How to Beat it: Strategies for Defeating Pernicious Decks

[quintivarium]

Almost every Gwent player encounters distasteful, frustrating decks. While we may not always agree on which decks those are, we all want to do something about it. With this thread I hope to open a discussion on how to do the one thing both more effective and satisfying than complaining about toxic decks — figuring out how to defeat them.

This post will serve as an introduction to the thread and an index to decks discussed. Because of the Forum’s automerge feature, I cannot make consecutive, non merged posts unless they are separated by 24 hours. (Merged posts cannot be separately indexed.) But hopefully the entire forum community will contribute — with both strategies and requests for ideas against certain decks.

DECK DISCUSSION LINKS
Monsters Decks

Nilfgaard Decks

Northern Realms Decks

Traveling Priestesses​

Reavers​

Drakenborg​

Scoia’tael Decks

Skellige Decks

Syndicate Decks

Multi-faction Decks

Aerondight​

Hyperthin​

 

[quintivarium]

Traveling Priestesses

Faction: Northern Realms

Features:
attempts to return traveling priestesses to the deck multiple times to accumulate a large number of charges, then expends those charges to boost units like Tridam Infantry and Trollololo.

Strengths/Challenges:

• huge point potential in any length final round
• building charges on priestesses is very uninteractive
• core deck elements are very low provision – allowing free choice in high end cards
• high potential to 2-0 if a long first round is won

Weaknesses/Vulnerabilities:

• high RNG – acquiring charges on Priestesses is extremely draw dependent. Significant deck thinning is usually incorporated to improve odds
• many low tempo cards – typically high-end cards are included to mitigate this.
• almost no control of its own
• many units dedicated to executing primary combinations. Although the deck has many provisions to play with, it does not have many cards to play with.
• Vulnerability to being bled. Although priestess decks bleed very well (because of the 2-0 threat), they defend a bleed very poorly as playing big combo cards can leave an unwinnable round three.

Comments:
To some degree, this deck is a major motivating force behind the creation of this thread – ever since I first saw it, I have puzzled over how to deal with it. Even a good Priestess deck (as opposed to a greedy, meme version) is very much a type of deck that I hate – one that takes considerable skill to build, but one where the outcome is rarely determined by skill of play; good play loses with bad draws and bad play wins with good draws. I will share my thoughts on countering this deck – but short of extensive tech choices, I am not yet satisfied with my ideas. Suggestions are welcome.

Strategic Approaches:
Strategic approaches refer to carrying out long-term (often multi-round) plans. The goal of a strategic approach is not to counter particular cards, but to favorably alter the game flow and decrease an opponent’s deck potential. Some possible strategic counters include:

• Striving for short early (first and second) rounds. Travelling Priestesses take time (multiple plays) to accumulate value. And often, Priestess decks include cards like Ring of Favor to improve round I tempo. These cards have little value past round 1. If possible, an early tempo pass might leave the priestess player with awkward later rounds.
• Alternatively, if you can win round 1 and push round 2, Priestess decks might be forced to play key cards before round three.
• Consistent targeting of removal is critical. You can not generally counter priestesses. You must therefore either minimize their chance of accumulating charges or you endure their charges but prevent the charges from doubling or tripling vale by dealing with Tridam Infantry, Trollololo, and the like. Doing either half-way is not likely to succeed.
• Outpointing a Priestess deck is very unlikely if it draws well. I have handily beaten a dwarven engine deck (all out Brouver) a card down in a long round 3 with my non-optimized, test Priestess deck. Without interference and on a good draw, I think Priestesses will out point anything. If your deck does not have control, you have to avoid a full priestess package in round 3.

Tactical Approaches:
Tactics refers to shout term actions – usually moves revolving around countering or establishing a single card. Against Priestess decks, generally little is needed to protect your units – the focus will be on countering key opposing forces. And Priestesses are almost impossible to counter directly. Be aware that most good priestess decks will include Necromancy (it is a bit of a protection against using the key Priestess card to defend a bleed). Some might buff that to be Renew (to enable bringing back Trollololo, Istredd,,or the defender). Thus, removed cards might be brought back one time. Usually, unless one has a very removal heavy deck, one targets either:

• Priestess set-up cards: Istredd, Radovid, Envoys
• Priestess beneficiary cards: Tridam Infantry, Trollololo, Nathaniel Psatodi

Targeting the set-up cards best denies early round points, but it increases the RNG of draws; it does not prevent big Priestess charge totals. Expect that you might need to get through a defender before reaching these cards (a defender is not needed for the Priestesses). Targeting the beneficiaries is more consistent, and requires less removal, but it allows a higher chance for priestesses to obtain significant numbers of charges – something you generally have to out-point. When spending control cards, be very careful to focus on the big picture. Shutting down a random card like Windhalm or Reinforced Ballista might seem valuable at the time, but unless those cards are going to cost you a round, limiting the Priestesses must be a bigger priority.

