help you decide whether you want to commit resources to craft the card in the regular game, it can help you play better against cards you do not craft. When you play a card yourself, you experience first hand its strengths and weaknesses – which, in turn, helps you recognize effective potential responses to the card.
• For all players, this mode provides excellent insight into the developer’s intent for new cards – synergies they foresaw with the card as well as the role they expected it to play in a deck. I wish all players who complain about a card's design would first look at the card from the developers’ point of view. This mode helps us see and experience the developers’ vision.
• I really enjoy the mode because I find the decks well balanced. Rarely is a match outcome determined purely by the deck matchup – unlike in normal Gwent.
• Developer decks tend to illustrate good deck design principles. Play attentive to the deck structure can improve one’s own deckbuilding.
• Because the decks are relatively evenly matched, extensive play in this mode can provide a valuable assessment of one’s own playing skill. There is still rng from good and bad draws, but the most binary interactions have been removed, making results align more closely with quality of play.

Interesting Fact:

Although deck and leader are replaced by the developer's design, the stratagem is not! Choosing different stratagems slightly alters blue coin play. With some decks, it is conceivable that significant advantage could accrue with one choice of stratagem over another. I have not observed this to be significant with the developer decks provided a player chooses a generally sound stratagem like Tactical Advantage or Lamp Djinn.

 

[DRK3]

I think this seasonal mode is great and it definitely should take priority over the usual 12-seasonal mode rotation and be introduced everytime there is an expansion or card drop.

I've definitely used it a lot in the first couple of days to quickly get an idea of how these new cards work, and i have access to all of them instantly, but having 'default decks' to have a good starting point, to build from there, its invaluable.

For some factions, the deck is quite obvious, but for others there are actually a few little smart choices - like using Idarran and Garrison on NR, or using the (Leader)-Eist-Coral-Sove combo that most players dont even know about, and use Coral in R1 instead because that's what they're used to seeing in standard modes.

For all players, this mode provides excellent insight into the developer’s intent for new cards – synergies they foresaw with the card as well as the role they expected it to play in a deck. I wish all players who complain about a card's design would first look at the card from the developers’ point of view. This mode helps us see and experience the developers’ vision.

I have to disagree with this. Yes, its good to have a glimpse of what they intended when designing cards, but history has showed that they should do much more research and consider combos that might be problematic when designing cards.
For example, imperial practitioner spam became a NG staple soon after they were released, so now every new NG or neutral cards should be considered how it works if multiple copies of it are played, which clearly wasnt, we just have to look at Tibor spam which the devs clearly didnt intend.

I really enjoy the mode because I find the decks well balanced. Rarely is a match outcome determined purely by the deck matchup – unlike in normal Gwent.

Have to disagree again. The decks are interesting, but IMO not very balanced between each other.
Like i already said in another thread, the NR one seems heavily favoured, followed by the NG and SK one, the MO also has a fightng chance, the SY one is still bugged?, and the ST one seems way worse than the rest, it even has prism pendant, which is already bad, but on a deck where it wont get much value.

 

[quintivarium]

I think this seasonal mode is great and it definitely should take priority over the usual 12-seasonal mode rotation and be introduced everytime there is an expansion or card drop.

I've definitely used it a lot in the first couple of days to quickly get an idea of how these new cards work, and i have access to all of them instantly, but having 'default decks' to have a good starting point, to build from there, its invaluable.

For some factions, the deck is quite obvious, but for others there are actually a few little smart choices - like using Idarran and Garrison on NR, or using the (Leader)-Eist-Coral-Sove combo that most players dont even know about, and use Coral in R1 instead because that's what they're used to seeing in standard modes.


I have to disagree with this. Yes, its good to have a glimpse of what they intended when designing cards, but history has showed that they should do much more research and consider combos that might be problematic when designing cards.
For example, imperial practitioner spam became a NG staple soon after they were released, so now every new NG or neutral cards should be considered how it works if multiple copies of it are played, which clearly wasnt, we just have to look at Tibor spam which the devs clearly didnt intend.


Have to disagree again. The decks are interesting, but IMO not very balanced between each other.
Like i already said in another thread, the NR one seems heavily favoured, followed by the NG and SK one, the MO also has a fightng chance, the SY one is still bugged?, and the ST one seems way worse than the rest, it even has prism pendant, which is already bad, but on a deck where it wont get much value.

I have had what to me was surprising success with ST, losing mainly mirror matches or when I am interrupted mid match. Lack of control sometimes seemed to be a problem, but I could usually work around it. Moreover, I don’t generally like ST, but I am enjoying this archetype.

