Having last say is to decisive

[1990BW]

Today I've played a few hours of gwent with the best decks (I'm rank 6 atm).
80% of the games were decided by having last say, I would've won 50% more games if I had last say.
Your hand in R1 and the mulligan update play a big part in this, unfortunatly.
If you start with a bad hand and can't win R1 it's basically game over.
All the decks I've played against thinned very well (witchers/roach/tutors).
With the extra mulligans the chance to get exactly the cards you want voor R3 feels unhealthy gameplay wise.
Before the update you had to manage your mulligans and you didn't always get what you want.
That alone made matches more interesting and tactical as they are right now.

 

[Imm0rtaleflame]

so why is there even round 1, huh?
REMOVE ROUND 1 everybody! That's right

 

[Restlessdingo32]

I don't see how the mulligan update changes this much beyond there is a bit more consistency. It's not a one way street. Both players gain more consistency. If you started with a poor hand before the update you felt obligated to burn mulligans since, as you pointed out, last say is too important. A R1 loss often means conceding last say. The only difference post-update is you don't "lose" mulligans for doing it.

To phrase all of this differently, the mulligan update isn't creating this problem. Last say is too important because of the cards and leader design. Leader adjustments could correct a lot of it. Right now in certain MU's you almost feel forced to bleed R2 to force out powerful, single-use leader abilities even if you take R1. On the other hand, losing last say against these builds is a huge problem.

To throw out examples... Harald + Dagur, Emhyr + Shupe, Woodlands + a huge GY consume (the only reason nobody bleeds this is because tall Woodlands has such an insane short round), AQ + Glusty with a properly executed setup, DD + Nivellen, Yrden against boost concepts, double Chorn/Garrison in specific cases, Eist with various options, the list goes on. Last say is too important because a lot of this stuff translates to an unanswered, single card play worth 20-30+ points. It could be argued an Emhyr + Shupe only yields Shupe value twice. This is true but ignores the impact created by swinging the board by so many points in one turn.

 

[StrykerxS77x]

Perhaps all leaders should be designed to be played in every round instead of one huge play?

 

[DRK3]

I was gonna create a topic complaining about the same as OP, but also got a few questions and statements about it.

First, what is really frustrating to me is when im facing these Leaders who have huge finishers like Woodland+Alghoul, Ada's Hugebert, Harald's Dagur, etc. It's obviously essential to win R1 against these, so you can have last say, but IMO, there should be a counter if you know what's coming even if you dont have last say.

So i've been looking for this strategy and found a few, although none is good enough:

- the best is probably 'Pit Trap' ambush card. You need to have more points by then or you're done. But it definitely works against that 23pt Alghoul you saw coming miles away. Unfortunately, its SC only, the faction i like the least, but for SC players its awesome.

- Kambi. This definitely isnt a great solution, since if you play it 2nd last turn WITHOUT last say, it'll discard only one of the two of your opponent, so you have 50% chance of discarding his finisher. And he'll probably still have his Leader ability.

- Golden Dragon. And here is my 1st question: does it trigger its ability if i play it as last card and the opponent has the last say? I dont think it does but i wanna make sure, and if it doesnt, it SHOULD. Before, it would trigger only after 3 turns but you could use it burn something even after you passed, but i guess now he sucks and that's why no one uses it anymore.

- Caldwell. This is one of the most confusing cards in the game easily, doing whatever the F he wants. I wanna know if i play it in the last turn WITH last say, will he change sides or just stay on my side even if opponent has bigger unit?

 

[4RM3D]

Golden Dragon

*Pulls a post from another thread through the inter-dimensional portal*

For people who find Villentretenmerth hard to remember/write, they probably never read 'The Bounds of Reason' short story [...]

Anyhow...

And here is my 1st question: does it trigger its ability if i play it as last card and the opponent has the last say?

No.

- Caldwell. [...] I wanna know if i play it in the last turn WITH last say, will he change sides or just stay on my side even if opponent has bigger unit?

He will switch sides.

 

[M3e0w]

Does BlackBlood work vs Ghoul?

Well even if it does... I feel like Gwent forces too much counters and discourages actually trying to synergize your deck as much as possible.

Btw, is it just me or do most Monster-faction units provide way more value than they should for their provision cost?

 

[Imm0rtaleflame]

Just count eg. Ghoul + Speartrip value and divide by 2
I don't remember Ghoul prov cost but lets say it's 7 and 2hp, Speartrip 15 and 13hp, then for 22 provision cost you get 13+15=27 value.
No synergy is prov.cost = value, so for such a synergy there you get +5 pts.
Nekker can do 18+ if he got boosted every round by thrive...