Tech Approaches:
Normally, I hate to tech against a particular deck. (I want to reserve tech for general weaknesses my deck might have – e.g., including a Ciri to reduce chance of losing on even.) If necessary, I want that tech to be as general as possible – applicable in and against as many decks as possible. Possibilities I can think of (from least to most intrusive)

• Yrden – Resetting an entire row will prove very useful – if you have final say. But you cannot negate the damage from the Tridam infantry – and a wise opponent will play around it by putting Trollololo and Infantry on opposite rows.
• Resets and Tall Punish – cheaper than Yrden, but likely even less effective. Usually, Priestess decks have at least two tall units.
• High tempo cards expendable in round 1 (e.g. Ring of Favor) – winning round 1 is likely your best chance.
• Graveyard hate – getting rid of amphibious assault or a Priestess used in round 2 can significantly help your cause.
• Ofiri Merchant – Teach those Fisher King users a good lesson
• Arnaghad — kill the card as it is deployed and it’s orders are harmless.
• Incinerating Trap – ST players might be able to kill a priestess on deploy – it the timing is right and if that priestess was not boosted by a Griffin Witcher Mentor. Of course, it might be raised by necromancy.
• Clog Cards – countering thinning will decrease the consistency of drawing Priestesses.
• Mill – this is one deck highly favored against Priestesses. Milled Priestesses are much less threatening.

Summary: I don’t think a Priestess deck is necessarily over-powered (it is very inconsistent). It is very draw dependent, and hence, in my opinion, very bad for the game. I hope its average return is small enough that it never becomes meta. From my experience with it, that is probably wishful thinking. Please help me out with other strategies you have found helpful.

 

[TokisPL]

Traveling Priestesses

Faction: Northern Realms

Features:
attempts to return traveling priestesses to the deck multiple times to accumulate a large number of charges, then expends those charges to boost units like Tridam Infantry and Trollololo.

Strengths/Challenges:

• huge point potential in any length final round
• building charges on priestesses is very uninteractive
• core deck elements are very low provision – allowing free choice in high end cards
• high potential to 2-0 if a long first round is won

Weaknesses/Vulnerabilities:

• high RNG – acquiring charges on Priestesses is extremely draw dependent. Significant deck thinning is usually incorporated to improve odds
• many low tempo cards – typically high-end cards are included to mitigate this.
• almost no control of its own
• many units dedicated to executing primary combinations. Although the deck has many provisions to play with, it does not have many cards to play with.
• Vulnerability to being bled. Although priestess decks bleed very well (because of the 2-0 threat), they defend a bleed very poorly as playing big combo cards can leave an unwinnable round three.

Comments:
To some degree, this deck is a major motivating force behind the creation of this thread – ever since I first saw it, I have puzzled over how to deal with it. Even a good Priestess deck (as opposed to a greedy, meme version) is very much a type of deck that I hate – one that takes considerable skill to build, but one where the outcome is rarely determined by skill of play; good play loses with bad draws and bad play wins with good draws. I will share my thoughts on countering this deck – but short of extensive tech choices, I am not yet satisfied with my ideas. Suggestions are welcome.

