Is Nifgaurd supposed to have everything?

[Gwentsan]

How come NG have so much versatility while other factions do not?
NG has numbers ways to play and I've seen all of these decks on ladder:

1. LOCKs,
2. Poison,
3. Spying and cards that steal/copy opponent cards,
4. Swarming (the new patch and now it can early pressure, 4 unit provision cards hit for 10.. Devs need to WAKE UP),
5. Opponent Deck banish,
6. Cultist point swarm/tower spam,
7. Sihil Synergy (super easy with 1 power cost spy units)
8. Damage (Tactic, soldiers),
9. Unit destroy cards: Vilgefortz, Philippe Van Moorlehem, Vincent Van Moorlehem, Vanhemar
10. Graveyard utility: Assire var Anahid (7 provison. HOw the fk is this 7 provision?)
11. Card Draw Both own deck and opponent
12. Assimilate
13. Self deck Copy utility :e.g. Letho: Kingslayer

However,..Moster decks have like only 3 ways of playing.
Kelly decks.
Thrive decks.
Frost + Move

ST has like 3 ways of playing.
Dwarves. (they make most dwarves ONLY synergize with dwarves... so not very flexible)
Harmony (they really want them to play this so they buffed it)
Damage
Move
Waylay Eleves

NR has like only 4 ways of playing
Boost and more boost (knights atm but always has been some kind of boosts)
New! Patience
Damage - Mages
Copy deck, coppying warriors/soilders
They have "duel" but only two cards. in fact SK is more "duel with their ridiculously strong clash synergy"

,,
My point is:
The NG attributes are getting out of hand. It's GREAT that it has so many strong/ways of playing, but if it's like good at everything, why should anyone start Monster deck, or any other deck? Then everyone starts to play NG and that defeats the purpose of having multiple fractions....

 

[radesign]

xD

And yet another pointless rant.
Take a look at stats mate.
Maybe it "has everything", but it`s very mediocre, maybe except locks.

Have you ever played with NG then, are you at top RANKED level, if playing with NG is so easy then ? xD

 

[Barracuda88]

Yeah, take a look at stats, mate. NG "only" has like 30% playrate.

 

[radesign]

Yeah, take a look at stats, mate. NG "only" has like 30% playrate.

Oh, great pseudo argument.
Not even true
Like you have to make up more realistic numbers mate.

How about winrates ?
How about consistency with using most of leaders equally ?

There is also a design and stylistic choice - some people just prefer "Empire" over the "Rebellion", using Star Wars analogy, thus playrates that have nothing to do with actual winrates.

Would never complain about ppl playing Blue-Black decks in MtG, as many CCGs have such factions.
Cause it`s more interesting, than going yolo through ranks with Skellige Sihill-Patricidal Fury on auto-pilot, which has points, damage and control.

 

[Draconifors]

If you cannot resist making personal attacks, or attempts thereof, please do not post. Any more of that, and posts will start getting moderated.

 

[Gwentsan]

Locks are very powerful. It should have higher provision IF they decide to add MORE lock cards to NG... there were already enough.

Can anyone explain why they decided to add more low provision Lock cards?

It is interesting, but they have made it NOT interesting by just having too many locks.
Locks CANCEL all the hard work the Devs put int to make a card interesting.
A card can have the MOST interesting writing but the lock will... lock it. Kinda, void it.

It's an interesting superpower. True. But imagine if there is a marvel movie. And the main character just nullifies EVERY superpower.
Then it's not really a superhero movie... it's... just regular people. It's not a marvel movie anymore Ironically....it just ppl in tight costumes.

When a few cards are too strong, decks HAVE to contain those cards, which limits deck combinations. (just math).
When the combinations are limited, things get very repetitive.
Which in turn gets people bored, frustrated, or even find other games that spark their interest.

That's when games go south and people leave the game. (very sad T.T)

Good games NEED constant balancing, not only new cards, but constant new cards.

ATM they are buffing like 16 new cards, and then like nerfing 3 of them after a month.
This results in provison/power ratio imblance where it looks like a mountain where there are a few new yet powerful cards, yet there are many forgotten cards in the bottom.

The approach should be to try every patch to make sure that it's not a mountain, but at most a low hill.
Yes it can't be perfect but they should aim for level ground.

The same is said for faction balance.
Lots of strategy depend on the ability to predict the opponent. That's where the "Strategy" come in.
Imagine soccer, tennis, basketball.. it's not only about the fundamentals but also the ability to intercept that makes turnarounds fun and great. Defense has to predict where they will pass the ball while offence thinks about how to create passes to get the ball into the net.
The versatility of NG makes DEFENCE very difficult since their decks have too many cards that can fit into all type of decks. And then there are new cards as I've mentioned earlier that requires little strategy but just SOLO play. It's like they added some hard hitters that just like to shoot the soccer ball into the net at the half court because they are just freaking awesome (scenearios for example).

So all said, Gwent has become a game of NO defence and NO offence.
Because some cards are just BEASTS there needs no setup, just play the card and get +50% win.
and some decks are to Versatile that Defence is -50% win.

I hope this changes.

 

[UMA22]

How come NG have so much versatility while other factions do not?
NG has numbers ways to play and I've seen all of these decks on ladder:

1. LOCKs,
2. Poison,
3. Spying and cards that steal/copy opponent cards,
4. Swarming (the new patch and now it can early pressure, 4 unit provision cards hit for 10.. Devs need to WAKE UP),
5. Opponent Deck banish,
6. Cultist point swarm/tower spam,
7. Sihil Synergy (super easy with 1 power cost spy units)
8. Damage (Tactic, soldiers),
9. Unit destroy cards: Vilgefortz, Philippe Van Moorlehem, Vincent Van Moorlehem, Vanhemar
10. Graveyard utility: Assire var Anahid (7 provison. HOw the fk is this 7 provision?)
11. Card Draw Both own deck and opponent
12. Assimilate
13. Self deck Copy utility :e.g. Letho: Kingslayer

However,..Moster decks have like only 3 ways of playing.
Kelly decks.
Thrive decks.
Frost + Move

ST has like 3 ways of playing.
Dwarves. (they make most dwarves ONLY synergize with dwarves... so not very flexible)
Harmony (they really want them to play this so they buffed it)
Damage
Move
Waylay Eleves

NR has like only 4 ways of playing
Boost and more boost (knights atm but always has been some kind of boosts)
New! Patience
Damage - Mages
Copy deck, coppying warriors/soilders
They have "duel" but only two cards. in fact SK is more "duel with their ridiculously strong clash synergy"

,,
My point is:
The NG attributes are getting out of hand. It's GREAT that it has so many strong/ways of playing, but if it's like good at everything, why should anyone start Monster deck, or any other deck? Then everyone starts to play NG and that defeats the purpose of having multiple

xD

And yet another pointless rant.
Take a look at stats mate.
Maybe it "has everything", but it`s very mediocre, maybe except locks.

Have you ever played with NG then, are you at top RANKED level, if playing with NG is so easy then ? xD

I agree with him and i play all factions
And i'm pro rank
NG still easy to play comparing to others factions
A brief comparaison
Fercart and imerilth
First cost 7 second cost 9
Do almost same thing, one with an unit the other with a special card, fercart is easier to play bc he plays the special card while imerilth just boost itself by it strength, u need to have the unit u want in hand before playing him
NG is full with disbalanced cards like this
It true that i reach pro rank with NR or SK but it just bc i'm anti empire lol

 

[quintivarium]

A brief comparaison
Fercart and imerilth
First cost 7 second cost 9
Do almost same thing, one with an unit the other with a special card, fercart is easier to play bc he plays the special card while imerilth just boost itself by it strength, u need to have the unit u want in hand before playing him
NG is full with disbalanced cards like this

Ok, let me play devils advocate with a comparison of my own: Serrit vs. Whispess. Both cost 7 provisions. Both damage an opponent by 2 on deploy. Both can increase this damage by two under certain conditions. But Whispess has 6 power to Serrit’s 5. Whispess’ bonus damage can be as much as 4 simply by previously playing other cards likely desirable in the same deck; Serrit requires one particular overpriced card in hand to even get the two point damage. Clearly monsters is the faction with OP cards

My point is that you cannot complain about the power of a faction by taking individual cards out of context. It may be valid to do so when discussing whether a certain card is OP; it is not valid to generalize such claims to a faction as a whole.

