HC Usurper change suggestion

+
Do NOT change Usurper, i repeat DO NOT change Usurper.

Usurper's like a wake up call to those who build decks that rely so much on leader ability. NG deserve Usurper.
This is a new level of control, the ULTIMATE one.

P/s: tier 1 decks are the one that need to nerf, not a meme deck like Usurper.
There are already tierlists after 5 days of PTR? I only tried 3 selfmade decks so far and never engaged an Deck-type second time...
 
Last edited:
Do NOT change Usurper, i repeat DO NOT change Usurper.

Usurper's like a wake up call to those who build decks that rely so much on leader ability. NG deserve Usurper.
This is a new level of control, the ULTIMATE one.

P/s: tier 1 decks are the one that need to nerf, not a meme deck like Usurper.
Ursurper isn't meme.
In the passive form, the only advantage a player can have is...
the mulligan,
and the faction itself, should it be more powerful than NG.
A more powerful faction is in itself bad balance.
The mulligan means that you can't use 1-mulligan leaders - like Arachas - without giving in the ONLY advantage you have.
And not planning for synergy is losing against virtually all decks that do(except Ursuper). That's like playing Rock, paper, scissors,
except that the paper is only avaliable in Nilfgaard (which gets a problem if you have to play something else than NG 3/4 of the time(Pro ladder))
 
Yes but NG is supposed to be the control faction. There has to be a way you can control the enemy leader, even if it's not this way, and even if it's not absolute. Otherwise your opponent can just exploit the synergy and there's nothing at all you can do about it.

That's true, people should be able to control the enemy leader, but they shouldn't be able to do it by simply adding Usurper to their deck, there should be more gameplay. A good change would be limiting Usurper to disabling the leader for a number of turns or rounds. My suggestion would be to change him to:

Usurper:
Mulligan: 4
Order: Deactivate the enemy leader until the start of your next turn. Damage the highest enemy by 2.
Charges: 5

This would give Nilfgaard a high mulligan count leader with the flavor of overthrowing the empire and staging a coup d'etat. He shuts down their leaders, and damages the nobles (highest units).
By changing this he would become something which both players have to play around. You gain control over the turns and rounds that you need. You prevent your opponent from using their leader to set up their combo at the start of round 3 if they're playing something like Eredin. Also, even if you don't play against a deck which relies on its leader it isn't a binary case of: oh, well I guess my 1 mulligan leader doesn't do anything. Instead of this you can use the flexibility of the card as a control tool, giving you a tempo advantage if you need it against leaders like Eithne, or letting you get high power engine cards like Avallac'h low enough to the point where you can remove them with your other cards.


Secondly, everyone says Usurper should be changed. I don't see anyone suggesting Morvran, Emhyr OR calveit changed. Why is that? oh so you are only going to change what annoys you? The rest are fine being the weakest leaders in the game then, is that it?

That is because people haven't tested them out. Most people aren't Nilfgaard mains, so they didn't spend much time testing out the leaders that didn't look op. I can give a few suggestions for how I'd buff them though. (Also I think you've mixed up Moorvran and Calveit, he has Calveit's old effect of looking at the top 3 cards and playing one which lets you to play two cards in the same turn).

Emhyr var Emreis: Same effect, +1 Mulligan, Can be used once per round instead of once per game.
(It is important for Emhyr to have multiple uses in my opinion, because otherwise he will always be overshadowed by Moorvran and Calveit due to them having more powerful once per game effects, particularly Moorvran)

Moorvran: Same effect
(I think you're underrating this leader. He's felt pretty solid but has been overshadowed by Usurper recently)

Jan Calveit: Now boosts the unit he returns to your hand by 5.
(Gives this leader more flexibility and power, retriggering a deploy effect is versatile but probably will need a small push to be viable)


It comes down to this:


> NG is currently the only faction that lacks any sort of synergistic leader with any archetype.
> Why is that? Because it is designed as a control faction, countering what the opponent does and plays (confirmed by Burza in the Ask a Dev Thread)
>As long as this is the design line that the game devs take, NG will always focus on controlling the enemy, than building its own value. And as long as that's a priority, it will keep lacking synergistic leaders. Which really only leaves it with the Usurper as the only viable choice.

A counter to leaders is necessary but not in the way in which Usurper currently provides it. In its current iteration it is unhealthy for the game, it auto wins some matchups, removes interactions from the game, and simply feels awful to play against. Additionally even though it is control based that does not mean that it doesn't contain any archetypes.

Changing the usurper as such, will require a radical change in the direction Homecoming is taking, in that the change will need to give NG at least one, if not more, proactive archetypes, and leaders that can synergize with those at least as well as Bran, Arachas Queen, Foltest and the like can do with the archetypes and cards they support.