Strategic Approaches:
Strategic approaches refer to carrying out long-term (often multi-round) plans. The goal of a strategic approach is not to counter particular cards, but to favorably alter the game flow and decrease an opponent’s deck potential. Some possible strategic counters include:

• Striving for short early (first and second) rounds. Travelling Priestesses take time (multiple plays) to accumulate value. And often, Priestess decks include cards like Ring of Favor to improve round I tempo. These cards have little value past round 1. If possible, an early tempo pass might leave the priestess player with awkward later rounds.
• Alternatively, if you can win round 1 and push round 2, Priestess decks might be forced to play key cards before round three.
• Consistent targeting of removal is critical. You can not generally counter priestesses. You must therefore either minimize their chance of accumulating charges or you endure their charges but prevent the charges from doubling or tripling vale by dealing with Tridam Infantry, Trollololo, and the like. Doing either half-way is not likely to succeed.
• Outpointing a Priestess deck is very unlikely if it draws well. I have handily beaten a dwarven engine deck (all out Brouver) a card down in a long round 3 with my non-optimized, test Priestess deck. Without interference and on a good draw, I think Priestesses will out point anything. If your deck does not have control, you have to avoid a full priestess package in round 3.

Tactical Approaches:
Tactics refers to shout term actions – usually moves revolving around countering or establishing a single card. Against Priestess decks, generally little is needed to protect your units – the focus will be on countering key opposing forces. And Priestesses are almost impossible to counter directly. Be aware that most good priestess decks will include Necromancy (it is a bit of a protection against using the key Priestess card to defend a bleed). Some might buff that to be Renew (to enable bringing back Trollololo, Istredd,,or the defender). Thus, removed cards might be brought back one time. Usually, unless one has a very removal heavy deck, one targets either:

• Priestess set-up cards: Istredd, Radovid, Envoys
• Priestess beneficiary cards: Tridam Infantry, Trollololo, Nathaniel Psatodi

Targeting the set-up cards best denies early round points, but it increases the RNG of draws; it does not prevent big Priestess charge totals. Expect that you might need to get through a defender before reaching these cards (a defender is not needed for the Priestesses). Targeting the beneficiaries is more consistent, and requires less removal, but it allows a higher chance for priestesses to obtain significant numbers of charges – something you generally have to out-point. When spending control cards, be very careful to focus on the big picture. Shutting down a random card like Windhalm or Reinforced Ballista might seem valuable at the time, but unless those cards are going to cost you a round, limiting the Priestesses must be a bigger priority.

Tech Approaches:
Normally, I hate to tech against a particular deck. (I want to reserve tech for general weaknesses my deck might have – e.g., including a Ciri to reduce chance of losing on even.) If necessary, I want that tech to be as general as possible – applicable in and against as many decks as possible. Possibilities I can think of (from least to most intrusive)

• Yrden – Resetting an entire row will prove very useful – if you have final say. But you cannot negate the damage from the Tridam infantry – and a wise opponent will play around it by putting Trollololo and Infantry on opposite rows.
• Resets and Tall Punish – cheaper than Yrden, but likely even less effective. Usually, Priestess decks have at least two tall units.
• High tempo cards expendable in round 1 (e.g. Ring of Favor) – winning round 1 is likely your best chance.
• Graveyard hate – getting rid of amphibious assault or a Priestess used in round 2 can significantly help your cause.
• Ofiri Merchant – Teach those Fisher King users a good lesson
• Incinerating Trap – ST players might be able to kill a priestess on deploy – it the timing is right and if that priestess was not boosted by a Griffin Witcher Mentor. Of course, it might be raised by necromancy.
• Clog Cards – countering thinning will decrease the consistency of drawing Priestesses.
• Mill – this is one deck highly favored against Priestesses. Milled Priestesses are much less threatening.

Summary: I don’t think a Priestess deck is necessarily over-powered (it is very inconsistent). It is very draw dependent, and hence, in my opinion, very bad for the game. I hope its average return is small enough that it never becomes meta. From my experience with it, that is probably wishful thinking. Please help me out with other strategies you have found helpful.

Few ideas of mine that helped me counter that deck:
- having last say might be important: you can tall punish the buffed unit or even destroy priestess'es target(s) if they don't have any leader charges left and you kept your removal until R3
- Ornate Censer won me the game vs priestess few times as they usually don't have any tall removal and last round point swing may be 60 pts thanks to Censer

 

[Aris_Tarkus]

My personal favorites, at least if playing Skellige are Dire Bear and Sigvald.

 

[quintivarium]

Hyperthin

Faction: Multifaction (presently mostly Nilfgaard or Skellige.)

Features:
Attempts to thin deck to very few cards (often 1 or zero) to gain specific benefits such as guaranteed 13 point boosts for Xarthisius, a legendary card from magic compass, or maximal boost on Kolgrim.