 

[Barracuda88]

Oh, great pseudo argument.
Not even true
Like you have to make up more realistic numbers mate.

How about winrates ?
How about consistency with using most of leaders equally ?

There is also a design and stylistic choice - some people just prefer "Empire" over the "Rebellion", using Star Wars analogy, thus playrates that have nothing to do with actual winrates.

Would never complain about ppl playing Blue-Black decks in MtG, as many CCGs have such factions.
Cause it`s more interesting, than going yolo through ranks with Skellige Sihill-Patricidal Fury on auto-pilot, which has points, damage and control.

That's not a pseudo argument. Just a slight exaggeration. What IS the eternal pseudo argument is how NG is supposedly "very mediocre." And "how about winrates" is another. How about the winrates, exactly? Same as any other faction, I would say, if we're going to just exchange platitudes.

 

[starrzz]

NG has numbers ways to play and I've seen all of these decks on ladder:

1. LOCKs,
2. Poison,
3. Spying and cards that steal/copy opponent cards,
4. Swarming (the new patch and now it can early pressure, 4 unit provision cards hit for 10.. Devs need to WAKE UP),
5. Opponent Deck banish,
6. Cultist point swarm/tower spam,
7. Sihil Synergy (super easy with 1 power cost spy units)
8. Damage (Tactic, soldiers),
9. Unit destroy cards: Vilgefortz, Philippe Van Moorlehem, Vincent Van Moorlehem, Vanhemar
10. Graveyard utility: Assire var Anahid (7 provison. HOw the fk is this 7 provision?)
11. Card Draw Both own deck and opponent
12. Assimilate
13. Self deck Copy utility :e.g. Letho: Kingslayer

However,..Moster decks have like only 3 ways of playing.
Kelly decks.
Thrive decks.
Frost + Move

Well... to be completely honest, since you list just about all the archetypes NG ever had, MO also has Deathwish, Deathwish Viy, Relics Nekker, Relics Mamuna, Rat Clog, Rat Sihil, Rat Swarm, VAMPIRES (actually meta currently), Kiki Thrive, She-Troll spam, etc.

So hopefully now you see how one-sided your argument is.

What IS the eternal pseudo argument is how NG is supposedly "very mediocre."

Chipping in, I'd say NG is currently quite mediocre indeed despite having one very strong deck. That deck is completely wincon-wise dependent on neutrals to the point you can pretty much call it a neutral deck with some NG addition. In fact, you can make a similar deck (slam R1, stack row with big base bodies, Triss and Refnri for the win) with almost any faction, and such SK deck actually is meta, too. it just works best with NG because of the locks and the extra little pointslam and thinning from Blightmakers, is all.

All the natural NG archetypes are either powercrept or meme. So mediocre indeed, ngl.

 

[Barracuda88]

...
Chipping in, I'd say NG is currently quite mediocre indeed despite having one very strong deck. That deck is completely wincon-wise dependent on neutrals to the point you can pretty much call it a neutral deck with some NG addition. In fact, you can make a similar deck (slam R1, stack row with big base bodies, Triss and Refnri for the win) with almost any faction, and such SK deck actually is meta, too. it just works best with NG because of the locks and the extra little pointslam and thinning from Blightmakers, is all.

All the natural NG archetypes are either powercrept or meme. So mediocre indeed, ngl.

"Currently quite mediocre" just means the meta swung away and NG can no longer play 4 renfris for the win. This season its the vampires and knights, last season it was NG and next season it's going to be whatever. You are talking about meta. Which is quite different from the argument that the FACTION of NG "may have everything but is very mediocre."

 

[Gwentsan]

Hey guys. I'm just wondering... How many factions does Gwent have again?

Sooooooooo many kingslayer decks, lock decks, and playing against SK is even more boring ONly Pirates or graveyard to deck switch., just two types...
Seeing Coral and snowdrop is almost like a meme now.

-replying to above person, Yes, I don't think NG is the "meta". It has some meta decks but I found it very bizarre and frustrating to see NG get so many strong cards which allow MULTIPLE strong decks. I am not saying that all those decks are Tier 1 or the strongest, but they are all quite strong vs other fractions that only have a few ways to play. I mean atm Pirates are just freakishly in need of major nerfs, but that's a whole another issue that doesn't take a genius to recognize especially it is the devs that just buffed it to infinity with their special "balance" (aka the opposite of balance but just buff it ridiculously and go on a holiday for a month till enough people complain.)

 

[UMA22]

Ok, let me play devils advocate with a comparison of my own: Serrit vs. Whispess. Both cost 7 provisions. Both damage an opponent by 2 on deploy. Both can increase this damage by two under certain conditions. But Whispess has 6 power to Serrit’s 5. Whispess’ bonus damage can be as much as 4 simply by previously playing other cards likely desirable in the same deck; Serrit requires one particular overpriced card in hand to even get the two point damage. Clearly monsters is the faction with OP cards

My point is that you cannot complain about the power of a faction by taking individual cards out of context. It may be valid to do so when discussing whether a certain card is OP; it is not valid to generalize such claims to a faction as a whole.

Serrit is a old dead card cmon, since when u havent seen it ?
Take something accruate to compare please
Imlerith and fercart are played a lot
I took that exemple bc those two cards do almost same thing
And it obvious that it's disbalanced
The fact is, that with NG u have a counter to almost every thing, while other factions dont
I know that all factions have a specific gameplay
And NG is focused on counter ur gameplay but that's not fair

 

[quintivarium]

Serrit is a old dead card cmon, since when u havent seen it ?
Take something accruate to compare please

It is an accurate comparison: Serrit is categorically worse than Whispess. It might not be a “fair” comparison for reasons you state — but that was not my point. The point is one can easily find cards in one faction that compare poorly to cards in another. And that is not a valid basis for inferences about the faction’s power —what really matters is the cards in context of other cards in possible decks.

Imlerith and fercart are played a lot
I took that exemple bc those two cards do almost same thing

And speaking of accurate and fair, this comparison is neither.

First the cards are not nearly the same. The only commonality is that both draw a card after “using” a card in hand. But Imlerith uses (typically) a high point value card with major drawbacks (e.g. Yghern, Pogo, or Griffin) for boosts — while placing the card in graveyard for future use. Fercart plays a special card and grants spying tags.

The cards play fundamentally different roles — Imlerith is basically pointslam which sets up future pointslam (Ozzrel or Witches’ Sabbath) and Imlerith’s Wrath. Fercart is basically value added or another card (much like Roach) which sets up cards like Coup de Grace and Artaud.

And finally, Fercart is NOT categorically stronger than Imlerith. The one I would prefer is situational. In fact, with a Monsters deck, which often relies upon pointslam, has many tall cards with drawbacks, reasonable access to the graveyard, and benefits from a strong removal card (like Wrath), Imlerith is very useful. But with few monster special cards I want to play, and no use for spying tags, Fercart would be trash. On the other hand, with NG which has virtually no high power cards, many usable specials, and cards to benefit from spying tags, I prefer Fercart. So, surprise, surprise, a monster card is better in the context of a monster deck and a Nilfgaard card is better in a Nilfgaard deck. This says nothing about the relative strengths of the factions and supports my original point.

And it obvious that it's disbalanced
The fact is, that with NG u have a counter to almost every thing, while other factions dont
I know that all factions have a specific gameplay
And NG is focused on counter ur gameplay but that's not fair

I very much doubt we will ever agree here. NG is my third favorite faction to play and my absolute favorite to play against. And the reason is that it has counters to an opponent’s play — and can, in turn, generally be countered, especially on a strategic level. Matches rarely boil down to who packed the most powerful cards in a deck and was then lucky enough to draw them at the right times. Nilfgaard requires and forces interaction. And it does more than any other faction to limit the excesses occasionally ill-designed cards introduce into the game.

And all factions have counters. Nilfgaard’s counters are often very overt, while counters to Nilfgaard are often subtle and strategic rather immediate and tactical. I find this neither imbalanced nor unfair.