The main problem is actually the leaders and not the archetypes. Even though I think you can actually make most of the archetypes work using Moorvran.

Also you're probably looking at Nilfgaard archetypes in the wrong way, since it looks like with them more so than any other faction you are going to need to combine the best of two archetypes.

Heavy lock control is a small package which can probably be included in most Nilfgaard decks. It's a powerhouse which is going to make most if not all of their archetypes stronger. The 3 point, 5 provision lock is awesome (especially since most good faction / neutral locks cost 8 provisions or more) and Petri's combined with the Vattier (Order: Seize a locked enemy) is going to enable some op swing turns.

The boost enemy units thing when combined with spies could actually be good, the main problem with it is that it needs Emhyr and other reset cards to be strong which they aren't at the moment. But after Emhyr gets buffed it will constant high power plays and end the round by nuking the strongest enemy unit from orbit. Also this deck has some great synergy with the lock package, because you can boost any unit that you lock and either destroy it with Vanhemar or steal it with Vattier.

The soldiers archetype looks good. As soon as your Slave Infantry hits you're in a really good position. The bronze which does more damage for every adjacent soldier becomes a strong card. Also a lot of soldiers have low base power, so retriggering Slave Infantry's deploy effect becomes really good. The boost all copies of a soldiers by 2 card to make that deck work (and probably also Golden Froth). I actually think this deck could be good enough to see play without any changes since Moorvran can make a solid leader for it, but if Calveit gets buffed then that gives even more options to test this deck out with.

Reveal is a bit weird at the moment. It has some crazy soldier cards (Daelran foot soldier), but doesn't look like a full deck. Mogwai managed to make a spell based control reveal deck work though, and a soldier deck which runs recruits, Daelran and Sweers would be really good, since you can use the soldier which retriggers deploy effects to try to summon another Daelran.

Nilfgaard does seem to have non-control archetypes, it just seems likely that they'll be combined with control elements to make them more powerful. Honestly, if these archetypes need anything its the small buffs to Emhyr and Calveit which I proposed earlier.


Except there is really simply no alternative here mate. Say I want to take literally ANY other leader and make a Nilfgaard deck. What are my options:

Emhyr (worst leader in the game in its current iteration)
Morvran (ok, but still sucks compared to literally everyone else, like Eredin, Bran, Harald, Eithne, Foltest, Henselt, etc)
Calveit (the only decent option, still well below the likes of the aforementioned leaders)

Emhyr: Yes he's weak but with a slight buff he can be used as tech or to promote the enemy boosting archetype, which has potential.

Moorvran: Are you sure you aren't mixing him and Calveit up? Moorvran is good.

Calveit: Yeah he also needs a buff. He is flexible, but needs a bit more power. If he gets buffed though he would make that soldier deck, and possibly the reveal deck, look a lot better.


Even if you change the Usurper, I believe this game needs some way to control the value leaders are getting. And additionally, as mentioned above, NG will not only require at least one, if not more leaders supporting their archetypes, (which right now, are a joke and playing "pointslam" with NG is infinitely more successful and forgetting synergies), but also an expansion OF said archetypes.

In order to change the Usurper into something "healthy" for the game as most people here put it, the entire faction will require a radical shift in direction. And if the devs are reading the feedback, I really hope they know it before they go through with such a change.

Even after being changed Usurper would still be a tool to control leaders, he just wouldn't be as binary. Also rather than having cards which eliminate leaders entirely we should have ones which limit the value they can obtain.
A neutral bronze card which deactivates the enemy leader for a turn would be a fun tech option for example.

Also Nilfgaard's identity isn't created by Usurper, the control element will always be present because of their incredibly powerful, easy to include lock package and because most archetypes have a big removal card. Reveal has sweers, enemy boost has synergy with lock and might eventually be good with Emhyr, giving you powerful resets against some decks. Soldiers have a lot of 2-4 damage cards which give you a small amount of control, and much more of it when you retrigger their deploy effects.
Even without Usurper, Nilfgaard has plenty of control elements which will help it function in the way it was intended to, and most people don't want to remove Usurper but want more counterplay to him. If things go well Nilfgaard will keep their leader counter, it'll just require players to think a bit more.
 
Last edited:
@PeteTheN00b

I actually like your suggestion for the Usurper. Though I would probably give it an extra charge and decrease the damage he does.

And yes, I am sure I am not mixing Morvran and Calveit up. I have tried both, and Calveit's ability to bounce golds back to your hand seemed better honestly. Sure, I still used Morvran for the reveal deck, but that's simply because that deck had nothing to bounce back. The most awesome combo to pull in the PTR is Menno -> Royal Decree -> whatever and re-activate that with Stefan Skellen to play any 2 units from your deck :p then bounce Menno back to your hand.