Strengths/Challenges:

• strong closing plays
• strong short and competitive long final rounds
• full utilization of almost all provisions
• considerable freedom after choosing payoff and thinning cards

Weaknesses/Vulnerabilities:

• bricking risk – many thinning cards easily brick. This can limit mulligans.
• little flexibility – if every card is used, no cards are available “if necessary”. Card sequencing is also somewhat rigid – many cards have “prerequisites” or cannot be played from hand.
• vulnerable to bleeding – several cards typically require complete thinning to achieve full (or guaranteed) value
• overthinning

Comments:
Hyperthin seems to be a persistent contender – and is annoying to me because of its highly predictable card sequencing, its draw RNG, and its match-up dependence.

Strategic Approaches:
Strategic approaches refer to carrying out long-term (often multi-round) plans. The goal of a strategic approach is not to counter particular cards, but to favorably alter the game flow and decrease an opponent’s deck potential. Some possible strategic counters include:

• timely deck manipulation. If you can add to, take from, or trade cards in your opponent’s deck, this will tend to really destroy your opponent’s strategy. This is especially true in later rounds when the opponent has little opportunity to respond to your manipulation, but beware of doing it too late, after the opponent has already established his/her points.
• bleeding round 2. A round 2 value bleed is almost always bad for hyperthin. Often, several cards are not yet fully established, and, if nothing else, splitting round three point-potential of the hyperthin deck will help you. But beware that bleeding can back-fire if it merely grants the hyperthin player a short round without depleting pay-off cards.
• outpointing the deck. Hyperthin can play for many points, but strong engine decks can easily out-perform it in a long round 3. Figure a NG hyperthin deck will play for 60-70 points over the final 4 turns. If you can beat that, bleeding is not necessary.
• forcing awkward card sequencing. Typically, hyperthin decks have many bricks and cards that are unplayable in rounds 1 and 2. Pushing deep into round 1 may have good pay-off even if you don’t win. Being able to play deep might require some commitment early in the round, but hyperthin is a deck that does not like to lose round 1. Unless your deck has high point potential, value bleeds in round two – even looking for a 2-0 are a good idea.

Tactical Approaches:
Tactics refers to shout term actions – usually moves revolving around countering or establishing a single card. Against hyperthin decks, there are rarely special tactical concerns – typically, except for the thinning and payoff cards, hyperthin deck cards are not different in character from cards in other decks. And nearly all thinning and payoff cards take effect on deploy. There is very little one can do tactically about such cards. At least they leave a presence on the board that can be interacted with, although interacting after an effect is applied is a bit late. The one exception might be thinning cards like Impera Brigade which need a condition to trigger. But attempting to remove the cards that provide these conditions is rarely worth the removal. Many payoff cards tend to go tall or to inflict substantial damage. Reserving tall removal/reset for very tall units might be worthwhile, as is avoiding tall units that could be hit by the likes of Triss Merigold. But I can’t think of tactical tricks unique to hyperthin decks.

Tech Approaches:
There are many types of tech that can help with hyperthin decks that would prove useful in many other matchups. I will begin with these as they are adjustments that likely improve almost any deck that would need them.

• round one tempo cards (e.g. ring of favor). Even if your deck does not need round control or final say – i.e. even if you do not care about winning round one, hyperthin (as well as several other decks) really struggles when it does not win round 1 – and on bad draws will lose value simply by being pushed deep into round one. Moreover, many hyperthin decks rely on points from thinning to either carry round 1 or to deplete an opponent’s high-quality cards. The payoff cards are generally only sufficient to win a final round – good round 1 tempo makes it challenging for hyperthin decks to find a second round to win.
• tall removal / reset. Many versions of hyperthin play Yennifer Divination or Xarthisius to high values. Dealing with these cards is useful.
• graveyard removal. Some hyperthin decks rely upon echo tutors to efficiently thin their decks. Some (esp. non-Nilfgaard hyerthin) rely on echo (aerondight, Ard Gaeth, Magic Compass, etc.) to avoid overthinning. Removing one of these cards can be hard on a hyperthin deck.

If hyperthin becomes dominant on the meta, one might take certain cards specifically to counter it. Normally I do not like tech that targets specific decks as it worsens the overall deck quality, but I will list options that could be used – if only for the sake of completeness.

• Mill cards (Matta Hu’uri, Ihuarraquax, Stregobor, Isbel, Thaler, Cantarella, Vilgefortz, Kingslayer, Traheaern). Played at the right time, you opponent either loses the reveal card or over-thins. It does not require a mill deck to cripple hyperthin – usually one or two milling options is sufficient.
• Arcane Tome. Your opponent may not be able to afford the card to click it.
• Clog cards. Prevent the desired thinning.

Summary: Hyperthin has not proven to be consistently top tier, although there are metas in which is highly effective. I do not enjoy the deck. (I find it uninteresting and binary.) I want to be able to punish its excesses, and I welcome other suggestions.

 

[quintivarium]

Aerondight

Faction: any

Features:
Because it can appear across any faction and even almost any archetype, what I term “Aerondight decks” refers more to a particular card than a general deck. And Aerondight is rarely about setting up other cards. True, Aerondight decks are about setting up point value on Aerondight; but not about using Aerondight to set up other cards. Of course, as of this writing, Aerondight is sufficiently over-powered (at least on blue coin) that it is appended to decks that would not otherwise even suggest inclusion of the card. Thus, I will not assume a deck well-designed to optimize Aerondight. Since there are limited (and only partial) tactical counters to the Aerondight card, much of this article will deal with strategic counters. But not all strategies are appropriate to all matchups – you must use judgment depending upon both the deck you are playing and the deck you are playing against. Consider this article more about general ideas and possibilities than specific advice.

Strengths/Challenges:

• good average value per turn on Aerondight card
• low risk (9 provision mulligan on red coin) / high reward (10-15 point swings in successive rounds on blue coin)
• extreme flexibility (does not need to impact deck design).

Weaknesses/Vulnerabilities:

• Aerondight does not effectively contribute to round 1. Its value grows the later it is used.
• Aerondight, unless properly supported by good deck design, will likely be of limited value on red coin.
• Aerondight is one card, and even with ideal development, it is only worth about 15 points late in round 3, and at best 12 late round 2 – it does not carry the match on its own. Other cards must still carry their weight.
• Achieving consistency can be an issue (Aerondight is hard to tutor efficiently). There is reason that Aerondight is usually paired with Golden Nekker.

Comments:
I consider many of the current Aerondight decks (especially those built around coin abuse or those focused on Golden Nekker rather than on Aerondight itself) to be rather gimmicky. They are very inconsistent. That is little comfort if you are on the wrong side of the RNG. Moreover, coinflip and draw RNG far outweight player agency in determining outcomes involving these decks. Right now, these decks appear powerful enough that the reward in playing them outweighs the risk. While this remains the case, I expect to see a lot of them in play. If my analysis of the risk/reward ratio is correct, I don’t think CDPR will allow these decks to persist unnerfed for long. I believe the best general approach is to act in ways that limit an opponent’s ability to “fix” bad luck: deny opportunity to thin until after RNG cards have been played, force bricks to be played before they can be mulliganed, etc.

Some Aerondight decks are legitimately built around Aerondight. These decks usually involve heavy point slam and are much less coin-flip dependent. The point total they generate is usually fairly consistent from turn to turn, and they are far less swingy. Whenever possible, you want to keep the rounds where these decks have first say or significant leads as short as possible. Make them earn Aerondight value, as much as possible, when they are disadvantaged.

Tactical Approaches:
Tactics refers to shout term actions – usually moves revolving around countering or establishing a single card. Because Aerondight is a special (which plays for immediate effect), there are limited ways to interact tactically -- and most are obvious:

• Graveyard hate can prevent the echo replay – but honestly, Aerondight might not be the top priority for a graveyard banish.
• Armor and shields on a target always negate points
• Unit reset can eliminate the boost effects

Strategic Approaches:
Strategic approaches refer to carrying out long-term (often multi-round) plans. The goal of a strategic approach is not to counteract cards, but to favorably alter the game flow and decrease an opponent’s deck or card potential. Some possible strategic counters include:

• Playing rounds for immediate reach. Usually, you want to hold some high tempo cards for late in a round, after it has been clarified as to whether those cards will be needed. Playing them early risks overcommitment, reveals information to your opponent, and may deny some potential engine value. But it can pay off in reducing an opponent’s Aerondight value depending upon your deck.
• Keeping round 1 as short as possible. Aerondight needs turns to accumulate value, but it derives little value from final say (in fact, it is far better with first say). It is OK to lose round 1. Especially if you are on red coin and cannot quickly catch up in points, it may be wise to plan on passing after three cards. If you can get a tempo pass – especially on blue coin it may be wise to take it. I think this approach is especially valuable against Aerondight-focused decks. Usually against Aerondight add-on decks, you want to choose the strategy that best addresses the focus card.
• Playing for a 2-0. If your deck has potential to 2-0, you also deny Aerondight value by denying round three at all. Obviously, you cannot use both this strategy and the previous one. Make a choice based upon your deck, your opponent’s deck, and your initial hand.

Tech Approaches:
Normally I want to counter decks with what I am playing, or at most by adding cards that tech for general deck weaknesses – not to respond to specific decks or cards. Thus, a tech approach is my last resort, unless my deck needs help against multiple adversaries. Since there are few ways to directly address Aerondight, the tech choices must either address cards likely associated with Aerondight, or one of the ways Aerondight can be mitigated. I will address cards associated with Aerondight in the next section. I don’t think any of the techs specifically against Aerondight are likely to be worthwhile to a significant degree – I do not think this is the way to approach Aerondight. Never-the-less, some possibilities are:

• including more low-cost, high-tempo cards for fast round 1 points
• add Graveyerd hate units
• add reset units
• add shield/armor based or granting units

Addressing Frequently Associated Cards
In the current patch (10.5), Aerondight is strongly associated with Golden Nekker and Ciri: Nova.

Nekker is also somewhat hard to address. The big issues with Nekker (deck commitment, bricking and other RNG factors) are largely out of your control when opposing Nekker. Deck manipulation (mill, clog and reordering) can increase the chance of RNG harming your opponent. Being aware of the huge tempo possible from Nekker can inform plays in early rounds: a tempo pass will be very difficult, bleeding will likely cost a card, etc. But forcing an early play of Nekker also likely leaves an opponent with a weak round and may force out Nekker before it is fully prepared or possible bricks remedied. Deck building restrictions on Nekker severely limit the big play opportunities, so denying the big plays that are available to your opponent is useful. Nekker’s RNG suggests aggressive play to try to force an opponent to respond before having opportunity to repair hand/deck content.

Countering Ciri: Nova is usually more direct. Purify and some tall removal is very effective. On a strategic level, it is often possible to deny an opponent safe opportunity to play Nova in the first two rounds – either by tempo or threatened removal.

Summary: Aerondight is very prevalent in the current meta. Because Aerondight plays for significant value as a neutral card, it can be and is incorporated into many decks. Thus, there is no one best approach to defeating “Aerondight decks”. Here I have addressed ideas for attacking commonly used cards and conditions in these decks.

If you have found other ideas successful against these decks, please share them -- my ideas are limited.

 

[DolphPingus]

My plan against aerondight is to pass at 7 on red coin and pass as soon as possible on blue ( of course if they allow me to ), then defend the bleed.
Playing around is useless, if not impossible, because the random help from golden nekker is completely unpredictable and gamechanging ( also "fun" if you have 3 rotten braincells ).
I feel that 85+ % of my games are against this garbage. The only decks that rely on other cards are syndacate devotion and some scoiatel lists ( very rare ).

 

[uber_croupier]

"Weaknesses/Vulnerabilities:
- Aerondight, unless properly supported by good deck design, will likely be of limited value on red coin."

Reason why only decks that play high tempo will add Aerondight in. So even, if you have a proper high tempo deck on Red, your opponent having right tools to do it, will stay ahead of you anyways. But, even if you catch up, let's say in turn 5, opponent's Aero is already much stronger than yours, and will still continue to boost itself after each turn anyways, while this is not guaranteed for you playing further into the round, since you have to be at least 1 point ahead.

Loosing a game by few points after seeing ~15 point Aerodight and knowing you'd win it only if you were starting on Blue feels very bad. I definitely win more games when starting on Blue.

I was often 2o'd, while on Red after trying to win on even, spending my expensive golds round 1, just to be countered by 20 point ring follwed by boosted Aerodight, a scenario which would turn out completely different if I was first, because I would be the one having Aero boosted, while opp's boosting his ring. Aerondight always plays differently for both players involved in a game, and that's not due to the strategy they are ensuing. In most cases, one player will gain over 20 points from it, while the other might get over 5, if any at all - ONLY because that player was unlucky with flipping a coin.

I don't think there's a fix for this card. It should be re-designed.

 

[quintivarium]

I had almost forgotten this thread when a (somewhat) new deck caught my attention -- NR Reavers. While Reaver Hunters are easily nullified by certain tech cards, they can be very unpleasant to face if you have the "wrong" deck.

There are two frustrations one faces against a typical Reavers deck: nasty cards like Reaver Hunters and Cintrian Royal Guard, and the seemingly bottomless capacity to keep copying them.

Tech Options:
Reavers are most easily countered by neutralizing the Reaver hunters -- either by impervious tall units (Olgierd, Sigvald, something protected by Sukrus, etc.), or by row punish (especially Surrender). Significant movement (Ard, Malena, Nivellen) can push Hunters to the wrong row. The challenge is that so many ways exist to copy Reaver Hunters that they are a threat every round. Countering them in two rounds is markedly more difficult, but having a guaranteed, counter in one round opens strategic options to carry the match. Even something as simple as a resilient card can make a significant difference. If you lose round 1 but go up a card, even one point of carryover even one point of carry over is enough to discourage a dry pass. But reavers generally don't like to bleed!

Favored Matchups:
There are certain decks that would be favored against Reavers even without tech. Because hunters are very vulnerable to repeated damage pings, they will not usually fare well against SK warriors or rain, they will struggle against MO frost and vampires, and they are vulnerable to Madoc. NG can often copy or steal Hunters more efficiently than NR generates them.

"Normal" Deck Approaches -- Tactics:
Direct (tactical) counters to Reavers are limited and difficult. Locks have limited effectiveness because Teleport is frequently available and locks do not eliminate tags. Removal is inefficient because critical units have armor to absorb value -- and so much replay-copying is available that removing a couple of units rarely makes a material difference. Where removal is an option, target Scouts before Hunters -- replaying/recharging Scouts has greater value so prevent this option. It is usually more effective to tactically address friendly units: give armor to tallest unit, protect key cards with taller units, etc. Clogging the enemy front row (if possible) always limits the Hunters; in fact, it can be more effective (depending on how many enemy Hunter copies are available) to clog the front row with non-Hunters than to move the Hunters off it.

"Normal" Deck Approaches -- Strategy:
Reavers decks do have weaknesses, but they are not always easy to expose. Most striking is that they are slow developing. Only using a leader allows two Hunters on the first round. More typically, a Scout is played round one to target a Hunter round 2. Not until round 3 are there typically 4 or 5 Hunters developed to cause damage. Also, it is a misnomer to call Hunters "removal engines". More accurately they are damage engines. They are very poor at actually killing units, because they target everything else first. Finally, setting up bronze soldiers allows little time (or resources) for anything else. Reavers usually depend upon engine value for their points. These weaknesses have several implications: Reavers are largely ineffective in very short round; Reavers can be out-pointed; and points on board is a defense against their removal ability.

Against Reavers, short rounds are a boon. Try to gain round control in round 1 to keep round 3 as short as possible. If you cannot establish round control, push round 1 as deep as possible to limit the remaining cards. Develop point generating engines as quickly as possible (to offset Reaver's engine value). Except against Royal Guards, first say is more valuable than last say -- establishing points on board before damage engines are established is important unless you have no engine value to develop. It may be tempting to try unitless play (to avoid providing targets); unless the unitless play delays enemy engines for at least as long as the play itself takes, getting points on board is more critical. You opponent can be very low tempo with limited reach -- consider playing round 2 to gain card advantages rather than an all-out bleed.

Do not expect to exhaust your opponent's ability to copy Hunters and do not expect poor draws from your opponent. There is too much redundancy in a typical Reavers deck for it to be highly inconsistent. Do develop your own points and focus on your own consistency.

Finally, Reaver decks can come in different flavors. I have focused upon Hunters centric decks. But Royal guards can also be targets of duplication. And about 1/3 of both cards and provisions of all-in reapers decks are free to provide a second package -- and these could be tempo based, protection based, tall removal based, even isolated cards like Yennefer Conjurer that synergize beautifully with Reavers.

Please add your suggestions to these I have provided, and Ravish the Reavers!

