Heimdal needs to receive a slight nerf

+

rrc

Forum veteran
I hate this card. Such a huge point slam for such a cheap price. If Heimdal is in any other faction for the same price, it will always be added by default. It is kind of an auto-include card. There is no way you can avoid a long round with SK (be it R1 or R3) and Heimdall always plays for so much points. This is disregarding all the potential synergies he has with the whole faction.

He should be 13P and 7 points and should lose Warrior tag (come on.. he is a Demi God.. he is not just a human warrior - but I don't want to dwell into lore thingy). In his current state there is no reason not to include him as he always provides much much more value than his provisions which should be hard to get for high provision units.
 
I think heimdall is okay. with the amount of armor and shields in the meta he doesnt always get amazing value for a 12 provision card, even though he always has his 8 point body. I think it has about the same power level as great oak which honestly even feels a bit overpriced to me. I dont think he should lose his warrior tag, if nerfed at all he should have his body nerfed to 7 I think. he is a max 17 for 12 btw, I dont consider that OP, since it doesnt happen very often. from my experience he is usually 12-14 points, which is fine.
another card that is akin to heimdall is falibor who also plays for very strong tempo and I didnt hear anyone call for a nerf. maybe heimdall could be 6 with veteran^^
 
I personally do not consider Hemdall to be strong. If you play against a warrior intense SK deck you can counter by not making your rows to big and by shield/armour.

To be honest I consider to be Wild Boar of the Sea the much stronger finisher. Why?
- It´s 1 provision cheaper
- It´s 5 body less but due to no low limitation and double dmg for already damaged units one can expect at least 5 points more.
- One downside might be that it can be tutored by Blood Eagle and does not have extra warrior damage ping from Harald in round 3.

In the current meta (more SY Hamadryades and symbiosis ents, heavily boosted NR units, thirsty dames or aristocrats, Hyperthin NG, passiflora SY, Fallen Knight SY, MO consumers, MO vampires) there is usually always amazing food for Morvarg. Additionally, it can produce same extra value with Dagur.
He usually only stays hungry if you play against a SK deck without Dagur and if there is a defender stopping him (NR, SY, SK, SC, MO). So it´s a low risk high-reward card.

=> Both Morkvarg and Wild Boar of the Sea appear to be much more succesful. Therefore, my SK deck has to live without Hemdall.
 
I hate this card. Such a huge point slam for such a cheap price. If Heimdal is in any other faction for the same price, it will always be added by default. It is kind of an auto-include card. There is no way you can avoid a long round with SK (be it R1 or R3) and Heimdall always plays for so much points. This is disregarding all the potential synergies he has with the whole faction.

He should be 13P and 7 points and should lose Warrior tag (come on.. he is a Demi God.. he is not just a human warrior - but I don't want to dwell into lore thingy). In his current state there is no reason not to include him as he always provides much much more value than his provisions which should be hard to get for high provision units.
I agree. I do think it depends on the meta though. At the moment wide play is unavoidable not just because of NR's effect on the game but because of Master Mirror as a whole. There's a heavy focus on engines and tokens which means he is now more valuable than ever
 
Last edited:
  • RED Point
Reactions: rrc

rrc

Forum veteran
There is no way on earth you can avoid having at least 4 units in a row.. be it R1 or in R3. So, he easily, at minimum plays for 12 with added synergies as extra. Without having to do any setup. It will naturally happen that he will play for 14 or even 16 points with extra synergies as bonus which is just brain dead. Just compare it with Oak (which was again nerfed in provision due to the stupid ****ing Mystic Echo) which needs to have 6 cards to break even in a row making yourself vulnerable for row punish at 13P.
 

DRK3

Forum veteran
There is no way on earth you can avoid having at least 4 units in a row.. be it R1 or in R3. So, he easily, at minimum plays for 12 with added synergies as extra. Without having to do any setup. It will naturally happen that he will play for 14 or even 16 points with extra synergies as bonus which is just brain dead. Just compare it with Oak (which was again nerfed in provision due to the stupid ****ing Mystic Echo) which needs to have 6 cards to break even in a row making yourself vulnerable for row punish at 13P.