In all seriousness though, I'd say leader control can also be expanded upon through cards. There's cards like Fake Ciri which get boosted by 3 whenever a leader is used. The problem of course is the passive leaders like Arachas Queen (btw, this is ALSO a completely passive leader, so if Usurper is a problem for how passive he is, this one's a problem too)
 
You could of course, assuming that the leader doesn't get changed, aim to spread out your strategy and make a hybrid deck that doesn't rely that much on the leader, as part of minimizing your deck's weaknesses. So even if it doesn't get changed, I think it will just change what decks become successful.
 
If so, how do you deactivate the enemy leader on red coin ?!
You couldn't shut down their leader on turn one, but I'm not sure if that's a problem, off the top of my head I can't think of a leader that would want to trigger their effect on the first turn of the game except for Filavandrel, and Filavandrel feels really weak anyway.
Post automatically merged:

@PeteTheN00b

I actually like your suggestion for the Usurper. Though I would probably give it an extra charge and decrease the damage he does.

That sounds like a good idea. When I thought of the concept I was a bit worried that the damage might become his focus, so giving him an extra charge and bringing the damage down to 1 would be a lot more fitting.


And yes, I am sure I am not mixing Morvran and Calveit up. I have tried both, and Calveit's ability to bounce golds back to your hand seemed better honestly. Sure, I still used Morvran for the reveal deck, but that's simply because that deck had nothing to bounce back. The most awesome combo to pull in the PTR is Menno -> Royal Decree -> whatever and re-activate that with Stefan Skellen to play any 2 units from your deck :p then bounce Menno back to your hand.

Interesting, I didn't see many people try out Calveit so I wasn't sure about how good he was, but I guess combos like that could make him pretty strong. I still think Moorvran can be pretty good though. Being able to combo him with Albrich to play any card from your deck with +4, or in a soldier deck playing a slave infantry and pulling Vhrygeff to get infinite slave infantries :D is pretty funny and strong.


In all seriousness though, I'd say leader control can also be expanded upon through cards. There's cards like Fake Ciri which get boosted by 3 whenever a leader is used. The problem of course is the passive leaders like Arachas Queen (btw, this is ALSO a completely passive leader, so if Usurper is a problem for how passive he is, this one's a problem too)

I'll post some ideas for some leader disruption cards at the bottom of this post since I agree with you that we need a few cards that deal with them.

I'm actually not sure about what to think about Arachas Queen, she doesn't counter enemy decks and offers quite a bit of counter play since there are a lot of ways to prevent her from destroying her units. But passive leaders like her do feel weird. Though I think the problem with her is more so that we don't have good leader disruptive cards. Honestly, we don't need that many leader disruption cards, we just need a few playable ones.

Sidenote:
Fake Ciri should probably be buffed to 6 power 7 provision, boost self by 2 whenever the enemy leader is used.
On the ptr she felt awful because when you got her to trigger she was a 7 power for 7 prov. By buffing her she would be harder to remove and a more viable tech option since in the worst case she would be a 6 power for 7 prov, which is a similar statline to what we've seen for some tech options like the dude that banishes either graveyard.


I'll just post a few disruption ideas below here.

Bronze. Neutral. 5 Power. 6 Provision.
Deploy: Deactivate the enemy leader until the start of your turn.
(Just a neutral option to give every faction a small method of disrupting leaders. Most of the leader disruption should be in Nilfgaard but its important to give at least one option to the neutral pool.)

Bronze. Nilfgaard. 2 Power. 4 Provision. Spying.
Melee: Deactivate the enemy leader.
(This effect is only active while the card is on the board. The idea here is just to have a spy which benefits from staying on the opponent's side of the board. It works well with the enemy boosting archetype, can be used as a tech option and can provide synergy in spy decks. If this effect is too strong the provision cost could be increased. To prevent it from being oppressive it can be killed by 2 or more damage and can be countered by movement. Strays of Spalla OP)

Gold. Nilfgaard. 4 Power. 6 Provision.
Deploy.
Melee: Lock an enemy unit.
Ranged: Deactivate the enemy leader until the start of your turn.
(The idea behind this card is simply to give Nilfgaard a good versatile lock card which can act as disruption for the enemy board or leader.)
 
Last edited:
You couldn't shut down their leader on turn one, but I'm not sure if that's a problem, off the top of my head I can't think of a leader that would want to trigger their effect on the first turn of the game except for Filavandrel, and Filavandrel feels really weak anyway.

What about Bran Tuirseach discard something and draw card on turn 1, Eredin Bréacc Glas immunize Keltullis, and you gonna say that Usurper just deal 2 for 3 time to kill it right, or just epidemic or just scorch or whatever...