However Monster's power is something else, they can do really strong short rounds... Easiest way to beat them is to pull out more value through complex combo and synergy, which doesn't always work on short rounds.

 

[DRK3]

@4RM3D i knew when i was writing that it would give me trouble, and i guess im not surprised it was from you. But i have an explanation! I DO know how to write Villentretenmerth perfectly from memory, i chose not to use its name because i knew if i called it 'Golden Dragon' then everyone would know what i was talking about.

But thank you for the answers, though, testing them would bring lots of frustration you spared me of.

 

[C7Racehead]

Does BlackBlood work vs Ghoul?

Well even if it does... I feel like Gwent forces too much counters and discourages actually trying to synergize your deck as much as possible.

Btw, is it just me or do most Monster-faction units provide way more value than they should for their provision cost?

That's 1 of the identities of the faction: high power for low provisions; and I believe it's very fair as is. It has its drawbacks and its weak match ups.

If I'm playing my Eithne Elf Control deck with Schirru and Scorch (see SirPumpkin's recent vid for the list), I almost always win against Woodland or Eredin decks.

Last say is pretty important but not as much against Eredin. They'll usually play their unit and give it immune early in round 3 since the usual suspects are Imrelith or Slyzard. They need to get value throughout the round with those so it's an easy Scorch target without needing last say. If you can line up another target or 2 with Eithne alongside their immune unit then it's GG.

 

[Alexander_Volgin]

I dont know but as a big-woodland player myself, I have had improved my win-con by passing after 3 rounds, if going first against SK/NR/NG, ST on the other hand, better safe than sorry, some of the buggers run traps. I also run unicorns and crones, ensuring sufficient removal, thus saving my best cards for last. Ty Whispess for this important lesson, you sexy o'l hag.

 

[Restlessdingo32]

First, what is really frustrating to me is when im facing these Leaders who have huge finishers like Woodland+Alghoul, Ada's Hugebert, Harald's Dagur, etc. It's obviously essential to win R1 against these, so you can have last say, but IMO, there should be a counter if you know what's coming even if you dont have last say.

It's not actually 100% essential to take R1 vs these decks to beat them. It's just incredibly hard to do it without doing so. I've had games where I found a way to find or deny just enough points to win against an unanswered Adda + Bert, Harald + Dagur, Woodlands + Ozzrel, Eredin + Mourntart, etc. The Adda builds are probably easier to handle in this regard since they can only get points to Hubert if they take them off your board. So sometimes your best play there is to toss cards away.

It should be noted all of these decks relying on huge swings on the final card are weak in other areas as well. Harald can get 2-0'd if you pull a big unit kill, take R1 and bleed until Dagur comes out. So can Adda. Or, at the very least, lose it's win con. Same deal with Eredin. It doesn't really work vs Emhyr Shupe or Woodlands because they can either facemelt or point-slam against your bleed and force a CA deficit. Certain builds are bad at bleeding as well.

One of the harder aspects of HC, IMO, is knowing when to play valuable resources and when not to do so. I'm finding it's often better to conserve resources R1 on blue or when you get a poor draw, even against some of these decks. Go into bait mode to try and force out valuable cards, full well knowing you have no intention of taking R1. Save those points for later. In the right situation they may be enough to turn a bad starting situation into a win.

That's 1 of the identities of the faction: high power for low provisions; and I believe it's very fair as is. It has its drawbacks and its weak match ups.

Forgive me but high power for low cost shouldn't be a faction identity. The entire point of most high usage cards is they are reliable value relative to the cost, have the ability to exceed the cost or both. Anything unable to do one of these three is a flat out bad card.

Most of the high body MS cards have a provision deficit. The GY consumes, when used on them, return it at a profit. Likewise, Thrives reliably lead to excess value unless virtually every one of them hitting a board gets shit on. I don't think it's necessarily game breaking. If it were SK, NG and various aspects to ST and NR would be broken too. I do think thrive cards are a bit too plentiful and cost effective. There are probably too many high power body, no ability units as well.

