"How do we fix Gwent", part 413: Artifacts

[Fargothwave]

So the other day I was perusing the thread about SC traps, when it suddenly struck me -

the key problem and the reason devs gave up on artifacts is ultimately their limited interactivity, right?

Same as the reason behind Korathi vs. Scenarios clown fiesta, right?

So why not make them interactive? And not in a boring binary sense, I'm not talking about Heavers and Dimetrium Bombs, no.

What if they had targetable bodies? As in, 1 value body+ armor points equal to their provision cost, with self-destroy upon vulnerability.
As in, lockable and maybe even row-restricted (so that movement is an option too), and maybe, just maybe, also outright killable with straight damage or Blizzard. Maybe give Veil to the most expensive ones, so they aren't countered with a 5-prov unit. Also, perhaps, a 1-turn delay before Chapter 1 can be activated on Scenarios, so that there's more time to react.

This would open a great opportunity to buff artifacts back into relevance, and perhaps revitalize anti-armor/movement cards as a side benefit.

 

[betraymechino]

So... turn them into units?

 

[Fargothwave]

So... turn them into units?

Well, yeah, but a special kind with irregular interactions (not to the point of binarity, though).

 

[Allistre]

The idea to give artifacts armor durability is as old as Homecoming itself. I think that was the most popular suggestion to fix artifacts. I'm all for the idea, but considering that CDPR never went for it in the past it's probably never gonna happen.

 

[OuterSpaceDoggo]

Another fix I read on the internet was to give scenarios a 1 turn cooldown between every chapter just to give the other player more time to react. It would go like this:

- Play the Scenario -> Prologue Activates
- 1 Turn Cooldown ( even if you play cards that satisfy the condition to trigger Chapter 1 Nothing Happens )
- Chapter 1 is active ( play the right card and it activates )
- 1 Turn Cooldown
- Chapter 2 is active ( same as chapter 1 )

The idea to make them targetable isn't that bad, but you would have to change their design. Would they become units? Artifact? 0 power, 5 power?
Consider that many damage spells got the "damage a unit" so you would have to rework them too even if you made the scenarios something like " artifact with x armor, exposed: destroy self "

 

[fil_faniki]

Nah, the bad side of artifacts should be that they are really slow tempo. You could do something of an 8-point play with units, or you can do a 0-point play with an artifact that's going to pay off in a couple of turns, that's fine.
We just need fine-tuning those points and provisions (which I think we're getting pretty close to), and change Heatwave *somehow*

 

[LouisLaLoupe]

https://www.reddit.com/r/gwent/comments/kqxmls
I've tried but judging by the zero responses, have obviously failed.

 

[fil_faniki]

https://www.reddit.com/r/gwent/comments/kqxmls
I've tried but judging by the zero responses, have obviously failed.

I'll give your work the attention it deserves, that's some really nice stuff. Alright so..
Hawker Healer: unconditional 4 for 4 purify is a bit too good. Does this need to have a purify attached to it? Heal isn't really an archetype in ST, there's no self-wound so no guarantee it'll give you the points.

Ithlinne: current Ithlinne is fine and shouldn't change, so I'm going to interpret this card as a new card, not an Ithlinne rework. The concept is really neat! Maybe make it a 5 body without defender.

Morenn: very interesting concept here, though I don't think I like the idea of countering purifies. Purifies are supposed to be tech choices in and of themselves, so having a card that counters them feels like a bit too many tech-choice loops to me.

Vrihedd Sapper: So you have to have an artifact on the field (that has outlived its usefulness too) and he plays as a 5 for 4. Then a cooldown 2 and you have to have another artifact on the field (that ALSO has outlived its usefulness) and then he plays as a 7 for 4. Nahh it's too clunky, too weird, and weak. Don't like this one.