Usurper is the leader NG deserves, but not the one everybody like to face right now, so he has to be nerf. I get it.

The same way? The ability is onl blocked for one turn, if you are red, your opponent can use the ability in first round and any theri round you dont use your block-ability
Genius.
Your ability is to block their ability, and since they already used it on turn 1 so you don't need to block anymore. man, didn't think about that?!
 
Last edited:
What about Bran Tuirseach discard something and draw card on turn 1, Eredin Bréacc Glas immunize Keltullis, and you gonna say that Usurper just deal 2 for 3 time to kill it right, or just epidemic or just scorch or whatever...

Usurper is the leader NG deserves, but not the one everybody like to face right now, so he has to be nerf. I get it.
So you are afraid there are counters to the all-counter?
 
Last edited:

rrc

Forum veteran
Except there is really simply no alternative here mate. Say I want to take literally ANY other leader and make a Nilfgaard deck. What are my options:

Emhyr (worst leader in the game in its current iteration)
Morvran (ok, but still sucks compared to literally everyone else, like Eredin, Bran, Harald, Eithne, Foltest, Henselt, etc)
Calveit (the only decent option, still well below the likes of the aforementioned leaders)

Even if you change the Usurper, I believe this game needs some way to control the value leaders are getting. And additionally, as mentioned above, NG will not only require at least one, if not more leaders supporting their archetypes, (which right now, are a joke and playing "pointslam" with NG is infinitely more successful and forgetting synergies), but also an expansion OF said archetypes.

In order to change the Usurper into something "healthy" for the game as most people here put it, the entire faction will require a radical shift in direction. And if the devs are reading the feedback, I really hope they know it before they go through with such a change.
I agree that Emhyr's ability seemed the most pathetic ability in the entire game. I didn't face him even ONCE in the entire PTR! Morvan didn't seem bad (but Reveal as an archetype may be) as he can play 2 cards in one turn which is really good (like the old Calveit). I faced Morvan many times. Calveit, I didn't understand his ability or saw him played, but if you say he is decent, I will believe that he is decent. It is of course an interesting ability ser, to control enemy leader. In fact I had such ability in my mind even before seeing it, thinking that it would be a cool ability. But it should be from a gold card may be? A very costly in provision but a very low point value (1 or 2 point Gold card) which on deploy, cancels the enemy ability for the round or a 5 or 6 value Gold card which prevents enemy leader as long it is alive. Something like that. This could be a card only available for NG.

While I definitely want NG to be shown more love (actually there is no archetype apart from Revel, right? No spy, no Alchemy, no handbuff, nothing), I still think Usurper is bad in its current form. He may need some nerf (as I had posted in Feedback forum, He always goes first and has to destroy his Tactical Advantage to activate his ability and gets only 1 mulligan charge.. something like that). While it is true that playing a certain Leader shouldn't auto win a game (like Bran, Henselt or AQ) likewise just using a leader shouldn't auto-win a game against certain match-up even before the game starts. If a Leader's ability is too damn broken, it should be fixed, just like Usurper. We shouldn't fix broken cards with more broken cards :p:p:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:. That is my HO.

[BTW, what does Emhry do? Did anyone test him? Does he Reset and lock the unit? Or just reset an Unit's Power? I didn't understand Mandarake's ability too. It said Reset an unit and kind of hinted that it also removes all charges and cancels all abilities? If it is such, may be it is good if Emhyr gets three charges, once per round or twice for the entire game.]
 
What about Bran Tuirseach discard something and draw card on turn 1, Eredin Bréacc Glas immunize Keltullis, and you gonna say that Usurper just deal 2 for 3 time to kill it right, or just epidemic or just scorch or whatever...

Usurper is the leader NG deserves, but not the one everybody like to face right now, so he has to be nerf. I get it.

Against Bran that is a problem I guess, and I suppose some Eredin decks might abuse that, even though I think you're in a good position if Eredin uses his ability round 1 (By the way I can't remember which card Keltullis was could you remind me of its effect).
Maybe it would be good if Usurper automatically deactivates the enemy leader's ability for the first turn of the game to prevent that from becoming a problem, because you did bring up good points.
Also, I'm not going to use the damage that Usurper can deal as a justification for stuff like that, the reason why I added that was just so that he would have more flexibility if you played against a deck which didn't rely on its leader, and because he would be too underpowered otherwise.

Maybe this version would be better

Usurper:
Mulligan 4
Order: Deactivate the enemy leader until the start of your next turn. Damage the highest enemy by 1.
Charges: 6
Passive: The enemy leader is deactivated during their first turn.
 