I agree with the nerf to Hemdall, by comparing him with Oak.

Oak's body went from 8 to 7, when ST was the dominant faction, its only fair Hemdall's body also goes from 8 to 7 now that is SK on top (arguably tied with NR).
And also, Oak is 13prov, Hemdall is 12, but the presence of armor/shields can justify Hemdall's lower cost.

I think the reduction of the unit's body is better than a provision increase. Hemdall is meant to be powerful, but it shouldnt feel right when you play him on a row with just 2-3 units, that should feel like a waste.
 
I agree with the nerf to Hemdall, by comparing him with Oak.

Oak's body went from 8 to 7, when ST was the dominant faction, its only fair Hemdall's body also goes from 8 to 7 now that is SK on top (arguably tied with NR).
And also, Oak is 13prov, Hemdall is 12, but the presence of armor/shields can justify Hemdall's lower cost.

I think the reduction of the unit's body is better than a provision increase. Hemdall is meant to be powerful, but it shouldnt feel right when you play him on a row with just 2-3 units, that should feel like a waste.
I don't mean to derail another thread, so let's keep this brief.
What if we stop asking for nerfing this and that and start asking for buffs instead? Wave after wave of nerfs coupled with introduction of new cooler stuff only leads to meta-death of yet more cards, and there's a dedicated thread listing over 100 of those.

P.S. Heimdall isn't even good. Under ideal circumstances (Dagur+stacked armorless enemy row), we would get 30 points for 22 provision. That's pretty bad, actually. I get it, Skellige is strong in general right now, but Warriors isn't exactly an unhealthy deck, so nerfing it into irrelevance would be a pity. Buff the rest of the decks, let us fight broken with broken.
 
Yes, he definitely needs a nerf. So many SK cards need a nerf.

Otherwise, you might as well change the name from Gwent to Battle of Skellige.
 

DRK3

Forum veteran
I don't mean to derail another thread, so let's keep this brief.
What if we stop asking for nerfing this and that and start asking for buffs instead? Wave after wave of nerfs coupled with introduction of new cooler stuff only leads to meta-death of yet more cards, and there's a dedicated thread listing over 100 of those.

P.S. Heimdall isn't even good. Under ideal circumstances (Dagur+stacked armorless enemy row), we would get 30 points for 22 provision. That's pretty bad, actually. I get it, Skellige is strong in general right now, but Warriors isn't exactly an unhealthy deck, so nerfing it into irrelevance would be a pity. Buff the rest of the decks, let us fight broken with broken.

If we stop asking for nerfs and ask for buffs instead, you are asking the devs to work on 90% of the current cardpool instead of 10% (of which not even that they're able to handle...)

Hemdall is definitely really good, he's on every SK damage list, there's others that have been cut sometimes like Wild Boar of the Sea or Morkvarg HoT, but not Hemdall. Its Dagur that isnt even that good anymore and most lists have cut him and opted for less greedy versions, that happen to win more.
 
I find incredible these amount of posts asking for more nerfs to SK. This season I used a Nature deck to get to pro (from rank 3 to 0) and as I remember I won all the matches against them. While playing against them, on the contrary of what you're saying, I thought they went too far with the nerfs. I hope developers just do what they have to do which is just trust the statistics at the end of season, I dont think they're so good anymore. I am not playing SK, this opinion is based only after playing this season against them (people still playing sk probably because of the power the faction had before the thousands of nerfs)
 

Guest 4368268

Guest
I think a slight nerf to his base power would be fair considering the immense versatility he offers atm.
He's a card that's crazy good in a long round not just for the body + deploy but also considering the synergies with the other SK cards and removal value. His base power though also just makes him completely fine for the short round. I think it's one of those cards that's just missing a bit of fair drawback.
 
I agree with the nerf to Hemdall, by comparing him with Oak.

Oak's body went from 8 to 7, when ST was the dominant faction, its only fair Hemdall's body also goes from 8 to 7 now that is SK on top (arguably tied with NR).
And also, Oak is 13prov, Hemdall is 12, but the presence of armor/shields can justify Hemdall's lower cost.