Panther: if you have a lot of ping-engines that let you set cards to 1 then it might work, but then you're basically building the deck around it. This card would be nuts in NG with the 1-point spies lol. Anyways, consuming your own units as ST? And only if they have 2 power or less? Why? There's no deathwish in ST, consuming without deathwish doesn't actually give you points. If you're using this just as a counter against enemy spies placed on your board... ehhhh that's way too much of a gimmick tech choice, not to mention "if you control a beast"? Isn't Panther a beast itself?

Elven Scout: considering Heatwave and Shupe are now the only ways to destroy artifacts, the "boost by 1 if an allied trap is destroyed" thing is really bad and not worth losing 1 point of power on the body.

Elven Trapper: Ah I see, the Sapper is supposed to destroy those traps, but that's still really clunky and not many points at all. You can't call that an engine, it's more like a combo between two cards that can do nothing except that specific combo. Not good design imo

Cyprian: destroying enemy traps is whatever, but bruh... he's a 7 prov Northern Wind with a 4 point body, that's super good. I'd play the hell out of that, banishing Cerys all day every day, maybe broken.

Spider Bomb: neutral 4 damage for 4 eh, dunno seems bad and each faction has their own version of 4 for 4 removal. Also... all this "destroy trap" stuff... Having to play crappy fake traps to bait the destroys away from things like Serpent Trap and Pitfall etc doesn't sound all that fun lol

Coinneach: artifact Ciri, absolutely bonkers busted and will force everybody to play all the "destroy trap" cards, not a good idea for a healthy meta

Iorveth and Wardancer: so wait... Wardancer has no Deploy ability, meaning "playing all Wardancers" means you're just getting their bodies which are at 2 power, so Iorveth is playing for 8 points for 10 provisions AND needs to set up the graveyard. This is really really weak.

Hattori: really cool concept, the problem is now you have to play all your traps in R1 and 2, and you can't use them to win R3 because using them in R3 means Hattori doesn't boost by them. Ehh I dunno.

Bad Faith: wait, "play a bronze unit or trap" from where? Your hand or the deck? Either way this is absolutely busted. A 5 prov Decoy that lets you pick what to play, completely broken imo

Cool arts and some neat ideas though thats for sure, keep em coming!

 

[LouisLaLoupe]

Thanks for your response and sorry for spamming the board. Spent a long time trying to get these right (since before WotW) and was desperate fro some feedback. I don't know if you've seen them all. There are another 14 cards in the link. Have a read a let me know what you think of the rest. Perhaps some other cards might make a bit more sense. Let me just go through the ones you've commented on. I think some points are pretty valid.

1. HH absolutely doesn't need any heal and could be purify only. Heal was only kept (although changed from 1x 4 to 2x2 because elf units are generally weak) to provide a secondary function.

2. Ithlinne was originally an Ida rework, while Hattori was a purify like Gremist but I though other characters might fit better. Her, along with Morenn were really suggestions about how defenders could work and not just be armoured bodies. So I hadn't spent much time thinking about provs once I had the idea for the ability. There is also a defender specifically for this expansion, so check it out.

3. Sapper is just the old pyrotech ability which was actually pretty decent. In trap decks of past, there were always enough used artifacts (scenario, portal, traps) to find some value. Perhaps the cooldown is excessive as things have become powercrept but I basically copied the old design.

4. Scout is boosted when your traps trigger currently. The only difference is now it will boost if sapper (ie an ally) destroys a trap, not when you destroy an enemy trap. It is also 4p so could be a portal target. Not sure what relevance Shupe and Heatwave.

5. Trapper lays traps that are resilient, meaning the sapper can destroy them at the beginning of the next round and also moves the traps on your side of the battlefield (there are a couple more traps that i don't think you've seen where this may become more important) to avoid them being destroyed.

6. Cyprian and Bomb were placeholders to demonstrate how trap removal can be worked into some neutral cards. Cyprian may be too much, I agree but I felt the need to have decent trap removal options to tempt people to make a tech choice. Re: "having to play fake traps...to protect..," is not exactly the point. The fake traps are resilient and are in fact carryover for sapper (damages a unit 2) and scout (boosted by 1 each time a sapper destroys an allied trap or artifact).

