I don't think remove reach is the right idea

[vickssan]

So I've read all the comments from above, and to be fair while giving 2 reach to a lot of units will save the "row flavor" it will just make reach 1 cards more unplayable, imagine a meta with only 2 reach units, "supposedly" that happened Last say will be even more prevalent and reach 1 cards will be the same because of how reach 2 works. For example, the best reach 2 cards were very abusive in the early stages I mean the SK ships, did you see any reach 1 cards to answer them? ST skirmishers and that's it... So the point you are making while it has its weight for some cards (ships being the best example) it really was bringing down a lot of cards especially for reach 1 cards.

And to get to your solution: you said more reach 2 will make reach 1 matter more, however, imagine a world where both players are having reach 2 cards ONLY because of how common will reach 2 be, one of the players will always play on the melee so he can reach the ranged row, and you are forced to row stack because your ranged row now doesn't matter, and that's the twist, reach 2 is played on melee for deploy or engine, and the answer wouldn't be a "reach 1 card" but another reach 2 card played on the ranged row. So reach doesn't matter especially for engine based cards, the ship moved to ranged row still got the value it was supposed to. I see how reach was contributing to the game, at the same time it was not relevant enough to be a game-changing mechanic, row restriction, however, is hard to deal with and your engine cards that are row restricted will have a hard time if they are moved around. Also, damage cards being row restricted will stop that row stacking non-sense and moving units will matter once more.

All in all, this is a welcome change especially that Gwent since HC is with only 2 rows, reach would have much MORE meaning and impact if we had 3 rows but that's the reality we live in. Interesting topic to think about shout out to the OP.

 

[Lyserus]

So I've read all the comments from above, and to be fair while giving 2 reach to a lot of units will save the "row flavor" it will just make reach 1 cards more unplayable, imagine a meta with only 2 reach units, "supposedly" that happened Last say will be even more prevalent and reach 1 cards will be the same because of how reach 2 works. For example, the best reach 2 cards were very abusive in the early stages I mean the SK ships, did you see any reach 1 cards to answer them? ST skirmishers and that's it... So the point you are making while it has its weight for some cards (ships being the best example) it really was bringing down a lot of cards especially for reach 1 cards.

And to get to your solution: you said more reach 2 will make reach 1 matter more, however, imagine a world where both players are having reach 2 cards ONLY because of how common will reach 2 be, one of the players will always play on the melee so he can reach the ranged row, and you are forced to row stack because your ranged row now doesn't matter, and that's the twist, reach 2 is played on melee for deploy or engine, and the answer wouldn't be a "reach 1 card" but another reach 2 card played on the ranged row. So reach doesn't matter especially for engine based cards, the ship moved to ranged row still got the value it was supposed to. I see how reach was contributing to the game, at the same time it was not relevant enough to be a game-changing mechanic, row restriction, however, is hard to deal with and your engine cards that are row restricted will have a hard time if they are moved around. Also, damage cards being row restricted will stop that row stacking non-sense and moving units will matter once more.

All in all, this is a welcome change especially that Gwent since HC is with only 2 rows, reach would have much MORE meaning and impact if we had 3 rows but that's the reality we live in. Interesting topic to think about shout out to the OP.

I appreciate you reading it through, but you missed one thing: Reach 1 cards are really good counters provision wise.

You don't (or at least shouldn't) see low provision bronzes with 3 or 4 damage unless it's reach 1. And with the patch nerfing other card's damage potential, reach 1 bronzes will be the way to go, because you other choices are
1. range 2 units/ no reach units which no longer have comparable damage potential
2.Special cards that don't add body to your side
3. High provision gold with the same damage potential

If you consider all these,you will see that reach 1 is the way to go

There is also the fact that row stack can be easily punished, so while range row is safer, you need to make a decision of your placement so you are not punished for row stack on range

EDIT：And aye, thank you for seeing the point of this post, I appreciate your appreciation

 

[vickssan]

1. range 2 units/ no reach units which no longer have comparable damage potential

Yea but the point remains the same if they row stack ranged your reach 1 cards are useless and from what we've seen in the changes the cards you want to kill will be on the ranged row, not on melee!
Also, let's not forget we have only 6 bronze cards with reach 1 and their damage output is with a very tricky restriction, one wants wild hunts, the other is an order card, the third wants soldiers to be semi-good and to top it off they have the DEMAND for your opponent to have a minion on melee and that is not happening often. And while row-stacking is punished (easiest example lacerate) we were in a meta right now with row stacking and lacerate was not even a solution to it because the win condition of row-stacking is better than the counter of it... In theory, you have a point, the meta and how much play reach 1 saw play since HC came out, however, speaks for itself!

 

[Lyserus]

Yea but the point remains the same if they row stack ranged your reach 1 cards are useless and from what we've seen in the changes the cards you want to kill will be on the ranged row, not on melee!
Also, let's not forget we have only 6 bronze cards with reach 1 and their damage output is with a very tricky restriction, one wants wild hunts, the other is an order card, the third wants soldiers to be semi-good and to top it off they have the DEMAND for your opponent to have a minion on melee and that is not happening often. And while row-stacking is punished (easiest example lacerate) we were in a meta right now with row stacking and lacerate was not even a solution to it because the win condition of row-stacking is better than the counter of it... In theory, you have a point, the meta and how much play reach 1 saw play since HC came out, however, speaks for itself!

I would still argue that if it's the problem with numbers, then it just need more adjusting, however the row identify reach brings ultimately add more spice to the game and shouldn't be throw into the dumpster

 

[BoYoDes]

Row locking will make sense mainly for Engine units. Adding it to Deploy units is, indeed, boring. But what you could do to make rows matter more, is make some Deploy cards to interact only with the opposite row - like Igni does. This is something small that will make the game aliitle bit more strategic.

Also, more cards with Dual abilities (that make one thing on one row and other on the other) will be appreciated to have.

In short: "two rows will matter more in HC" was, indeed, a lie, and we are almost returning to where Beta ended, where everithing was flying freely or randomly all over the board.

 

[StrykerxS77x]

In short: "two rows will matter more in HC" was, indeed, a lie, and we are almost returning to where Beta ended, where everithing was flying freely or randomly all over the board.

The homecoming promises made me think that the vast majority of cards would have multiple abilities depending on the row it's played on. That is what I want. They have good cards that do that and they have a ton of cards that don't do that at all.

 

[sfruzz]

Reach was a nice way of having conditional damage. Of course, it would have worked better with 3 rows.

Reach would have been a nice keyword in beta Gwent, where we could have had Reach 1 for melee units, Reach 2 for units throwing axes and stones, Reach 3 for archers, Reach 4 for siege machine, Reach 5 for trebuchets.
Weather could have had an influence on Reach and so on...

Unfortunately, Reach as game mechanic was introduced with the 2 rows limitation. Not much design space there: Reach 1 vs Reach 2.

 

[PatBasi]

I agree that reach 1 cards were too limited and not played enough. Removing reach 1 makes sense to me.

Reach 2 on the other hand was interesting. When you played a reach 2 unit you had more choices, both as the one playing the reach 2 unit or the opponent. For example, sometimes you played your Sheldon Skaggs ranged row, maybe sacrificing some damage, to play into your dwarf/oak synergies or maybe because the front row was under RnR. And as the opponent you could prefer play ranged row to draw the reach 2 units on melee and encourage row stacking to then punish that row.
With row lock you don't have as much choice. (It's actually an indirect small nerf to row effects.)

Moving a row locked unit is also binary. (A reach 2 engine could be moved back row and still have some efficiency or at least row denial).

IMHO both reach 2 and row lock are valid options and could be used for different cards.

Concerning Formation I think it's good keyword (there again giving you options). I'm glad NR has more of it.

Finally I see several of you speaking of "row identity". And I'm wondering what you think makes it desirable, how it improves gameplay.

 

[Lyserus]

Row-limited Deploy should be change back to reach

Not talking about cards that have different ability on different rows or formation units, but units that has single deploy ability with row restriction

Just exactly what is the point here?

Lots of point I have already mentioned in this post: https://forums.cdprojektred.com/ind...hink-remove-reach-is-the-right-idea.11011456/
I will say a bit more here

Single row-limited deploy ability only mattered because the melee row is supposed to be the "danger zone", so units with strong deploy/order ability will have to place it on melee, offering a body for your opponent to damage

Now with reach gone, the row-limited deploy only matters when people misclicked, and there is no skill in that, just pure and simple mistake, when it happens it doesn't spice up the game only adds up frustration

I will say it again, the problem with reach was the lack of it. If say, half of all cards have reach 2 tag or melee restriction, row identity will matter (melee = danger zone, range = safer area) and reach 1 units can be good due to so many reach 2 and melee cards, and it takes actual skill to perfect your "placement skill". With reach gone, a lot of flavor have gone

 

[Moors-]

For these type of cards I would like to have 2nd ability for another row.

 

[Lyserus]

For these type of cards I would like to have 2nd ability for another row.

Still won't have the row identity this way, and honestly there are only so many abilities you can give to bronzes.
You will end up either full of damage on melee/buff on range (which are quite like formation), or some special ability like purify (making bleed, vitality, bounty, poison etc even weaker).

 

[BoYoDes]

They can fix reach in a way when if you want to hit something on one row, you should put your card on its opposite row. Like Igni used to play in Beta. I know it's not much, but you'll be surprised how strategic it can be (lining Lacerates or said Igni or whatever).

The original Reach would be great with 6 rows, however, this ship had sailed long time ago.

 

[Kssysiek]

Removing reach? fine
Adding a random row lock top to bottom ... definitely not.
Take the Impera Enforcers for the instance, the core engine of the now in decline spy archetype.
Its ranged locked of the sudden. So are rot tossers, spy-poison tie in. So is Triss the only poison gold card.
The very fun and creative Poison-Spy-NG deck killed by accident, cause now it row caps, all because of the reach change.
And CDPR promised row locking even more.