I probably haven’t played as much as you, but I would rank the decks (from best to worst): NR, ST, NG (all good and all fairly close), SK (significantly worse), and MO (really struggles). I haven’t played SY awaiting bug fixes.

On balance, our difference might be semantics. In standard mode, I can often tell by the time both players have played two cards who is going to win (based purely on match-up). In Trial by Fire Seasonal, I feel every deck matchup (except maybe MO vs. NG or MO vs ST where I struggle to find a path for MO to win) gives both players a chance — it may not be an equal chance, but it is at least worth playing out.

 

[quintivarium]

GWENT MODES

A Brief Guide to the Seasonal Event “Order In All Things”

Mode Rules: At the start of the match, sort player’s decks from highest to lowest provision.

General (Non-objective) Comments: While this mode eliminates most elements of “luck of the draw”, it does easily become stale because, assuming the “correct” line of play is discovered, it will almost always be the same (except to a very limited degree as random effects might impact that play). Of course, this is mainly a theoretical concern, as time does not really allow players to determine optimal lines against all opposing decks, and few of the most competitive players stream seasonal play to assist in identifying those lines.


Key Considerations:

• You can completely control the exact cards you will have drawn. Thus, it makes sense to take 9 bronze cards you NEVER intend to use.
• Generally, there is no need for consistency unless you need specific cards in the first-round, you want a particular 4 provision card, or you expect to mulligan at least two higher valued cards with hope of drawing both later. Note: one tutor to draw one mulligan is pointless – you may as well keep the mulliganed card in place of the tutor. But hoping to draw one of two or more mulliganed golds and tutoring the other is conceivable.
• Thinning is only useful if you can gain more points by accessing extra cards than other options would generate. Otherwise thinning only helps you draw bad cards.
• Beginning the match with all your best cards leaves both you and your opponent vulnerable to over-committing in early rounds.

Deck Building Strategy:

• Your last 9 cards will not be drawn unless you either mulligan a higher provision card or you access it through another card. Make them as cheap as possible (4 provisions). If you want something like Portal to draw specific units, use specials and artifacts as throw away cards.
• You will not have significant bronze cards in either round 1 or round 2. Avoid decks that rely upon bronzes for round 1 or to set up gold cards. E.g., Patience Mages, Harmony, Handboost, and Deathwish are horrible archetypes for this mode.
• It can be helpful to choose provision values to guarantee cards are drawn in rounds and in combinations that are desired. Look for high provision cards that you want to use in round 1. Make sure cards 14, 15, and 16 (in provision rank) are good in round three – that’s when you will draw them.
• High provision cards you need in deck are not good in this mode. Neither are low provision cards you need in hand.
• Lippy is probably broken as he is guaranteed to swap bad cards for good cards – but there is a drawback – finding a chance to play him. The support cards that give him good tempo (Knickers, Roach, Morkvark) are not good in this mode. Remember this when defending SK as well.

Game Play Strategy:

• Beware of over-committing in round 1 or 2. You have very few good cards in reserve (not in hand).
• Mulliganing good cards is high risk – you have about a 50% chance of drawing the card again (depends upon how many mulligans you take later).
• The average provision value of cards a player actually uses will be close to 8. It is probably better to measure commitment by provision value rather than gold card count.
• If your 12 lowest cards are bronze, beware of a round 2 value bleed. Conversely, if your 14th, 15th and 16th card are relatively high provision, conducting a value bleed could be very useful.
• Before mulliganning, be aware of what you will draw instead. It is very typical to never choose to Mulligan.

 

[quintivarium]

GWENT COMMENTARY:
Lessons Learned from Banished Seasonal Mode

• Card balance is significantly impacted by round/match length. It is perhaps obvious that most engines need longer times upon the board. It is a natural conclusion that fewer/less-effective engines reduce the value of control. But it genuinely surprised me how much a reduction of 6 cards in total match length impacts match play. By extension, the impact of match lengthening tools (such a Matta Huri) is easily underestimated. Since engines are balanced around a 16-turn norm (clearly evidenced by this mode), longer matches change card valuation. But it is not just engines that are impacted. Fewer units means less carryover for card like Gord and Regis: Reborn. Fewer turns and minimal summoning significantly reduce typical number of units on the board, which changes the valuation of tall vs. wide punish. And they reduce graveyard size. (Sabbath and Fucusia become risky cards.)
• Despite loss of most consistency tools, RNG seems less impactful in Banished than in Standard play. I attribute this to several factors: Shortened match length significantly reduced the disparity between the best and the worst cards in the deck as the big 40 point swing plays become impossible in this mode, knowing one’s hand content for the entire match allows one to optimize play without “surprises” of unexpected draws, severe limits on the ability to play/summon multiple units in a round stabilizes point values per turn, extreme deck polarization is no longer favored over balanced card provision as one cannot consistently “tailor” the unplayed cards to be low provision. In fact, I wonder if the standard game wouldn’t play better with a minimum deck size of 30 cards.
• There is significant value in shorter matches. Despite a marked imbalance toward NG (although I have still managed very good success with a MO deck and limited success with an SK deck), I find I can catch games much more rapidly than in either standard or unranked play. I conjecture this is because more players are playing the Banished mode (even if virtually all of them are playing NG). On a personal note, I find myself both playing more matches and more often. I frequently have time when I might like to play, but I do not because I don’t expect to have approximately 15 minutes of uninterrupted time required to complete a match. Five minutes is much more manageable.
• Scoia’tael as a faction has design issues. In the shortened time frame, I am simply unable to generate sufficient points to compete – even on good draws when my opponent draws poorly. None of the ST Bronze cards generate good value without reliance on very specific synergies which are inconsistent in standard games and basically unplayable in this mode. Intermediate Gold cards seem little better. I admit the faction appears competitive in Standard mode, but I think the entire faction hinges on a small handful of Megalithic cards like Simlas and Saskia: Commander. This is very unhealthy for the game.
• Syndicate appears to have design issues. The shortened structure of banished highlights how fragile the entire coin mechanism is – both in balance and timing of earners/spenders and in turns required to develop viable power.
• NR also seems to fare poorly in Banished mode. I don’t think this is necessarily a problem with the faction as it is highly engine based, but it might suggest the faction would be more robust with a little bit of additional low provision point slam potential.
• Monsters (as one might expect from a point slam faction) is very good in this mode. I think players have overlooked its potential. The fact that, in my most effective deck, I am using many cards (mostly point-slam – but some anti-NG tech) that rarely see play in standard games, I think that point-slam is highly short-changed in standard play. Part of the problem may be that players perceive point-slam as brain-dead. Actually, it is incredibly strategically rich. It lacks tactical nuance, but its strategic impact is greater than either engines or control. Is it possible that, because players don’t get excited about it, developers don’t get excited either?

 

[quintivarium]

GWENT MODES
A Brief Guide to the Seasonal Event Double Down

Mode Rules:

Whenever you play a unit from your hand, play a unit with the same provision cost from your deck. Your starting deck is doubled in size at the start of the match.

General (Nonobjective) Comments:

Somewhat to my surprise, I like this mode. Although it tends to create a somewhat long match as nearly twice as many cards get played as in standard mode, most players are able to play at a good pace as they are at least familiar with their cards (unlike in Patience is a Virtue where I find play slow and tedious). Although the mode appears to favor NG as a faction, that favor is neither dominating nor so significant that it significantly reduces the deck variety encountered – so far, I have observed no clear meta deck or faction. And the change from standard mode forces players out of scripted card order as the second unit drawn cannot be completely controlled. Thus, matches require actual thinking.


Key Considerations:

• Only units (and units played from hand) generate the extra play granted by the mode. Good decks will focus on cards played from hand.
• All cards are duplicated in the deck. The potential presence of multiple copies of strong card (even non-units) strongly affects play.
• Board-space is a much more significant issue than in Standard Mode. More plays and more units almost always result in more units on board. Cards that affect all units (or all units on a row) are typically more valuable than usual. And board clog can become a major issue in many matches.
• More plays also increase the value of cards that have abilities based upon cards played, e.g. Vysogota, Sly Seductress, or even Peasant Militia.
• The typical 2 plays per turn of this mode has major impact upon reach and tempo – play accordingly. It also impacts relative value of leaders and card advantage.

Deck Building Strategy:

• Be careful of board clutter. You have two rows capable of holding 9 cards each. Even without spawned units or your opponent’s disloyal units, this is only 9 turns of playing 2 units per turn. With created, spawned, summoned, or disloyal units, board space can disappear quickly. Unless you have a way of clearing cards off rows, I suggest avoiding spawning.
• Especially good are cards (e.g. Tibor, Cintrian Royal Guard) that grow in value with more copies. Cards that gain ability based upon play of units or numbers of cards are also good (I’ve had good success with Erland and Mutagenerator). Cards that create row space (e.g. consume units) are often also good. Because much removal comes from special cards, greedy decks are common. Igni, Yrden (despite the nerf), and the like often play for very good value.
• Cards (or leaders) that spawn multiple weak units like tokens are usually bad. Most summoning is also bad. Most tutoring of units is inefficient as tutored cards do not generate the extra play unless they first enter your hand. Because of sheer numbers of cards in deck, thinning is of less value in providing consistency, but often that thinning itself plays for good value.
• Pairing cards with good synergies at the same provision cost is very useful. But if you play cards (e.g. Belohun) that do not benefit from multiple copies on board at once, it is good to have other, equal-provision cards in deck to avoid drawing the second when you play the first. On the other hand, there may be times when you want to be certain what you will draw upon playing a card. Having few units at that provision assists.

