Gwent Tactics

[Guest 4021160]

So the issue with board effects like these is that it's going to really limit design space. If I play NR with this my goal is going to be to stack three units together all the time for every match or I'm losing potential. How do you then evolve the game overtime? Make more tactics? This doesn't really work because this is a board effect so you're not only going to be trying to go for the three stack, but the new tactic introduced as well. The more you add to it, the less open and free it's going to feel. This is why they'd have to be card effects. So keeping with NR, this shield wall would essentially be bringing back the "trio" ability to produce an effect.

As mentioned you could have to select a tactic during deck-building and that's the tactic for that deck, but I still think that's restricting on game-play. There's a big trade-off to having a lot of tactics though. The more you add, the less beginner friendly the game becomes. This is part of the issue with having them as board effects as well, they're not beginner friendly. Card effects make them easier to deal with, understand, and play around.

That's a big issue. The only way to make this work is make Tactics completely optional. If each faction has 3 tactics, it will be next to impossible to code it. Especially tactic interactions.
Let me attempt 1 tactic per faction + archetype based interactions and if that fails beyond fixing, move on to yours and ser2440 idea.

 

[Guest 4021160]

Shield wall seems a bit OP to be honest. There are tons way to provide armor in NR thus making your whole board virtually immune. Imagine having five 6+ armor units together in a row and you rowstack behind them. Enemy plays spy, you armor it too. Idea is awesome though. Needs some brainstorming.
[/LIST]

I gave it a lot of thought and tried to imagine different scenarios when you play 5 unit shield wall on top row and rowstacking units behind it as you described. This is an incredibly low tempo play and will make you lose card advantage in almost every matchup with decent 1st round tempo. +you have to play 3 cards to setup a shield wall, while opponent only needs 1 to disrupt it.
I will make Shield Wall effect slightly less powerful in the next version and lets take it from there.

 

[DRK3]

Karolis.petrikas I'm flattered by your mention, and i apologize for not contributing yesterday when i saw this thread.

Im gonna be honest, i liked the concepts and the effort you put into it, but didnt bother to read and analyze everything because it reminded me immediately of Faction's passive abilities, which was something i liked in Gwent but then CDPR decided to remove them altogether, so it probably means they wouldnt be interested to go back to something like this. Sorry

 

[Guest 4021160]

Karolis.petrikas I'm flattered by your mention, and i apologize for not contributing yesterday when i saw this thread.

Im gonna be honest, i liked the concepts and the effort you put into it, but didnt bother to read and analyze everything because it reminded me immediately of Faction's passive abilities, which was something i liked in Gwent but then CDPR decided to remove them altogether, so it probably means they wouldnt be interested to go back to something like this. Sorry

Noted. I am actually trying to remove passive ability of scoia tactic. Have a few variations. Update tomorrow.
no need to apologize. I enjoy this more than actual gwent.

 

[Theodrik]

I'm in the same boat as DRK3, I don't think that's the path CDPR wanna follow. Also, I think it's an interesting idea, but I don't think I'd like this Tactics concept in the current game mode. This would be a hell to balance like it was with the faction passives. Still I believe many of your ideas would be really good to be used in Seasonal Events and SP mode and maybe even in the Draft mode.

 

[Guest 4021160]

I'm in the same boat as DRK3, I don't think that's the path CDPR wanna follow. Also, I think it's an interesting idea, but I don't think I'd like this Tactics concept in the current game mode. This would be a hell to balance like it was with the faction passives. Still I believe many of your ideas would be really good to be used in Seasonal Events and SP mode and maybe even in the Draft mode.

Dont expect CDPR to follow this for one moment. Its just my way of playing gwent.

 

[Guest 4021160]

---

GWENT TACTICS v.0.0.3

---

Problems to solve:​

1. Shield wall is OP. [SUB]Suggested by altaybek [fixed][/SUB]
2. Tactics should be limited to 1 on board. [SUB]Suggested by altaybek [unnecessary restriction, setting up 2 tactics has low tempo – so no fix needed.][/SUB]
3. Tactics are archetype specific. [SUB]Suggested by Iuliandrei [yet to be looked at][/SUB]
4. Nilfgaard unit designation[SUB] Suggested by Iuliandrei [fixed – no restriction on units][/SUB]
5. When does terror trigger?[SUB] Suggested by Iuliandrei [fixed – triggers at starts of your turn, if terror active][/SUB]
6. Does it trigger once or is it ongoing? [SUB]Suggested by Iuliandrei [fixed – if Terror active at the end of opponents turn][/SUB]
7. If you already move some units and I place one more unit on that row would they move again? [SUB]Suggested by Iuliandrei [fixed – if Terror active at the end of opponents turn][/SUB]
8. ST Tactic Manoeuvre is passive, need to be active and player needs to be able to choose if to use it. [SUB]Suggested by Iuliandrei [Ok so I couldn’t fix passive tactic, but I think it’s ok, created 2 variations (Passive and Active one)][/SUB]​

9. Archetype based tactics [SUB]Suggested by[/SUB][SUB]Iuliandrei[/SUB], leaders trigger archetype tactics. [SUB]Suggested by [/SUB][SUB]ser2440.[/SUB]

	Arch 1	Arch 2	Arch 3
Northern Realms	Henselt / Shield wall	Radovid/ Machine Swarm	Foltest/ Strength in Numbers
Nilfgaard	Jan Calveit / Subterfuge	Voorhis / Intelligence	Emhyr / Formation
Monsters	Eredin / Terror	Aracha’s Queen/ Endless Swarm	Dagon / Resilience
Skellige	Berserkers and Bears / Battle Fury	Longships / Raid	Reviving soldiers / Freya's Blessing
Scoia'tael	Eithne / Ambush	Francesca / Agility	Brouver / Entrapment

ser2440 please feel free to fix this table.
Text document here: https://nofile.io/f/E0SC7xWWhdq/TACTICS+v0.03.docx

---

NORTHERN REALMS: SHIELD WALL​

Spoiler

Shield Wall: Three or more armoured units stacked together forms a Shield Wall.

Effect: Prevents half damage and special effects to a row below.

Counters:
Northern Realms (mirror match): Removing armour.
Scoia’tael: Moving units away or into Shield Wall. Each face down Ambush Card on opposite row requires +1 armoured unit for Shield Wall to activate.
Nilfgaard: Placing a spy into shield wall or if Formation has more units. Revealed unit cannot be placed into a Shield Wall.
Monsters: Well-timed Terror because it only affects one flank of Shield Wall row or weather applied on both Shield Wall affected rows.
Skellige: Working on Skellige.
Neutral: Locks, Pushing Effects (like ard)

NILFGAARD: FORMATION

Spoiler

Formation: having any unit in each row creates a Formation.

Effect: All damage splits between units in Formation equally. Units can be wounded, but not killed.

Counters:
Northern Realms: Shield Wall with more units than Formation stops the effect.
Scoia’tael: Moving units to keep rows empty. Each face down ambush card on opposite row requires 2 units for Formation to activate. (In the picture, if there’s a face down ambush card on range row, Formation will be deactivated unless you put another card on your range row).
Nilfgaard (mirror match): Less loyal than disloyal units on your side of the board break Formation. If there are more Revealed units in your hand than units on your side of the board, Formation is disabled.
Monsters: 2 out of 3 rows on your side with Hazard breaks Formation. Terror can cause formation to break if not dealt with quickly.
Skellige: Working on Skellige.

MONSTERS: TERROR

Spoiler

Formation: Having double amount of units than opposite row activates Terror on that row.

Effect: If at the end of opponents turn Terror is active, moves both flanks on the opposite row one row up at the start of your next turn.

Counters:
Northern Realms: Terror moves only one flank on row which has Shield Wall.
Scoiatael: Next of Kin resists Terror for 2 turns. (Terror effect ticks every second turn).
Nilfgaard: While Formation is active Terror calculation takes into account 2 rows on your side (the affected row and the one below).
Monsters (mirror match): Side with more bodies apply Terror.
Skellige: Working on Skellige.

SCOIA’TAEL: DWARVEN MANOEUVRE
SCOIA’TAEL: ELVEN EVASION

Spoiler

Manoeuvre: Wounding Dwarven unit activates Manoeuvre. Wounding Elven unit activates Evasion

Effect: Manoeuvre: If a row above has less units, move dwarven unit to that row and reset it.
Evasion: If a row below has less units, elven units evade to that row and reset itself.

Counters:
Northern Realms: Manoeuvre is not possible to row which has Shield Wall on opposing side. Cannot Evade to the row if opposing row is protected by Shield Wall.
Scoiatael (mirror match): No particular effect.
Nilfgaard: If Formation is active the manoeuvre and evasion only works if landing row has less units then the opposite side.
Monsters: Terror prevents all Movement from opposite row rather than causing it. (This one is a gem)
Skellige: Working on Skellige.
P.S. the example in the picture wouldn’t be able to move Zoltan and Iorveth, because siege and melee row would have more units by the time it’s their turn to move.

SCOIA’TAEL: NEXT OF KIN DWARVES
SCOIA’TAEL: NEXT OF KIN ELVES

Spoiler

Next of Kin Dwarves: Stacking three dwarves of same tier in one row, activates Dwarven Kin.
Next of Kin Elves: Stacking three elves of same tier in one row, activates Elven Kin

Effect: Dwarven Kin – push a unit up or pull it down.
Elven Kin – change positioning of two adjacent units on opposite row or mulligan a card

Counters:
Northern Realms: Unable to move units behind Shield Wall.
Scoiatael (mirror match): Disrupt by moving higher tier units between Kin.
Nilfgaard: If Formation is active, next of kin can only move bronze units.
Monsters: working on this one.
Skellige: Working on Skellige.

 

[fodare]

Uhhh, sorry, I don't like this idea. It's way to complex for very uninteresting interactions. If you want positioning to matter then don't make everything agile. You can't have everything fit on any row and also have positioning be important. These are contradictory ideas, which is why your idea seems so unnecessarily complicated. Also, I don't understand what's lore friendly about three melee range trebuchets creating a shield wall in front of a single mage.

You should completely re-design all of the cards again again with your idea in mind, its way better then having everything agile with 25+ point swings on a whim and RNG dictating every match. That is if the client's stability ever lets you finish a match.

In a world where basically all bronze units are not agile, then you get a silver agile unit that says, "If there are units on either side of this then it created a shield wall" would be extremely satisfying to use. THEN you could have the extra special faction based interactions because it's a reaction, rather than a second reaction.

 

[OG.laloquaint]

Very interesting ideas. I like them but I don't know if Gwent needs them. I do agree that factions need their own flavor but I'd rather see them be implemented through cards rather than like gameplay mechanics. For example, the Pit Trap is great with movement ST. Really creative ideas though!

 

[Guest 4021160]

fodare OG.laloquaint thank you for your insight. So should I stop trying this to work?

 

[Khreygond]

Karolis.petrikas It's not like it's ever going to be an actual thing I believe But it's an interesting idea that I am just participating in as a sort of "what if". I mean, I like thinking about it, personally. But if your point is trying to make it a thing for the game, I doubt CDPR is going to implement something that complicated so soon after the Midwinter patch and now that the game is almost out of beta which is a shame because they could do so much with it

 

[x1Cygnus]

Karolis.petrikas
As a predominantly ST player, I like your agile/ambush/entrapment tactics. CDPR I think already tried to implement something similar to this with ST by using the Ambush tag and face down card play. But it appears to have been more or less forgotten about and not developed any further, and some cards that use the Ambush tag have been changed for the worse recently, so I don't think it's a direction that CDPR want to take Gwent.

However, there's some good stuff here; I like the Shield Wall tactic for NR - some of the others need some re-working though I think.

Maybe these could be made into a set of tactics cards for each faction that implement special effects when certain conditions are met, or could only be played by Leaders as an additional choice after their standard ability has finished resolving - so Eithne resurrects a spell, that gets played, and then the choice of 3 tactic cards are offered, players choose 1 (or none if that's your choice) and then this deploys; that might work rather than having multiple overall faction abilities that are hard coded. Or alternatively; played by leaders with an IF/OR rule - so play leader with standard ability and IF you're losing by X points offer "tactics", OR if winning DON'T offer tactics - that sort of thing.

Also makes it slightly easier on the player as having to try and remember some of these quite complex card movements and formations I think could be an issue for some players; especially when trying to get new players involved.

A lot of good work, time and effort you've put into this though; it's appreciated, and this is just mho.

 

[Guest 4021160]

Uhhh, sorry, I don't like this idea. It's way to complex for very uninteresting interactions. If you want positioning to matter then don't make everything agile. You can't have everything fit on any row and also have positioning be important. These are contradictory ideas, which is why your idea seems so unnecessarily complicated. Also, I don't understand what's lore friendly about three melee range trebuchets creating a shield wall in front of a single mage.

You should completely re-design all of the cards again again with your idea in mind, its way better then having everything agile with 25+ point swings on a whim and RNG dictating every match. That is if the client's stability ever lets you finish a match.

In a world where basically all bronze units are not agile, then you get a silver agile unit that says, "If there are units on either side of this then it created a shield wall" would be extremely satisfying to use. THEN you could have the extra special faction based interactions because it's a reaction, rather than a second reaction.

Noted as follows:
1. Too complex.
2. All agile contradicts tactics.

These two are fair points.

However to this "I don't understand what's lore friendly about three melee range trebuchets creating a shield wall in front of a single mage" I'd like to reply with this:

Spoiler

and this:

Spoiler

and finally this:

Spoiler

 

[Guest 4021160]

Ok, it seems Gwent Tactics v.0.0.3 has too many flaws to work.
As x1Cygnus and leprochauninja mentioned hard coding it as a fundamental mechanic would limit further development.

However, I’d like more people to have their say on this, so please don’t let this die. I will wait for a week before I proceed to systemizing all the feedback. Also, if you really want to help, please read entire thread before posting. Thank you for all the response so far.

There were multiple posts about Gwent Tactics being some sort of "choose out of 3" implementation or leader based effect. I think I will take that direction next.

 

[Shadow-Stalker]

I like how much effort you have put into making gwent a better game. But In reality I glanced at it and was suddenly overcome with the strain of having to throughly read all of it.

So i didn’t.

And that says to me that it is way too complex to have a place in the game.

Gwent was beautiful because it was simplistically complex. It was always about sizing up your opponents move; Interpreting what they aim for and seeing what you can do about it. Similarly to taking too much away from it (see the problems modern gwent has such as row limitations, simplified strategies or too much control) removes the need to think and creates an environment where people just play their decks- adding too many core mechanics detracts from this also. It forces the player into a specific way of thinking and limits the freedom OG gwent provided.

What I can see however, Is a considerably simplified yet similiar effect as a set of bronze cards, and even boosted by synergistic silvers that supplement it. It would basically replace the trio effect.

Place the three bronze cards on one row: does something.
Place them each on individual rows: does something else.
Form a spearhead: does something different again.

I would love something like this. It would work because it is dialed back to a specific set of cards, it is not a universal core mechanic.

This provides it limitations, counter play and interpretation, it allows trickery and skilled plays/counterplays. This makes both players think about it - But not be absorbed by it.

These units would retain faction specific bonuses from their unique choice of formation and only one formation can be triggered per match.

For example:

Monster unit: Barghest (5str 6 armour, swarm - at the start of your next turn summon another from your deck on your chosen row)

Formations:

Zerg: place all three units on the same row.
Result: Spawn two more Barghest.

Relentless assault: create a spearhead. (Two on one row, one on a row above)
Result: destroy an enemy bronze or silver unit.