 

[Guest 4339135]

Today I've played a few hours of gwent with the best decks (I'm rank 6 atm).
80% of the games were decided by having last say, I would've won 50% more games if I had last say.
Your hand in R1 and the mulligan update play a big part in this, unfortunatly.
If you start with a bad hand and can't win R1 it's basically game over.
All the decks I've played against thinned very well (witchers/roach/tutors).
With the extra mulligans the chance to get exactly the cards you want voor R3 feels unhealthy gameplay wise.
Before the update you had to manage your mulligans and you didn't always get what you want.
That alone made matches more interesting and tactical as they are right now.

You are wondering about this? This is Gwent, nothing here does really work. This is only one of the big issues in this game. A bad draw in Round 1 and the game is over. Ok, both players have this problem. But what if you're constantly draw bad like me? It's easy: you don't have any chance to win. I'm at Rank 3 and the only thing that stopped me to go to Rank 0 is this fact. I'm playing several games every day, so much hours that I invest to climb and then you lose three games in a row by drawing only your shit. And your opponent gets every combination he needs, this is so disgusting...

 

[C7Racehead]

You are wondering about this? This is Gwent, nothing here does really work. This is only one of the big issues in this game. A bad draw in Round 1 and the game is over. Ok, both players have this problem. But what if you're constantly draw bad like me? It's easy: you don't have any chance to win. I'm at Rank 3 and the only thing that stopped me to go to Rank 0 is this fact. I'm playing several games every day, so much hours that I invest to climb and then you lose three games in a row by drawing only your shit. And your opponent gets every combination he needs, this is so disgusting...

The game is not out to get you; there is no bias in RNG Use your mulligans appropriately and accept the fact that you're not going to win all the time.

So if the game is "so disgusting" maybe you should step back from it and focus your attention on something else since you're clearly way too phased by it.

 

[4RM3D]

Deleted a few posts for making things too personal, worsened by the fact that they had little discussion value.

 

[M3e0w]

^Worsened? (Not correcting you, it's really a question xD)


Also if you find last say soo detrimental, maybe build a deck geared for winning round 1. fill your deck wjth cards like royal decree and such. #Shrugg

 

[nedders]

Amusingly, to get up the rankings the opposite of this thread topic has to be applied.

 

[InkognitoXI]

Last say has always been with Gwent, just as the concept of tempoing to force someone down a card is one of the cornerstones of the games design, you have to deal with these things in a strategic way, homecoming is actually far more forgiving in these areas than the previous gwent in which you would get gutted for going down 1 card without taking over round 1, even if it was during the first turn of the game.
These ideas are the conditions you have to work around and the reason Gwent is not an autoplay game, if you could just slam down your cards the same way each time, without reacting to your opponent's plays (outside of straight up control) and the conditions (point-wise and engine-wise) they place on the round, the game would be non strategic and plain awful.

So to sum it up, I completely disagree with the assumption you are making, though if you are serious, be happy these things are less punishing in homecoming than before and the game already got plenty of criticism for making this less punishing.

 

[williamr1024]

Big finishers like ghouls that eat those massive cards can easily be countered with blue dream. Plus blue dream counters other decks that pull cards from the graveyard (e.g. warriors). Decks that rely on deathwish can be super easily countered, kill the deathwish unit right away and take the one time hit, you leave them with no target for their other cards that trigger deathwish, eat them, etc. Save your uckles (sp?) and serrit cards to the end, he locks every instance of a unit if you have both, this is devastating on a lot of decks. Keep Geralt in your deck that destroys units of 8 or more power, huge swing there, etc.

A lot of these tactics work on multiple decks that have final round finishers, you just have to save your cards to the last round that help.

 

[nedders]

Big finishers like ghouls that eat those massive cards can easily be countered with blue dream. Plus blue dream counters other decks that pull cards from the graveyard (e.g. warriors). Decks that rely on deathwish can be super easily countered, kill the deathwish unit right away and take the one time hit, you leave them with no target for their other cards that trigger deathwish, eat them, etc. Save your uckles (sp?) and serrit cards to the end, he locks every instance of a unit if you have both, this is devastating on a lot of decks. Keep Geralt in your deck that destroys units of 8 or more power, huge swing there, etc.

A lot of these tactics work on multiple decks that have final round finishers, you just have to save your cards to the last round that help.

I still think Big Monster needs some work and thought. Caldwell, for example, should be nothing to do with it as it's a cheap way of getting another 10 points on the board, more with the Witch/Ghoul/Oz. Blue dream nerfs one of these, but we can't all put scorch into a hand as its' too costly and Hunt is useless on the consumes.

For a game all about counters, the Monster deck sure benefits from a lack of them.