Gameplay Tips:

• It is very important to know your deck – especially what units you have at what provision cost. Only that way can you anticipate possible and likely results of each decision.
• Count! Know how many units and at what provision you have in your initial deck. And know what is still available at each provision. Make sure you don’t lose the opportunity to play a second unit because none is available. Also count projected board space – both in the current round and in future rounds. Especially if you play cards to draw additional units (e.g. Matta or Ciri), be sure the extra cards can be used. This can be a major issue if your opponent plays a board clog faction (like NG) or a self-removal option (like monsters consume). And play to ensure board space works in your favor in future rounds.
• Tempo and reach now involve very large values. Play and card-based engines (e.g. Vysogota) are better than turn-based engines (e.g. Windhalm). Except for dry passes, there is really no such thing as a “short round”. Even 3 turn rounds usually result in at least 6 cards used by each player. Engines and control tend to dominate carry-over and pointslam unless the latter have engine-like components. This strongly influences strategy as round-control is more about board space than brevity.

Closing Comments:

If you like complex interactions, this mode is very good – because of the sheer number of cards played and the focus on units, uninteractive play is rare and numerous cards interacting on the board is common. If you like big point swings, this is also the ideal design. Unlike standard Gwent where big point swings are almost always associated with huge, usually over-powered, and usually very binary cards, big point swings in double down are organic to the mode and equally available to both players. And if you like variety, I have, in the relatively few games I have time to play, not seen any sign of an emerging meta – in fact, every deck encountered has either been of a unique archetype or uniquely used the archetype.

Double Down is a mode on which I have seen very few comments, but I highly recommend it.

 

[quintivarium]

GWENT DECKBUILDING STRATEGIES
Three Critical Elements of Effective Deck Building

After struggling with meme decks that just don’t work, I have come to the realization that effective deck building absolutely requires three elements: points, containment, and robustness. Most of the elements have already been discussed in other articles, but I am becoming increasingly aware of the importance of these three. In hopes of saving others a lot of time and frustration, let me quickly summarize.

Points. Ultimately, Gwent boils down to points. Whoever scores the most usually wins. If your opponent is averaging 11 points per turn, while you manage only 10, you have a very uphill strategic battle. In general, the more points you can generate with each card, the less you need to worry about opponents scoring a lot of points against you and the more flexibility you have in how you play the match. But not all points are equal – you must be able to spread those points over at least 2 and preferably 3 rounds. Moreover, you must be cautious that those points can be consistently generated (see robustness below). But no deck can be good if it cannot score enough points – this is the starting point of almost any deck.

Containment. No matter how many points a good deck can produce, there are always (not so good) greedy decks that, at least under favorable conditions, can generate more. A good deck does not need to be able to stop everything, but it needs to be able to contain big threats that (usually inconsistently) generate huge point swings. Locks, removal, tall punish are the usual tools. And the weaker your deck’s point generation, the more containment you need. Remember, you don’t need to stop everything – a 20-point card can be beaten by a 22-point card of your own and usually, generating points is more consistent than preventing them. But you do need ability to counter the greatest greed in the meta.

Robustness. By robustness, I mean the ability of a deck to withstand disruption – either by draw luck or by opponent actions. Normally a robust deck spreads points across multiple cards and multiple turns. It also has good tempo to recover from opponent’s big plays, to handle short rounds, and to be able to push or to defend when needed. A good deck needs reasonable flexibility in card order to accommodate awkward draws and should be able to withstand failure to draw any one or even two cards. And it does not depend upon an opponent not stopping a particular card.

There are certainly other considerations in designing a deck. From my observation, however; they tend to be more subtle, and should take a backseat to these three.

 

[quintivarium]

GWENT DECKBUILDING STRATEGIES
Round Thinking

In Gwent, where decisions and success typically revolve around points, it is easy to make optimizing total points the primary objective of deck design. But surprisingly often, this thinking during deck building is misguided – the ultimate goal of Gwent is not to generate the greatest possible point total; it is to win two of three rounds.