I think the reduction of the unit's body is better than a provision increase. Hemdall is meant to be powerful, but it shouldnt feel right when you play him on a row with just 2-3 units, that should feel like a waste.
that is exactly the wrong way to balance gwent if you ask me. while hemdall with 7 power would still be totally fine, the reasoning here is kind of annoying to me. if anything I would like to see some cards that have been nerfed in the past rebuffed. oak, witcher trio, unicorn+chironex, etriel+muierlega and many others that would still only be average in their former form in current meta. while Oak certainly isnt trash tier it just feels really overcosted and there are so many bigger finishers in the game at this point. how it costs more than all the evolving cards is beyond me.
 
that is exactly the wrong way to balance gwent if you ask me. while hemdall with 7 power would still be totally fine, the reasoning here is kind of annoying to me. if anything I would like to see some cards that have been nerfed in the past rebuffed. oak, witcher trio, unicorn+chironex, etriel+muierlega and many others that would still only be average in their former form in current meta. while Oak certainly isnt trash tier it just feels really overcosted and there are so many bigger finishers in the game at this point. how it costs more than all the evolving cards is beyond me.
Great Oak also gives you targeted removal
 

ya1

Forum regular
1) Oak is better (or would be if it was 12p) because you got more control over his final value. You might argue that Hemdall gives you a shot at some bloodthirst next turn but Oak got that removal so Oak is def better.

2) Nerf to Hemdall would only translate to more Wild Boar in the meta. Though it would be a solid nerf to SK as Hemdall power is that you still get solid value even in a short round.

3) Real key to nerfing SK is to nerf its bronzes or better yet buff competition bronzes. SK just got another ridiculously evaluated bronze - GS as solid 10 for 6. This pretty much zeroed out the past nerfs to SK 4 provision bronzes.
 
Great Oak also gives you targeted removal
yes but it requires many rounds of setup, so it's not like you can just insta-kill an engine your opponent plays. oak is mostly used as a finisher, so what's the damage even worth at that point?
 
oak is mostly used as a finisher, so what's the damage even worth at that point?

This needs to be emphasized. I’ve only ever encountered Oak as a finisher because of the amount of setup it requires. At that point targeted removal is irrelevant.

This is a little off topic but Oak is definitely over-nerfed. You compare it with something like a War Elephant which can give you 24 points when combined with Viraxas or even base 16 with minimal setup (crew for NR is a much much easier setup than row stacking for ST).
 
yes but it requires many rounds of setup, so it's not like you can just insta-kill an engine your opponent plays. oak is mostly used as a finisher, so what's the damage even worth at that point?
Wasn't very hard to set up in round 3 with Harmony and of up to 8 could very easily remove Damien and other cards. Besides when you don't have last say you can just avoid playing tall by dumping damage on an enemy unit. And treant tag usedto be very valuable.
 
It is also important to note that the set up for Oak is largely in the hands of the person who plays it. The set up for Hemdall is in the hands of the opponent. The former will be far more consistent. The big advantage Hemdall has is the ease of summoning him — and that’s a problem with tutors more than with Hemdall.
 
Wasn't very hard to set up in round 3 with Harmony and of up to 8 could very easily remove Damien and other cards. Besides when you don't have last say you can just avoid playing tall by dumping damage on an enemy unit. And treant tag usedto be very valuable.
like you correctly pointed out, this used to be the case in the past. the meta from half a year ago wasnt half as aggressive as the current one. the dominant decks were harmony, passiflora and ball, all of which used poison but little removal besides that. now no one plays oak because it's not that good anymore for 13p.
 
like you correctly pointed out, this used to be the case in the past. the meta from half a year ago wasnt half as aggressive as the current one. the dominant decks were harmony, passiflora and ball, all of which used poison but little removal besides that. now no one plays oak because it's not that good anymore for 13p.
There's a difference between not playing a card because it's bad and not playing it because there's a better alternative. That doesn't make Oak bad. MM essentially gave them much better tools for removal and boosting with no thinking required so of course they'll use them instead of strategizing to set up Oak.

That's the take away from this meta. Ease of play, very little strategy
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom