I agree with the give it Doomed status. Being able to play Ball two-three times in a match is insane, while no other faction (as far as I have seen) can do this.
I agree with the give it Doomed status. Being able to play Ball two-three times in a match is insane, while no other faction (as far as I have seen) can do this.
With the upcoming change where artifact removal will presumably be redesigned, artifacts need to adapt.
Artifacts should be buffed, currently they are not played at all. To prevent the uniteractive aspect, there should be a cap of maximum 3 artifacts in the deck, along with 13 unit requirement.
Additional requirements are not necesarry, but would bring an interesting vibe to the game, for example having an adjecent unit so that you can use order ability of sihil.
Now I dont know what to do with scenarios. In my previous points I didn't mind that their provision cap was increased, but I dont think that it will be good for the game, as there should on principle not be any card that is 5x times stronger than a 4p bronze or a card that weights 10% of your total deck provision capacity. Or a card that put multiple engines on the board.
Artifacts should be buffed, currently they are not played at all. To prevent the uniteractive aspect, there should be a cap of maximum 3 artifacts in the deck, along with 13 unit requirement.
Additional requirements are not necesarry, but would bring an interesting vibe to the game, for example having an adjecent unit so that you can use order ability of sihil.
Now I dont know what to do with scenarios. In my previous points I didn't mind that their provision cap was increased, but I dont think that it will be good for the game, as there should on principle not be any card that is 5x times stronger than a 4p bronze or a card that weights 10% of your total deck provision capacity. Or a card that put multiple engines on the board.
You have all the quality and aspect of the CDPR developers where you completely forget that there is a faction called ST which has something called Traps which are Artifacts and there is a stupid f**king 13P card which plays two random traps if you have 4+ traps in the starting deck.
If we buffed those traps, while having deck requirements of 3 artifacts max, then overall ST would benefit from this change.
We also avoid an uninteractive archetype. (Eldain was changed for the very same reason)
We also avoid an uninteractive archetype. (Eldain was changed for the very same reason)
SK can. Also, it's actually a fun mechanic to create a deck around potentially using scenarios two times, but without artifact removal it will be too reliable as the draw dependency has already been severely decreased by adding Oneiromancy.
I don't know what you're talking about. Traps are incredibly interactive, and it would permanently kill the archetype if a 3 Artifact restriction was placed on every deck. Literally the only Artifacts that are problematic are Scenarios. Nearly everything else is incredibly underpowered.
How are they interactive when your opponent has reactive play alternatives. How is he supposed to interact with your plays ? Should he just play some of his weakest units, and feed them to your traps, is that interactive ?
I have a similar deck but haven't played it yet. Can actually play ball 4 times if you're playing against NG as you can have Yen steal the opponents.
A properly timed and placed trap can throw your opponent's entire tempo and strategy into disarray. Additionally, there's quite a bit of strategy involved in responding to a trap since you have to try and deduce which type was played. Make the wrong choice and you could end up doing a lot of harm to yourself.
I've run up against some very skilled trap deck players and they can be challenging to deal with. I usually enjoy it when I play against one, since it's such a change of pace.
I've run up against some very skilled trap deck players and they can be challenging to deal with. I usually enjoy it when I play against one, since it's such a change of pace.
Yen Invo only works on units no?I have a similar deck but haven't played it yet. Can actually play ball 4 times if you're playing against NG as you can have Yen steal the opponents.
What I would personally like to see happen with scenarios is make them an underlying unit that has an effect for the duration of the round. Kind of like a weaker version of a Leader ability at a high provision cost. And yes, it would carry a doomed tag and shouldn't be able to be reused in the same match.
I don't know what the effects would be, but I think the idea has interesting possibilities. I guess something like a beneficial row effect.
You're right, forgot about that.. Darn...
I don't know what the effects would be, but I think the idea has interesting possibilities. I guess something like a beneficial row effect.
Post automatically merged:
You're right, forgot about that.. Darn...
Last edited:
But you could possibly steal a copy by something like Isbel. Then you could use Yennifer to steal Assire to play the copy twice, for a total of five balls. Not likely to happen, but an amusing possibility
Half the meta? Lol what a joke. The factions that don't use them only exclude them because they don't have the luxury of bringing theirs back from the graveyard. SK and NR don't need it because they're op without the risk of heavier and NG can include or exclude it without a worry in the world since they can play it 3 times or remove it altogether and still dominate. NR and MO are likely the weakest scenarios because of the requirements. A deathwish or siege tag is nothing compared to an aristocrat tag as far as potential point swing or removal if we consider ST.
Scenarios were broken before MM and they're still broken now, it's made even worse now with tutoring out of control because not all scenarios are created equal. If I match up against NG and I don't have heavier I may as well forfeit even after MM that hasn't changed
I think a good approach to balance scenarios after the change to artifact removal would be to only make it possible to trigger them with bronze units.