When designing a deck, it is absolutely critical to consider how the deck can strongly compete in at least two rounds. It does not necessarily have to win both those rounds if an opponent winning one drains so many resources that they cannot win a second round. But any deck must be designed with at least two rounds in mind. Scoring 200 points in one round and 10 in the other two will almost always lose; being able to score 60 points in each of three rounds will usually win.

Ideally, points available in a deck can be fluidly applied to rounds where they are needed. In practice, this is rarely the case. Some cards (engines) only gain value with time spent on the board. Some cards (e.g. two cards with poison ability) require combinations to score points. Some cards (e.g. Gord) require preparation to gain value. It is always helpful to consider when and where cards in a deck can be used. It is important to consider how points can be lost (e.g. engines in a short round, tall punish with no target, or high provision cards that are not drawn).

If your deck cannot compete round 1, it must be able to handle both a round 2 bleed and a long round 3. If you plan a deck to compete round 1, make sure it has tools to either win or push an opponent to over-commitment. But the key thing is, in every deck, to design paths to victory – in at least two rounds and with flexibility to handle mishaps.

 

[quintivarium]

GWENT MODES

A Brief Guide to the Seasonal Event “I Didn’t Sign Up For This”

Mode Rules: At the start of the game, transform all your cards into one from the same faction and rarity that wasn’t in your starting deck.

General (Non-objective) Comments: At first, I was excited that this mode might lead to very random cards, but cards from a familiar faction that would tend to work together. I could not have been more badly mistaken. It quickly became apparent that by choosing all common or rare cards from a single faction (or from only neutral), one could limit the available deck pool to a single (or a small number of) desirable card(s). Given the existence of bronze engines that increase in power with more occurrences, this type of deck completely dominates the mode. The mode is still very interesting until you identify the one deck clearly stronger than all others. There then remains a little bit of strategy to work out (such as optimal leader), but the mode quickly becomes stale. Reading this article further will probably ruin what fun there is in the mode – proceed at your own risk.

Deck Building Considerations:

Even though it seems like wasted previsions, self-empowering bronze cards are much stronger than relatively random gold cards. Decks should be comprised to limit the card pool to 1 – 3 bronze cards of the same rarity. The available cards must work together to grow board value with each successive play.

• There are only a small handful of cards one can attempt to target for inclusion in final deck: there are several cards that generate either 2 or more points of engine (or enhancement – consider Cintrian Royal guards as worth 3 points engine value per turn) power. Other than these, only cards that summon other copies from deck (for considerable tempo) or cards that destroy opponent’s engine cards with some form of added value need be considered. That leaves the following:
  • Neutral rare: mastercrafted spear, renfri’s gang, cutthroat, iron falcon knife juggler
  • Neutral common: lacerate, wagon (resilience might be a consideration), sapper (with bombs), offering
  • Monster rare: selfeater, fleder/nekurat
  • Monster common: none
  • Nilfgaard rare: rot tosser
  • Nilfgaard common: alba pikeman/thirsty dame, combat engineer/mangonel
  • Northern realms rare: reaver hunter
  • Northern realms common: cintrian royal guard, reaver scout
  • Scoia’tael rare: backup plan, dryad matron, cat witcher
  • Scoia’tael common: none
  • Skellige rare: svalblod priest/ armored drakkar, highland warlord/raid card
  • Skellige common: none
  • Syndicate rare: none
  • Syndicate common: none
• With a little play, it becomes quickly apparent that the pointslam of Renfri’s Gang – even if it can only be used twice requires multiple engine turns to catch up – a viable deck almost must include Renfri’s Gang. With Renfri’s Gang, Knife Juggler provides a two point per turn, almost unconditional engine. This combo of two cards appears to be the gold standard. All that remains is to identify an optimal leader.
• But wait! Gang/Juggler admits some tech choices: bonded Cutthroats will kill Jugglers as rapidly as they are deployed – Gang/Cutthroat appears strongly favored in a direct matchup. But Cutthroat is much less effective against Cintrian Guards. Only 5 Guards (unmolested) exceed the value of an entire row of Renfri’s Gang. As a Renfri’s gang deck has at most 38 cards, it can typically only fill two rows – even with card advantage, it rarely outpoints the guards in two rounds.

Final Analysis:

Once players figure out the decks, this seasonal mode degenerates to a fairly direct game of rock/paper scissors: Cintrian Guards loses to Gang/Juggler; Gang/Juggler loses to Gang/Cutthroat, Gang/Cutthroat loses to Cintrian Guards.

A Last Note:

The invigorate leader (ST) can move up to 12 Jugglers out of Cutthroat removal range. This will tilt the Cuthroat vs. Juggler matchup to something more even. I have not been able to catch a match to test the balance.