 

[Gwentsan]

It is an accurate comparison: Serrit is categorically worse than Whispess. It might not be a “fair” comparison for reasons you state — but that was not my point. The point is one can easily find cards in one faction that compare poorly to cards in another. And that is not a valid basis for inferences about the faction’s power —what really matters is the cards in context of other cards in possible decks.


And speaking of accurate and fair, this comparison is neither.

First the cards are not nearly the same. The only commonality is that both draw a card after “using” a card in hand. But Imlerith uses (typically) a high point value card with major drawbacks (e.g. Yghern, Pogo, or Griffin) for boosts — while placing the card in graveyard for future use. Fercart plays a special card and grants spying tags.

The cards play fundamentally different roles — Imlerith is basically pointslam which sets up future pointslam (Ozzrel or Witches’ Sabbath) and Imlerith’s Wrath. Fercart is basically value added or another card (much like Roach) which sets up cards like Coup de Grace and Artaud.

And finally, Fercart is NOT categorically stronger than Imlerith. The one I would prefer is situational. In fact, with a Monsters deck, which often relies upon pointslam, has many tall cards with drawbacks, reasonable access to the graveyard, and benefits from a strong removal card (like Wrath), Imlerith is very useful. But with few monster special cards I want to play, and no use for spying tags, Fercart would be trash. On the other hand, with NG which has virtually no high power cards, many usable specials, and cards to benefit from spying tags, I prefer Fercart. So, surprise, surprise, a monster card is better in the context of a monster deck and a Nilfgaard card is better in a Nilfgaard deck. This says nothing about the relative strengths of the factions and supports my original point.



I very much doubt we will ever agree here. NG is my third favorite faction to play and my absolute favorite to play against. And the reason is that it has counters to an opponent’s play — and can, in turn, generally be countered, especially on a strategic level. Matches rarely boil down to who packed the most powerful cards in a deck and was then lucky enough to draw them at the right times. Nilfgaard requires and forces interaction. And it does more than any other faction to limit the excesses occasionally ill-designed cards introduce into the game.

And all factions have counters. Nilfgaard’s counters are often very overt, while counters to Nilfgaard are often subtle and strategic rather immediate and tactical. I find this neither imbalanced nor unfair.

When you have 10 cards that lock with low provision, and like 5 low provision cards that "remove" or "Destory".. that's not subtle and strategic.

I agree that's what MADE NG so great. I thought NG was a great idea, but then they started to spam locks and everything else, which is... no longer strategic. NG has a great concept, but it's like the marvel movies. First few was great. Now... jeez it's getting boring... too many of the same thing...

 

[EduFerraz]

It is an accurate comparison: Serrit is categorically worse than Whispess. It might not be a “fair” comparison for reasons you state — but that was not my point. The point is one can easily find cards in one faction that compare poorly to cards in another. And that is not a valid basis for inferences about the faction’s power —what really matters is the cards in context of other cards in possible decks.


And speaking of accurate and fair, this comparison is neither.

First the cards are not nearly the same. The only commonality is that both draw a card after “using” a card in hand. But Imlerith uses (typically) a high point value card with major drawbacks (e.g. Yghern, Pogo, or Griffin) for boosts — while placing the card in graveyard for future use. Fercart plays a special card and grants spying tags.

The cards play fundamentally different roles — Imlerith is basically pointslam which sets up future pointslam (Ozzrel or Witches’ Sabbath) and Imlerith’s Wrath. Fercart is basically value added or another card (much like Roach) which sets up cards like Coup de Grace and Artaud.

And finally, Fercart is NOT categorically stronger than Imlerith. The one I would prefer is situational. In fact, with a Monsters deck, which often relies upon pointslam, has many tall cards with drawbacks, reasonable access to the graveyard, and benefits from a strong removal card (like Wrath), Imlerith is very useful. But with few monster special cards I want to play, and no use for spying tags, Fercart would be trash. On the other hand, with NG which has virtually no high power cards, many usable specials, and cards to benefit from spying tags, I prefer Fercart. So, surprise, surprise, a monster card is better in the context of a monster deck and a Nilfgaard card is better in a Nilfgaard deck. This says nothing about the relative strengths of the factions and supports my original point.



I very much doubt we will ever agree here. NG is my third favorite faction to play and my absolute favorite to play against. And the reason is that it has counters to an opponent’s play — and can, in turn, generally be countered, especially on a strategic level. Matches rarely boil down to who packed the most powerful cards in a deck and was then lucky enough to draw them at the right times. Nilfgaard requires and forces interaction. And it does more than any other faction to limit the excesses occasionally ill-designed cards introduce into the game.

And all factions have counters. Nilfgaard’s counters are often very overt, while counters to Nilfgaard are often subtle and strategic rather immediate and tactical. I find this neither imbalanced nor unfair.

Surprise Surprise, One is 7 provision the other is 9 provision.

So did you made a wall of text just to aprove the idea?

Fercart is better in a NG deck, imlerith is better in a mo deck, but they have similarity ability.

And, like i said, surprise, surprise, one is 7 provision and the other is 9 provision

 

[UMA22]

It is an accurate comparison: Serrit is categorically worse than Whispess. It might not be a “fair” comparison for reasons you state — but that was not my point. The point is one can easily find cards in one faction that compare poorly to cards in another. And that is not a valid basis for inferences about the faction’s power —what really matters is the cards in context of other cards in possible decks.


And speaking of accurate and fair, this comparison is neither.

First the cards are not nearly the same. The only commonality is that both draw a card after “using” a card in hand. But Imlerith uses (typically) a high point value card with major drawbacks (e.g. Yghern, Pogo, or Griffin) for boosts — while placing the card in graveyard for future use. Fercart plays a special card and grants spying tags.

The cards play fundamentally different roles — Imlerith is basically pointslam which sets up future pointslam (Ozzrel or Witches’ Sabbath) and Imlerith’s Wrath. Fercart is basically value added or another card (much like Roach) which sets up cards like Coup de Grace and Artaud.

And finally, Fercart is NOT categorically stronger than Imlerith. The one I would prefer is situational. In fact, with a Monsters deck, which often relies upon pointslam, has many tall cards with drawbacks, reasonable access to the graveyard, and benefits from a strong removal card (like Wrath), Imlerith is very useful. But with few monster special cards I want to play, and no use for spying tags, Fercart would be trash. On the other hand, with NG which has virtually no high power cards, many usable specials, and cards to benefit from spying tags, I prefer Fercart. So, surprise, surprise, a monster card is better in the context of a monster deck and a Nilfgaard card is better in a Nilfgaard deck. This says nothing about the relative strengths of the factions and supports my original point.



I very much doubt we will ever agree here. NG is my third favorite faction to play and my absolute favorite to play against. And the reason is that it has counters to an opponent’s play — and can, in turn, generally be countered, especially on a strategic level. Matches rarely boil down to who packed the most powerful cards in a deck and was then lucky enough to draw them at the right times. Nilfgaard requires and forces interaction. And it does more than any other faction to limit the excesses occasionally ill-designed cards introduce into the game.

And all factions have counters. Nilfgaard’s counters are often very overt, while counters to Nilfgaard are often subtle and strategic rather immediate and tactical. I find this neither imbalanced nor unfair.

Ok, if i took random cards to compare i would take Vilgefortz and mialen, but mialen is a dead unplayed card too, understend now ?
If u can't see how unbalanced it is, it just mean that u are one of those dude who have 2000 win with NG and less than 100 with the others factions
Bc everyone agree that NG is unbalanced and offer the largest way to play, it wouldn't be played that much if not

 

[Gimme_a_break]

There's one thing NG doesn't have. People's respect.

 

[Black_Legion]

They still haven't changed Yen: Invocation (which is around 20+ provision play)

Yen: Invocation, 9 provision cost: Banish enemy unit and create a copy of that unit at the top of your deck

Corathi Heatwave, 10 provision cost: Banish enemy unit or artefact

Now They just stole Guerilla Tactics for NG and expect everyone to be happy

[...]

 

[Gwentsan]

The timing of this Tread before the update makes it just more ironic lol.
I guess NG really didn't have "everything" haha

Yes Yen:Invocation is a really good card. But then it's NG. So they deserve really good cards I guess..