7. Yeah, agree on this one. Didn't know how to cost it properly. I actually like the fact it boosts with tactics but maybe only when on board (as it was originally) or in hand but certainly not in deck, I agree. The very first incarnation had 2 power for 8 but it felt too weak compared to ciri 7 for 10.

8. Bit of a mistake on my behalf with wardancer description that I didn't notice. Iorveth is meant to play wardancers, which in-turn damage by 1, from graveyard. So, yeah, need to add deploy there. So 3 points per wardancer. Thanks for pointing this out.

9. Bad faith works the same as decoy. you play a random bronze unit from your deck after you have shuffled one back in. the only difference is that you play a random bronze unit. It really works like a mulligan. you thin by playing a trap but put the wardancer back into you deck to mulligan it for something else. There is no choosing which card you want to play.

Thanks for the feedback and let me know about the other ones (im guessing) you haven't seen

10. Sorry, forgot to mention panther. there are some other cards that ping and bleed in this expansion plus ST has Saber which deals random damage. I think it would find value in an ST deck. If you wish to consume your own units it is purely to play around tokens or to consume your defender/wardancers. if you have 2 beasts on the board (dont think i worded this correctly on the card) you have the option whether to use it offensively or defensively, there is no obligation to consume your own units but it certain situations in might prove beneficial.

Post automatically merged: Jan 5, 2021

Corrected some things

 

[fil_faniki]

I'll check out the other cards tomorrow, it's fun to read Gwent cards and talk about them
Anyways now that you mention Bad Faith picks a random unit it makes more sense, but I think it should be a Gold and cost like 11 provs minimum. It basically lets you play a really strong Gold in R1, then put it back in the deck exchanging it for a bronze, and play it again in this same round with a tutor or in a later round.
Imagine being able to play Vernossiel twice..

 

[LouisLaLoupe]

If you were to do that, you would sacrifice 5 points of very important round 1 tempo (by removing Vernossiel from the board) in exchange for a conditional extra 6 points (2x Deadeye) in another round. There is no thinning value, it is, in effect, a mulligan. By tutoring Vernossiel a second time with CotF, you are expending 27 (25 if you get lucky with Isengrim's) provisions for a return of 17. Granted, you are removing a bronze from your deck (and hoping to play a random bronze that exceeds Vernossiel's 5 strength body), which is very valuable but in no way makes up for the cost of this 3 card combo. Moreover, in round 1, I don't imagine anyone will be looking to play Vernossiel in the hope that they draw it again at a later stage and certainly not looking to use a CotF (10 provs) or Isengrim's Council (8 provs) for +6 points in the same round. It's much more valuable to play bronzes and thin them, to leave you with consistent draws for round 2 and 3. Also, most importantly, you are forgetting that you can do exactly this with Decoy and yet no one does for these precise reasons.

I had a look to double check if there were any possible ST combinations that I was missing that would make such a card OP before including it. The only cards that caused of concern were resilient cards. Neutrals too were a slight concern, which is why I restricted it to Elves. Of course, Bad Faith is essentially a slightly worse ST specific Decoy, a card that see no play.

Let me know what you think of the others once you've had the time to read them. Thanks

 

[fil_faniki]

If you were to do that, you would sacrifice 5 points of very important round 1 tempo (by removing Vernossiel from the board) in exchange for a conditional extra 6 points (2x Deadeye) in another round. There is no thinning value, it is, in effect, a mulligan. By tutoring Vernossiel a second time with CotF, you are expending 27 (25 if you get lucky with Isengrim's) provisions for a return of 17. Granted, you are removing a bronze from your deck (and hoping to play a random bronze that exceeds Vernossiel's 5 strength body), which is very valuable but in no way makes up for the cost of this 3 card combo. Moreover, in round 1, I don't imagine anyone will be looking to play Vernossiel in the hope that they draw it again at a later stage and certainly not looking to use a CotF (10 provs) or Isengrim's Council (8 provs) for +6 points in the same round. It's much more valuable to play bronzes and thin them, to leave you with consistent draws for round 2 and 3. Also, most importantly, you are forgetting that you can do exactly this with Decoy and yet no one does for these precise reasons.

I had a look to double check if there were any possible ST combinations that I was missing that would make such a card OP before including it. The only cards that caused of concern were resilient cards. Neutrals too were a slight concern, which is why I restricted it to Elves. Of course, Bad Faith is essentially a slightly worse ST specific Decoy, a card that see no play.

Let me know what you think of the others once you've had the time to read them. Thanks

No one does it with Decoy because Decoy the top card from your deck which could be really bad for the situation. I'm not going to argue the precise provision cost but it should definitely not be a bronze

 

[LouisLaLoupe]

And Bad Faith gives you a random bronze. The only cards worth shuffling back into your deck and redrawing or tutoring with decoy are cards with and a very high point ceiling, such as Vattier or Regis: Higher Vampire. These cards combine a low strength body with potentially a huge point ceiling, meaning that the difference in cost of removing them from the battlefield (-3/-4) and the potential point gain are huge but also extremely risky. With Vernossiel you are using Bad Faith (5 provs) in the hope of redrawing Vernossiel for 6 points. That is without using a tutor, which at the very least is 8 provisions.

However, more importantly, I shouldn't be arguing with the only person who has given me constrictive criticism so far. The costing of Coinneach, the bad, clunky Wardancer text, and perhaps the biggest blunder; the awful description I rewrote in a hurry for Bad Faith, which suggested you could choose a card from deck. These have all been value bits of feedback and would've gone unnoticed if it wasn't for your invaluable feedback. For that, I salute you, kind sir/madam. I hope I haven't discouraged you from reading the other 14 cards and giving me an opinion. In fact, please, it's been so nice to hear other people's thoughts after spending so long doing the damn thing. Thanks again

 

[fil_faniki]

Well I also hope others join in, but for now you'll have to make do with me

Peace Offering: really nasty Red Coin strats are emerging just looking at this card. It's creative for sure but not really healthy, you know. I can't simulate all the mindgames around it of course but knowing it exists means you're going to be playing very weirdly if you're on Blue coin against ST, knowing they can just yeet your TA'd unit back into the deck, or clog it with the Lamp Djinn, or play a high-provision unit that has a great deploy effect then use Peace Offering to put it back and at the same time put back your high-provision unit that might be an engine or an Yghern or something of the sort. I don't think it's too strong or too weak, just wrong as a concept imo

Librarian of the Dead: I don't think putting cards back into the deck happens often enough for a 1 damage random ping from a 7 provision zero tempo card to be worth it. Aside from the bad stat line, I'd say these kinds of Artifacts are a slippery slope, due to their uninteractivity. I don't like this one either to be honest.

Riordan: a better Iorveth, and not the "a little more prov-efficient" kind of better, but the "it's busted by comparison" kind of better. Playing multiple Serpent Traps and Pitfall Traps. I don't know if it's strong or weak, maybe Iorveth should be changed to this? I'd say it's broken but we've seen more broken-sounding concepts make it to the final game so it's possible.

Ciaran: hmm I'm not sure what his purpose is. You play him, he gets removed by generic 4 damage removal, and now he's on the top of your deck... well, what did you really accomplish? The thing you wanted to protect has no protection still. You traded 9 provisions with a 4 provision removal and didn't really do anything. By the way, all the ideas for the Defenders are very neat but I think the concept of Defender is one that shouldn't be tinkered with too much. All factions have one that's more or less the same, and that's how it should be or you risk enabling strategies that aren't really fun for the other guy

A Spider's Folly: I don't think you fully grasped what Ambush and Spring means. Ambush means the card flips over on its own because of a condition that has been met, Spring means the player clicked it. If your trap is going to have the Spring tag it should have a worse effect, here's how I'd reword this card.
Ambush: When an opponent's unit is moved, spawn 2 Elven Deadeyes and destroy self
Spring: spawn 1 Elven Deadeye and destroy self
I added another Deadeye to the ambush part otherwise the card is unplayable due to bad cost, but anyways I hope you get the whole Spring thing now
Oh wait. Just as I was going to the next card, I noticed your elven deadeye is different. Ah well that changes things. Why'd you use the same name? Haha, anyways he's an artifact himself? And he periodically switches between Spider's Folly? I'm not sure if I'm following exactly but this sounds like some Uninteractive bs going on and I don't think that's great for the game

Angus: that melee effect looks really interesting, and I'm not talking specifically about traps but just having someone deal damage according to a unit's provision cost in the graveyard. Personally I think the provs and body need to be changed, right now it seems too strong.
I'm not following the difference between gold deadeye and bronze deadeye, but I magine a 4 tempo play that transforms something into a tiny artifact engine isn't as good as 4 body with potentially 7 damage

Iorveth: very acceptable design. I'm not too fond of the cards it spawns, especially that one bronze decoy but it's alright. If ST had something like this that spawned Rebukes they'd be the happiest players around lol

Milaen: not very interesting, I'll be honest. Just points and numbers, not really an ability worth adding to the game, I feel. But then again I'm not a fan of movement decks in general so I'm probably biased, maybe it's amazingly creative

Scoia'tael Commando: "jumble" made me chuckle, heh, I don't think this is a good card though, nor do I think jumble is a good effect if it does what I think it does (change the cards around in a row randomly). It'll proc melee'd sentinels I guess, in which case that's huuuuge damage, even better than a Gaetan possibly so eh, not a big fan of this card. But maybe that's not what jumble does.

Web Trap: here we have an evolving artifact that randomly locks, seizes, and bleeds. The only non-insane thing about this card is the "if opponent has X number of cards on the board" condition which is interesting, sort of like an Adrenaline for the board.

Etriel and Muirlega: play an artifact with 6 power? Artifacts don't have power, maybe you meant provisions. In any case, these look nice. One's a tutor, the other's an offensive consume. Big think here, I can't say I'd be upset if these were in the game but I also don't think it's necessary for these mechanics to be tied to a Duo. They could work just as fine as separate cards, tweaked to make up for the lost "sibling" card.

Wild-Snipe Chase: this whole wardancer thing has way too many moving parts I feel, not to mention it's supposed to be a thinning card that gets summoned from the deck, yet so many cards spawn it and play it. I don't get it

As an overall suggestion I would say to avoid using already-existing names and pictures for cards that do completely different things. I think it's reasaonable for me to assume you're talking about the token when I read "Elven Deadeye" and see the image of the in-game Elven Deadeye. The tiny golden border isn't enough lol

 

[LouisLaLoupe]

Woohoo, replies!
1. Yeah, you have a point about coin abuse. I considered at one point making it so it couldn't be played when both players have full hands (a bit like Matta) but decided this didn't make a huge difference. It would be especially nasty with Saber but having said that, ST struggles on Red Coin (3 cards and pass) so don't think it would be quite as bad as it would with Lippy or MO. After all, trap decks really struggle with tempo and playing Red Coin is almost an auto-loss for a deck that is reliant on the long round.

2. Yeah, struggled costing Librarian. Constantly switched between giving 1 or 2 dmg. The reason I made it, was to see if I could make a inverted Roach and had this at the back of my mind when stating it. It's maximum potential plays for around its provision cost, which worried me endlessly, thinking it could be a supercharged version of Roach if damaged by 2. Was very hard to cost a card that moves automatically to the graveyard and then damages. Perhaps a few changes are needed. Not too concerned about the interactivity - lots of decks run Squirrel and there are very few targets if you queue into an ST deck. Also Vypper is a card.