Defend the leader: create an upside down spearhead. (Two on a row and one on a row below them.)
Result: transform the lower unit into a greater hellhound. (Same stats as a regular hellhound, now strengthens itself and all barghest by 1 at the start of each turn)

Silver support unit: Hellhound (11 str, summon barghest from your deck if none are on the board.)

Usage: Improves and Counts toward the formation Trigger and retains the bonus effect played after.

Zerg: Must be played on the same row.
Result: spawn two barghest.

Relentless assault: Must be played on either row
Result: boost self by the base power of the destroyed unit. (Even if played after the trigger)

Defend the leader: Must be played on either row.
Result: Transform into a greater hellhound.

—————

Now of course that is just an unrefined idea. But that’s the kind of thing I would like to see regarding formations. A much smaller, easier to manage and balance version. For the sake of it, and because I spent a considerable amount of work time theory crafting this I’ll add more faction ideas below at a later date.


——————

​​​​​​​

 

[Guest 4021160]

Hi All once again.
Since some of you had brilliant ideas, perhaps having a convenient tool to put everything in one place is in order.
Download here: https://nofile.io/f/WJR9pK7Yz0p/Gwen...s+Toolset.xlsx (large file 38MB+)

Spreadsheet contains tools, which is suitable for Tactics, like I was making in v.0.0.3
1. Table to describe your ideas in a systematic way.
2. A board to draw schematics.
3. Artwork of all current Cards (scaled to fit a board conveniently).
4. Visuals of Hazards (scaled as well).
5. Visuals of some tokens (scaled as well)

Please use this and share your ideas.

 

[hydra66]

I'm impressed by the amount of thought and time you've put into the idea. What you're suggesting would fundamentally change the game and isn't quite the direction the game's going in at the mo (eg removal of agile units).

I've played a lot of tabletop wargames in my time. eg ASL has over 300 pages of rules. The more rules, the more simulation and depth offered beyond roll the dice, kill the unit on a 5 or a 6. Extra rules will then add variables such as range, aiming, cover, ambush, troop quality, morale, fatigue etc. However such games are harder to learn. In a computer game setting, be wary of moving away from casual Gwent. The beauty of card driven mechanics is that you can put a lot of crunchy rules/ rule exceptions onto the cards whilst keeping the core game relatively simple.

Formations in Gwent are already accommodated by the prerequisites for cards such as Commander's horn, Mahakam Ale etc. I wouldn't mind more varied/ complex faction specific tactic cards and counterplay cards (currently exist in the form of weather and cards such as Merrigold's Hailstorm). Granted this is abstracted but it works for Gwent IMO. Scenarios that make you play the game slightly differently/ place restrictions on decks would also be interesting but I wouldn't push things more than that.

I personally would prefer the crunch level of Gwent to stay where it is- not more/less complex. If you're looking for more crunch, consider looking at a few tabletop wargames (I'm not talking GW) and the mechanics within.

 

[Guest 4021160]

Thank you hydra66.

Ah, but all I want is some quality brainstorming with community.

And a few other agendas:
1. Perhaps CDPR will have some sort of Event based on this research.
2. Maybe just maybe they will have some ideas from this in general.
3. Perhaps some people will feel embarrassed to demand impossible of CDPR and put no effort into it. <<< I guess this is it.

I don't really want to change Gwent.

 

[Khreygond]

thanks for the toolset. working on NG and specifically subterfuge Monsters are the easiest to counter the rest so far.

I like your idea about Elven and Dwarven kin. I'd use Elven Kin, Dwarven Kin and Ambush/Entrapment with Brouver, Francesca and Eithne as each tactic leader to counter the problem xD Now remains Skellige. The condition is easy, the effect is the problem... :/

 

[OG.laloquaint]

Oh no, I don't mean you should just scrap these ideas because I genuinely think they're good. I just think you could come up with cards instead. For example:

Shield Wall
Northern Realms Tactics
Strength: 8
Rarity: Silver
Gain 20 armor
Prevent enemies on the bottom row from getting damaged.

Something like that. It's obvious that you've put a lot of thought into this, good job. I personally would just like to see them in cards instead.