Let me explain:
Scenarios are the highest point cards that exist in the game. So if one player has a Scenario in r3, plus his usual gold package, then its close to impossible to win against the scenario player. That is because you can trigger it with your high value gold cards (vincent, roderick, userper, dettlaff, golyat, adriano, ...) making it impossible for your opponent to match your points. its also impossible to answer it, because it playes multiple cards per turn - going wide and tall.
so the only way to win against scenarios would be to bleed them in r2... or have your own in r3.
Now if it is only possible to trigger them with bronze cards, you would have to keep 2 "weak cards" to get the pay off for your extreme value card, so someone with 3 regular golds may be able to keep up in points in a 3 round.
this would make scenarios more of a bleeding tool in r2 or a card if you want to push to win r1, because you would be able to spend some golds, but still get big value out of your bronze (like AA does for NR atm).
So it would shift the focus of a big finisher card, to a card that requires you to play multiple rounds. Those multiple rounds paired with a low tempo start up allow the non-scenario player to counterplay by passing, or setting up his own engines agressively, ....
this would most likely be enough of a "nerv" so that all the scenarios dont require a complete rework, which is the only solution i can see otherwise..
I really like this idea, what do you fellow gwentlewo*man think of it?
*edit: it should also not be possible to play it multiple times... just add a "banish self" after the 3rd chapter to solve this problem.
Let me explain:
Scenarios are the highest point cards that exist in the game. So if one player has a Scenario in r3, plus his usual gold package, then its close to impossible to win against the scenario player. That is because you can trigger it with your high value gold cards (vincent, roderick, userper, dettlaff, golyat, adriano, ...) making it impossible for your opponent to match your points. its also impossible to answer it, because it playes multiple cards per turn - going wide and tall.
so the only way to win against scenarios would be to bleed them in r2... or have your own in r3.
Now if it is only possible to trigger them with bronze cards, you would have to keep 2 "weak cards" to get the pay off for your extreme value card, so someone with 3 regular golds may be able to keep up in points in a 3 round.
this would make scenarios more of a bleeding tool in r2 or a card if you want to push to win r1, because you would be able to spend some golds, but still get big value out of your bronze (like AA does for NR atm).
So it would shift the focus of a big finisher card, to a card that requires you to play multiple rounds. Those multiple rounds paired with a low tempo start up allow the non-scenario player to counterplay by passing, or setting up his own engines agressively, ....
this would most likely be enough of a "nerv" so that all the scenarios dont require a complete rework, which is the only solution i can see otherwise..
I really like this idea, what do you fellow gwentlewo*man think of it?
*edit: it should also not be possible to play it multiple times... just add a "banish self" after the 3rd chapter to solve this problem.
Last edited:
I like this idea in general but I'm not sure it would be a big change. some of the best cards to trigger scenarios are already bronzes, namely thirsty dame, van moorlhem hunter, sly seductress, peaches, clan preacher (the SK) one. NR usually just plays another trebuchet with leader aswell since there arent many good gold machines anyway.
but you may be onto something
I like this idea in general but I'm not sure it would be a big change. some of the best cards to trigger scenarios are already bronzes, namely thirsty dame, van moorlhem hunter, sly seductress, peaches, clan preacher (the SK) one. NR usually just plays another trebuchet with leader aswell since there arent many good gold machines anyway.
but you may be onto something
I agree that the engine triggers are scary, perhaps SY should not grant 2 engines, but rather a spender with the second chapter..
But thinking about this is actually how i got the idea for this change. Contesting a scenario with a couple of you own golds is fine, especially if you can remove the first engine. Scenarios play for 4points on the first turn, and then 6-7 on the second, followed by another 7-8 on the final chapter. adding in a value of 6 points for the 2 bronze cards, it's around 30 points in 3 turns. That IS a lot, but it is beatable in a third round were you are able to play your win conditions aswell.
And on top of that scenarios would have much tighter deck building restrictions and fewer outs to trigger all chapters in a short r3, so bleeding gets more effective.
Dont forget that Scenarios ARE still the highest provision cards in the game and as such should rather be compaired to cards like Draugh in a long round - the best thing to beat draugh is to bleed into a short r3, which would be the same tactic as to counter scenarios.
The weakest scenarios atm are NR siege and ST feign death, which both mostly get triggered by bronze cards, SK's scenario is also rather underperforming if you do not have a setup of golds/targets prepared beforehand.
Or simply make it so you can't trigger more than 1 chapter per turn. So after playing the prologue you can't activate the next chapter using a leader ability or when the 1st chapter you can't tutor into another card activating the two remaining chapters in the same turn.
If there's no longer going to be anything that removes Artifacts, then does it really matter if a Scenario progresses through multiple chapters in a single turn. The only reason this is done now is to avoid losing too much when your opponent is holding a Bomb Heaver.