 

[ThorgerWolff]

Cultists?

 

[quintivarium]

Drakenborg

Faction: Northern Realms

Features:

Although it can conceivably take many forms, the Drakenborg deck I address in this article has a two-part strategy: first to significantly boost some unit in deck, then to repeatedly use Dwimveandra to recharge the Drakenborg order after Drakenborg summons the boosted target.

Strengths of a Drakenborg deck:

• Huge point generation in mid to long final round
• Point potential that is hard to disrupt (uninteractive)
• Often unpredictable due to the variety of possible designs and choices offered by Temple of Melitele.

Weaknesses/Vulnerabilities:

• Significant commitment to both preparation and pay-off results in an all-eggs-in-one-basket type deck. It is inherently inconsistent.
• Vulnerable to loss of key pieces: especially Drakenborg, but also Temple and often Dwimveandra and boost engines.
• Vulnerable to bleeding.
• Usually little control.

Comments:

With the 11.4 card drop, we now face another obnoxiously binary deck. Based upon limited experience, I expect all variants of this deck will prove too inconsistent be become part of top players’ repertoire. None-the-less, the deck is probably good enough to appear frequently at lower ranks. Because of its extreme match-up dependence, even bad players will often achieve success with it.

Tech Solutions:

Almost all Drakenborg decks will completely fall apart if Drakenborg can be promptly removed – this requires an artifact removal card (Heatwave or Bearification – the former is significantly preferable if it can be afforded) and (usually) a way to promptly deal with defender. Drakenborg can also be out-pointed – but you will need an average of about 20 points per turn to do so.

Strategic Approaches:

The best way for a “standard” deck to approach Drakenborg is strategically – and this requires understanding the Drakenborg deck’s big weakness: an over commitment to one strategy. By the time a player includes cards to set up Dwimveandras and their replays, boosts to units in deck, and tools to draw key cards when needed, either cards or provisions are nearly exhausted. I don’t believe any Drakenborg deck can set up two strong rounds. Unless you play something like MO thrive (which out-greeds Drakenborg), or you can defeat it tactically (which requires the right tools and will be described later), you can never allow Drakenborg decks a cheap round.

This means you almost must win round one. Luckily, Drakenborg does not usually have good value in round one. No deck boost cards have good tempo, and Drakenborg is virtually required to play several. (Caveat! Mutagenerator focused decks could have enough engine value to challenge round 1. And Gascon might also find engine value in bandits played.) Winning round one does require pressing deep – typically Drakenborg decks can afford to go cards down to win round one, so you should almost never pass first. And pressing deep means you should only keep cards in hand for round 1 if you are willing to play them. Also beware, it is not unwise for a Drakenborg player to tech a card like Ring of Favor to improve their round 1 chances. Do not worry about your opponent’s deck-boost engine value – it is of secondary importance to winning the round.

After winning round 1, to handle Drakenborg decks, you need to bleed round 2 – ideally either forcing out Drakenborg or leaving your opponent with no cards (it requires at least a four-card round to be able to use Drakenborg’s order twice). This can be harder to accomplish, depending upon the cards Temple produces and your opponent’s luck in drawing them or cards with good carryover boost. At the very least, use a bleed to draw out your opponent’s consistency and/or a Dwimveandra. Against an incautious opponent, you can try to 2-0.

Tactical Approaches:

Decks with good control (especially Heatwave or even Bearification) can instead try to respond tactically to opponent threats as they are played. This includes decks with significant removal ability (especially tall removal) even if they lack artifact removal.

If you have a purify card and artifact removal, I recommend saving them for defender and Drakenborg, respectively – no matter what tasty targets present themselves in early rounds. If you lack access to purify but have artifact removal, you can consider targeting an Early Temple of Melitele as this denies 8 or 9 points of boost for Drakenborg to draw (repeatedly) later.

In rounds 1 and 2, control boost engines like Dandelion and Redanian Agent if you can, but save tall removal for the decisive round to counter recipients of Melitele’s order ability. If you can remove Dwimveandra, do so to prevent replays with Teleportation and Practice Makes Perfect.

Closing Comments:

I believe that between the bad match-ups and the lack of two consistently strong rounds, that Drakenborg is weak enough it will soon become just a bad memory. In the meanwhile, I hope this guide helps.