3. Riordain is just Iorveth with a different name. Seen people on forums asking it be changed to "copy a unit" first and the idea makes a lot of sense. As it stands atm, your opponent pretty much knows which trap you're resetting

4. I really like Azar's design as a defender and wanted to emulate something similar. It just so happened that the idea of putting cards back in deck was forming that it seemed fitting. I like the idea insomuch it gives your opponent something to think about. Is it worth the removal or do they leave it on the battlefield until round end and subsequently moves in the GY? It's more of a tool to force removal from you're opponent than to protect engines (which are pretty thin on the ground in ST), and if it is removed/destroyed then it goes into your top deck (not sure if you got this judging from your response) and can get played next round. If it's not removed (or locked or banished) then you can choose to develop engines and then destroy it/consume it for the next round. A never-ending defender if you will, except one that's easily removed.

5. Yeah, you got it. May have made a mistake with the description. It's basically a melee row Sentry that can't be interacted with. But of course, once triggered your opponent will know where it is and be able to destroy it with a trap/artifact removal, provided that Trapper doesnt move traps on turn end . This was a pre WotW design as I wanted to do something with movement as an offensive force, moving your opponents cards and not your own.

Post automatically merged: Jan 6, 2021

ffs. sorry. please merge mods if you can be arsed.

6. Yep, he's a bit too strong atm but was done to keep him inline with his other ability, which is a bit weird (or maybe doesn't work at all) so let me explain. When you play a spider's folly, you spawn a gold deadeye. This was for 2 reasons; extra value and utlity for Vernossiel decks, and a way to spawn an extra spider's folly on the board without the whole idea becoming too oppressive as it might if spider's folly was a bronze. if you were to have 2 of these and 2 sentry's (at 5p) then the ceiling on Eldain would be pretty substantial, with Angus' 7 prov body it evens things out a bit. The idea is that Angus can transform a bronze deadeye into a gold deadeye, which at the end of turn will transform into a spider's folly, seeing as only gold deadeyes can do this. I have no idea if this can actually work but sure there was something similar in beta.

7. Needed something solid in the expansion. Consistency is an important deck building consideration.

8. Milaen was a thematic choice. Apparently a hunter according to lore and with all the new beasts around thought it could work but only as a secondary ability (cos, well vainglory). Was destroy but changed it to "set power" to give panther more utility. her primary ability is to work with spider trap, which modifies her damage by 3 with every trap/sentry you have on the board. she has bleeding to potentially set-up panther targets and to make damage dealt a bit more consistent.

9. Jumble works by moving card on row but not all cards. essentially you divide the number of units on a row by 2. if there are an odd number, then you round up (6 units, 3 move; 7 units, 4 are moved). So commando does 3 damage on a row of 5 for every trap/sentry you have. Sounds excessive in a perfect scenario but after doing the numbers (trap has to proc once with this card on a row of 5) to gain value, i think at best is filler. Perhaps can be decreased to 3 or 4 units max. But its a bronze that combines with the proposed trap and a type of card that is usually included in expansion sets.

10. Yes, yes it does. Cant remember if I left this at 7 or 8. Its max value is 12, which for a card that be countered and is conditional, is not too nuts. Wanted to add a trap that can be tripped by you and not be reliant on a timer. Plus, I loved Malena's beta ability and it fits so well with the ST theme. And Dryads, if i ever get round to them... Could well be some costing errors on my behalf.

11. Another error on the cards. Yep, should be prov cost. I agree about them not having to exist in tandem but that's the way they were and wanted to avoid new cards when there are others that don't see play. I really wanted to add synergy with beast and consume cos it makes so much thematic sense. Plus the bleeding can proc panther too. But they seem solid enough and can be included on their own merit rather than having to have both in your deck. Anyway, by doing this rather ambitious expansion has taught me anything, its not about the archetype (traps in this case ) that are the main focus, rather how the cards can be supported as a whole.

 

[fil_faniki]

Anyway, by doing this rather ambitious expansion has taught me anything, its not about the archetype (traps in this case ) that are the main focus, rather how the cards can be supported as a whole.

Yes plus it's always cool to see cards that singlehandedly create an entire archetype on their own (Gord, Kolgrim) rather than 20 new cards all supporting the same archetype that requires them, that's how I'm seeing it now.