Against Bran that is a problem I guess, and I suppose some Eredin decks might abuse that, even though I think you're in a good position if Eredin uses his ability round 1 (By the way I can't remember which card Keltullis was could you remind me of its effect).
Maybe it would be good if Usurper automatically deactivates the enemy leader's ability for the first turn of the game to prevent that from becoming a problem, because you did bring up good points.
Also, I'm not going to use the damage that Usurper can deal as a justification for stuff like that, the reason why I added that was just so that he would have more flexibility if you played against a deck which didn't rely on its leader, and because he would be too underpowered otherwise.

Maybe this version would be better

Usurper:
Mulligan 4
Order: Deactivate the enemy leader until the start of your next turn. Damage the highest enemy by 1.
Charges: 6
Passive: The enemy leader is deactivated during their first turn.

The one which destroys the lowest unit on the side with the most units each turn was Keltullis. That dragon :)

I think your suggestion for the Usurper is decent middle ground, to satisfy both groups. But really, the main problem still is that there's leaders you can use multiple times, there's one shot leaders, and there's leaders that are passive. Blocking 6 turns is good against Eithne, Bran, or Foltest probably, but it's not so good against Filavandrel, like pointed out. The one turn you won't be able to block (and if you pass at any point in R2, that's an opening), they can just use him. On the other hand, I guess that gives you an incentive to play longer rounds in that matchup, same as you would play out differently if you were playing against consume, or Alchemy right now

While I definitely want NG to be shown more love (actually there is no archetype apart from Revel, right? No spy, no Alchemy, no handbuff, nothing),

There is tactics, in a way, which combines well with Spies. But no full archetype no. I think Nilfgaard is distinctive in the fact you can't really make a full deck using only cards that support one archetype, even if you pick all of them.

And yeah, Emhyr, if his ability doesn't get reworked, really needs more charges and more mulligans. Honestly, I think he'd work better as an HC version of Margarita (lock and reset a unit, additionally supporting the lock archetype)
 
But really, the main problem still is that there's leaders you can use multiple times, there's one shot leaders, and there's leaders that are passive
I dont think thats a problem at all. I should/could counter one type are countered by another.
Blocking 6 turns is good against Eithne, Bran, or Foltest probably, but it's not so good against Filavandrel, like pointed out. The one turn you won't be able to block (and if you pass at any point in R2, that's an opening), they can just use him
The counter Ursuper states here is the delayed tempo, in the case of Filanvendrel, he cant handbuff and so dwarf could be get a problem and he has t play cards so, if handbuffing later he will et less points out of it. I think it is still a counter, but not a full-counter.
 
That's true, people should be able to control the enemy leader, but they shouldn't be able to do it by simply adding Usurper to their deck, there should be more gameplay. A good change would be limiting Usurper to disabling the leader for a number of turns or rounds. My suggestion would be to change him to:

Usurper:
Mulligan: 4
Order: Deactivate the enemy leader until the start of your next turn. Damage the highest enemy by 2.
Charges: 5

This would give Nilfgaard a high mulligan count leader with the flavor of overthrowing the empire and staging a coup d'etat. He shuts down their leaders, and damages the nobles (highest units).
By changing this he would become something which both players have to play around. You gain control over the turns and rounds that you need. You prevent your opponent from using their leader to set up their combo at the start of round 3 if they're playing something like Eredin. Also, even if you don't play against a deck which relies on its leader it isn't a binary case of: oh, well I guess my 1 mulligan leader doesn't do anything. Instead of this you can use the flexibility of the card as a control tool, giving you a tempo advantage if you need it against leaders like Eithne, or letting you get high power engine cards like Avallac'h low enough to the point where you can remove them with your other cards.




That is because people haven't tested them out. Most people aren't Nilfgaard mains, so they didn't spend much time testing out the leaders that didn't look op. I can give a few suggestions for how I'd buff them though. (Also I think you've mixed up Moorvran and Calveit, he has Calveit's old effect of looking at the top 3 cards and playing one which lets you to play two cards in the same turn).

Emhyr var Emreis: Same effect, +1 Mulligan, Can be used once per round instead of once per game.
(It is important for Emhyr to have multiple uses in my opinion, because otherwise he will always be overshadowed by Moorvran and Calveit due to them having more powerful once per game effects, particularly Moorvran)

Moorvran: Same effect
(I think you're underrating this leader. He's felt pretty solid but has been overshadowed by Usurper recently)

Jan Calveit: Now boosts the unit he returns to your hand by 5.
(Gives this leader more flexibility and power, retriggering a deploy effect is versatile but probably will need a small push to be viable)




A counter to leaders is necessary but not in the way in which Usurper currently provides it. In its current iteration it is unhealthy for the game, it auto wins some matchups, removes interactions from the game, and simply feels awful to play against. Additionally even though it is control based that does not mean that it doesn't contain any archetypes.



The main problem is actually the leaders and not the archetypes. Even though I think you can actually make most of the archetypes work using Moorvran.

Also you're probably looking at Nilfgaard archetypes in the wrong way, since it looks like with them more so than any other faction you are going to need to combine the best of two archetypes.

Heavy lock control is a small package which can probably be included in most Nilfgaard decks. It's a powerhouse which is going to make most if not all of their archetypes stronger. The 3 point, 5 provision lock is awesome (especially since most good faction / neutral locks cost 8 provisions or more) and Petri's combined with the Vattier (Order: Seize a locked enemy) is going to enable some op swing turns.

The boost enemy units thing when combined with spies could actually be good, the main problem with it is that it needs Emhyr and other reset cards to be strong which they aren't at the moment. But after Emhyr gets buffed it will constant high power plays and end the round by nuking the strongest enemy unit from orbit. Also this deck has some great synergy with the lock package, because you can boost any unit that you lock and either destroy it with Vanhemar or steal it with Vattier.

The soldiers archetype looks good. As soon as your Slave Infantry hits you're in a really good position. The bronze which does more damage for every adjacent soldier becomes a strong card. Also a lot of soldiers have low base power, so retriggering Slave Infantry's deploy effect becomes really good. The boost all copies of a soldiers by 2 card to make that deck work (and probably also Golden Froth). I actually think this deck could be good enough to see play without any changes since Moorvran can make a solid leader for it, but if Calveit gets buffed then that gives even more options to test this deck out with.

Reveal is a bit weird at the moment. It has some crazy soldier cards (Daelran foot soldier), but doesn't look like a full deck. Mogwai managed to make a spell based control reveal deck work though, and a soldier deck which runs recruits, Daelran and Sweers would be really good, since you can use the soldier which retriggers deploy effects to try to summon another Daelran.

Nilfgaard does seem to have non-control archetypes, it just seems likely that they'll be combined with control elements to make them more powerful. Honestly, if these archetypes need anything its the small buffs to Emhyr and Calveit which I proposed earlier.




Emhyr: Yes he's weak but with a slight buff he can be used as tech or to promote the enemy boosting archetype, which has potential.

Moorvran: Are you sure you aren't mixing him and Calveit up? Moorvran is good.

Calveit: Yeah he also needs a buff. He is flexible, but needs a bit more power. If he gets buffed though he would make that soldier deck, and possibly the reveal deck, look a lot better.




Even after being changed Usurper would still be a tool to control leaders, he just wouldn't be as binary. Also rather than having cards which eliminate leaders entirely we should have ones which limit the value they can obtain.
A neutral bronze card which deactivates the enemy leader for a turn would be a fun tech option for example.

Also Nilfgaard's identity isn't created by Usurper, the control element will always be present because of their incredibly powerful, easy to include lock package and because most archetypes have a big removal card. Reveal has sweers, enemy boost has synergy with lock and might eventually be good with Emhyr, giving you powerful resets against some decks. Soldiers have a lot of 2-4 damage cards which give you a small amount of control, and much more of it when you retrigger their deploy effects.
Even without Usurper, Nilfgaard has plenty of control elements which will help it function in the way it was intended to, and most people don't want to remove Usurper but want more counterplay to him. If things go well Nilfgaard will keep their leader counter, it'll just require players to think a bit more.
I agree with everything you said! I like your idea for usurper change, hopefully cdpr sees it or is thinking like you :D
Post automatically merged:

The one which destroys the lowest unit on the side with the most units each turn was Keltullis. That dragon :)

I think your suggestion for the Usurper is decent middle ground, to satisfy both groups. But really, the main problem still is that there's leaders you can use multiple times, there's one shot leaders, and there's leaders that are passive. Blocking 6 turns is good against Eithne, Bran, or Foltest probably, but it's not so good against Filavandrel, like pointed out. The one turn you won't be able to block (and if you pass at any point in R2, that's an opening), they can just use him. On the other hand, I guess that gives you an incentive to play longer rounds in that matchup, same as you would play out differently if you were playing against consume, or Alchemy right now



There is tactics, in a way, which combines well with Spies. But no full archetype no. I think Nilfgaard is distinctive in the fact you can't really make a full deck using only cards that support one archetype, even if you pick all of them.

And yeah, Emhyr, if his ability doesn't get reworked, really needs more charges and more mulligans. Honestly, I think he'd work better as an HC version of Margarita (lock and reset a unit, additionally supporting the lock archetype)

That is a great idea for emhyr. The locking archetype was quite interesting. Perhaps even add the ability to unlock to him, as there are not many ways to unlock units. I suspect the leaders will receive a lot of tweaks. They said they we're all wip, and the community provided a lot of feedback just by showing which leaders we're played most.
 
Usurper:
Mulligan: 4
Order: Deactivate the enemy leader until the start of your next turn. Damage the highest enemy by 2.
Charges: 5
This is too strong a leader. I propose to give the Usurper an elf's Close beta ability, only trimmed. The usurper chooses who will go first in round 1. At the same time, he can block the leader’s ability for 1 round. Thus, if the opponent’s ability is one-time, like Philavandrel, you can block it in round 1 and easily win it without spending gold cards. Having a tactical advantage, the Usurper can play the second round from a position of strength.. And if the leader’s ability is very valuable, as for example from the Arachas Queen, then you can block her in 2-3 round in order to easily take him. You can also give not 1 mulligan to the usurper, but 2 or 3, to compensate for the ability.
 
This is too strong a leader.
The mulligans and charges are open to debate, but when you consider the effects of most of the leaders, Usurper doesn't look too strong to me. Most leaders have high value, even when compared to high provision cost cards like Dandelion: Poet. Moorvran, Fransesca and Adda are good examples of this. Moorvran gives you the ability to play 2 cards in one turn, and makes your deck significantly more consistent since you will see 3 more cards that are in your deck than you were meant to. Fransesca is a more versatile version of any spell you have played this game, and can be triggered in the same turn in which you play another card, allowing you to replay a card like scorch on the same turn on which you've played an archer to align to units. Adda is insane removal which lets you shutdown every non-immune engine in the game, and even in the worst case scenario will be an 8 point play.
My suggestion for Usurper on the other hand is a leader who can only decrease the value which the enemy leader provides, since he can only lock them out of turns and can't lock them out of the game. Which though healthier makes that effect weaker than that of every leader in the game, which gives the need to provide him with a high mulligan count and the ability to deal damage to compensate for the lost value.
Also the important thing about a leader like this is that he can easily be balanced (since you can tweak the mulligan, charge count and damage dealt) which was my main reason for proposing this rework. Also that version isn't the final one I suggested. The final one is:

Usurper
Mulligan: 4
Order: Deactivate the enemy leader until the start of your turn. Damage the highest enemy by 1.
Charges: 6
Passive: The enemy leader is deactivated on their first turn.

And yet, it is possible that the number of charges would have to be decreased, but I believe that this is the right direction to move Usurper towards.

I propose to give the Usurper an elf's Close beta ability, only trimmed. The usurper chooses who will go first in round 1.
Giving any leader control over the coin toss has too many bad design implications. Firstly, it exacerbates any problems with the imbalance of the coin toss, which on its own has always been a problem in Gwent. Other problems are how do you make this ability work in a mirror match? How does manipulating the coin toss suit the flavor of the leader?
Additionally certain archetypes have historically abused the coin toss to a ludicrous degree. We've seen hard control decks (like Spell'a'tael and Control Radovid) which were only balanced because they couldn't go second 100% of the time. Giving a leader the ability to manipulate this just feels to dangerous, and is probably one of the major reasons why we haven't seen that mechanic return to Gwent.
Furthermore if Usurper turns out to be overpowered or undepowered does this help with balancing that? Being able to change the mulligan count of a leader like this isn't enough to balance it. It only works for other leaders because their effects tend to naturally be attached to an effect which boosts or deals damage allowing them to balance the leader more easily.


At the same time, he can block the leader’s ability for 1 round. Thus, if the opponent’s ability is one-time, like Philavandrel, you can block it in round 1 and easily win it without spending gold cards. Having a tactical advantage, the Usurper can play the second round from a position of strength.. And if the leader’s ability is very valuable, as for example from the Arachas Queen, then you can block her in 2-3 round in order to easily take him. You can also give not 1 mulligan to the usurper, but 2 or 3, to compensate for the ability.
One of the reasons I wanted to suggest giving Usurper the ability to lock the enemy leader out of turns rather than rounds is because locking players out of rounds creates several problems for both the person playing against Usurper as well as the one playing as him.
Firstly he would either be incredibly overpowered, or ludicrously unplayable, and there would be no middle ground to this. If you play against a leader like Harald or Eredin who rely on a powerful one round strategy you're happy because you can simply lock the enemy out of their leader at the start of round 3 if you lost the first round, and if you won the first round you can 2-0 your opponent instead to make sure that they can't use their leader before you shut them down. Additionally Usurper would become even more binary than he already is, because against some leaders like Eithne or Unseen Elder he would simply feel useless. Their leader ability isn't powerful in one round alone, which is why its important to give Usurper control over the turns where he deactivates the enemy leader rather than the rounds, since even though its fine to have a leader that's stronger in some matchups than other ones, the difference in Usurper's value depending on the leader he faces would be too high.
Additionally the only way your suggestion tries to compensate for the value Usurper would lose is through control over the coin toss, for which I explained above why there are too many problems for it to be implemented into the game.
Also even though Usurper would be interesting to play with at the start, eventually you would memorize the exact way to play out your leader ability in every game which would lead to boring monotonous matches, as most decks only care about making power plays in one round (usually round 3), which would lead to you mostly saving Usurper for the start of round 3, which isn't much better than him passively disabling the enemy leader in the first place.

Overall Usurper needs to have flexibility, which is why I think that giving him light damage and control over specific turns rather than rounds is important. Particularly since if the enemy is someone who doesn't care as much about their leader in their strongest round, then Usurper needs to have something versatile like the ability to deal damage so that he doesn't feel as binary.
He needs to be more interactive, and healthier for the game. With control over turns the person playing Usurper has to constantly consider on which turns to lock out the enemy leader, and whether or not it is worth sacrificing his leader ability for removal if the situations is dire enough, and the person playing against him has to consider when they have the best opportunity to trigger their leader based on the remaining charges Usurper has access to.
The coin toss is a highly uninteractive part of the game, which is only balanced due to its randomness. People always complain about "losing" the coin toss when they get the less favored side, and it would feel awful for a player to think that they always lose the coin toss. Additionally locking a player out of a round makes the only decision that the opponent faces: "Is this my last opportunity to get value out of my leader ability or not?", which is better than the current version of Usurper, but not by much. This also means that your opponent will usually always play their leader the turn before round 3 starts, which will make Usurper feel awful since he will only trigger against inexperienced players, and against experienced players will basically be equivalent to "Passive: The enemy leader is deactivated during round 3".
Another important thing is that people always mention that leaders and cards need more knobs to tweak. By which they mean that they need more components of a leader that they can manipulate to balance it. One of the appeals of my suggestion is that if he feels too oppressive you can decrease the number of turns that he can lock out the enemy leader for, and if need be increase the damage to compensate for that. If he doesn't feel oppressive but too consistent you can decrease the number of mulligans he has access to. The problem with your version is that you can only adjust the mulligan count. If you raise the number of rounds he can lock a player out of, then you may as well not change him in the first place since people would just dry pass 1 round and lock the player out of the other 2. And the control over the coin toss he provides cannot be balanced.

Overall I think that you're version is better than the current one we're facing, but still has too many problems. I don't think that my version is perfect by any means, and it might even be overtuned at the moment, but the important thing is that it can easily be balanced, and that it would feel better to play with and against than the version that we currently have.
Sorry if this post sounded more aggressive than my usual ones, its simply the case that your suggestion touched on a lot of topics in Gwent which I find to be problematic to deal with.
 
I just love threads about nerfing the broken stuff, reminds me of old ST times)
Just out of curiosity: Every faction and every deck has to adapt to different enemy leaders. Wanna deal with Eithne? get your boosts. Stack a scorch for Eredin. Get your AOE for arachas, get graveyard interactions for Bran, get resets for Harold, so on, so forth. Is there a particular reason why NG must have an on-demand solution in a form of a leader, moreover, an ultimative solution?
 
I just love threads about nerfing the broken stuff, reminds me of old ST times)
Just out of curiosity: Every faction and every deck has to adapt to different enemy leaders. Wanna deal with Eithne? get your boosts. Stack a scorch for Eredin. Get your AOE for arachas, get graveyard interactions for Bran, get resets for Harold, so on, so forth. Is there a particular reason why NG must have an on-demand solution in a form of a leader, moreover, an ultimative solution?
To be fair you can't include every tech card in the game into the same deck, which is why leader disruption is important to some extent. Even so I'm not sure as to why Usurper was reworked to his current version though. Currently he isn't skilltesting and shuts down all leader interactions between you and your opponent upon simply being added to your deck.

Leader disruption when done properly, however would provide interesting gameplay which forces both players to consider the optimal timing for the enemy leader.

That's one of the main reasons why we're suggesting these changes to Usurper. I don't think there's a problem with having more leader interaction, and being able to limit or control the value the enemy leader gets, as long as its done through skillful gameplay, and by making important decisions rather than auto-including a card into your deck.

If Usurper shut down the enemy leader for singular turns rather than entire rounds or for the entire game as he currently does, then you'd have a versatile leader which rewards knowledge of the enemy's strategy, without removing the enemy's ability to use their leader. The opponent would simply have to consider how they can set up for the turn when they get access to their leader, and whether or not they should use their leader inefficiently in the case that they can't get a better turn with them (which happens with a lot of leaders like Adda and Eithne already).
 
Top Bottom