So I get the appeal of the Witcher trio for thinning. I understand that a 9 or 12 (including roach) point play is a good idea, but 21-30 provisions is a lot. For example, using a provision 8 whispering hillock on a big woodland deck gets you extra consumables, can heal a damaged giant unit, and/or provides an extra lock. In SK you can pack quite a punch with a spear or a damage boat for 7 provisions. Also given the mulligan risk, the draw/mill risk, and the row attack risk, it just doesn't seem worth it.
BTW, I am rank 7. Maybe the decks being used at the top ranks are so much better that you need the thinning, I just don't see it.
That's exactly my problem with them personally. Provisions for them are too high. I think the only reason we see them so much (pretty much against everyone I've played) is because of netdecking. I'm definitely okay with using Roach and Dandelion, much better forms of thinning for me.
Not to mention the fact that they can be countered by Arachas Venom...
That's exactly my problem with them personally. Provisions for them are too high. I think the only reason we see them so much (pretty much against everyone I've played) is because of netdecking. I'm definitely okay with using Roach and Dandelion, much better forms of thinning for me.
you think dandelion who is 14 p for a 4 str body and a mulligan is better than the witchers?? and roach who is basically a 2 p more expensive witcher is better? the witchers are in the netdecks because they're good. dandelion is not because he's garbage.
The two reasons for the witcher trio to be so popular is the deck thining and a fast tempo gain in one package. While there are not nearly enough alternative thinig options the provision cost won't be an issue. Hopefuly this will change in the future, and more interesting thining options will be added to all the factions.
None of my new decks have Witcher Trio. I used to add them first in all of my decks (and locks and artifact removal) and then add cards for what I want to achieve. It seriously crippled my deck building. Recently, I started building decks without W3 and I am actually pretty happy with the deck. Of course, the thinning is not there, but I save 21 provisions and 3 slots for what I want to build.
About people in tournament, I actually despise that, every one just use the same freaking decks. Crach and Shupe decks everywhere. It is disgusting. I don't think it would have been worth seeing the tournament. No one wants to think out of the box (and the most important reason is, some decks are just too damn strong that nothing else can beat them). And for the couple of people who jump and ask "Which rank you are in?" - I am playing very very less nowadays and I reached Rank 7 comfortably this season since I don't have W3 in my deck.
I don't think W3 is so damn good that you have to add it in every one of your decks. It is not auto-include anymore. If you want to do Horn, then they are good. They provide quick 5 cards condition for horn. They are also vulnerable for row punish cards. (For example, I have Lacerete in my deck and I am happy every time the opponent plays W3).
you think dandelion who is 14 p for a 4 str body and a mulligan is better than the witchers?? and roach who is basically a 2 p more expensive witcher is better? the witchers are in the netdecks because they're good. dandelion is not because he's garbage.
W3 seriously screws your mulligan phase. If you have one in your hand, you are taking a risk in using your last mulligan. Sometimes, you don't draw them in R1 and draw 2 of them in R2. Etc. For Roach, I would say that the risk is smaller and has a much flexible condition to summon+tempo+thinning. So, yes, Roach is a good card. I am not sure if it is better, but it is at least as good as the W3 because of the flexible condition. Dandelion is not garbage. He is just now priced too heavily (and has the risk of being summoned or banished by VW or NGed in general). He can give +4 tempo and let you play any of your card and an additional draw. I think 12 would have been a good provision cost for him to see some usages. That is a topic for another discussion.
To be fair my latest decks also cut them and given that I am mostly playing monsters I get tempo anyways.
To be fair the overwhelming aspect of monsters is not even point/provision effectiveness, it is being able to tempo, taking cards like Riders [8 points], Griffin [8 points] (in Gernichora), Ghoul/Ozzrel [x+1 points, for x enter something previous] (in case setup is done already), as well as Speartip [9/13] (both forms).
In fact the design choice to make cards in terms of their power directly proportional and scale that much with provisions is a stuppid decision, cards like Awakened Speartip are shit cards in that regard (point/provision effectiveness), however are still able to tempo, which, quite often, is worth more than effectiveness, due to forcing out (1) additional card and thus gain card advantage at a crucial point.
you think dandelion who is 14 p for a 4 str body and a mulligan is better than the witchers?? and roach who is basically a 2 p more expensive witcher is better? the witchers are in the netdecks because they're good. dandelion is not because he's garbage.
I don't really care that you think he's garbage. It's just personal preference. He works better with the decks that I make. I also absolutely hate using the cards that everyone else uses.
Yes, given that Silver Witchers are overrated and monsters should get hit in the way I mentioned, the balancing of provisions, simply because it is not necessarily effective, allowing to tempo like that is simply flawed.
The flaw is not that Silver Witchers are not auto-include, what I explained is why they do not even need to run them for anything.
Silver Witchers are a 9 point play for 21 provisions or 13 transformed provisions (taking 4 as the lowest provision into account in a 25 card deck), that is simply mediocre ever since their nerf, the upside is tempo, though the tempo of a single 9 point play (12 with Roach for even more provisions) is overrated.
I hate them, and rarely use them, except on witcher decks or recently on my special deck with barely any units, because i needed the bodies, couldnt be just removal.
Also, SK definitely doesnt need them, the discard set is way better at thinning and providing tempo, not gonna waste 21pr. on 9 pts. Just run Arachas venom, since the trio is in like 90% of the decks and they're usually played R1 or 2.
It's actually 7 provisions for 9 pts since you're playing them all at once. And you're putting 9pts on the board spread evenly across 3 units which renders popular removal options like the 2 Geralts useless.
You're more vulnerable to row damage but the meta as it stands now sees very little use of Dragon's Dream, Lacerate, etc.
It limits creativity; that's about the only drawback. From a competitive standpoint creativity means nothing; your deck needs to be effective and value oriented.
It's actually 7 provisions for 9 pts since you're playing them all at once. And you're putting 9pts on the board spread evenly across 3 units which renders popular removal options like the 2 Geralts useless.
You're more vulnerable to row damage but the meta as it stands now sees very little use of Dragon's Dream, Lacerate, etc.
It limits creativity; that's about the only drawback.
You assume that the provisions you invest into the other 2, which you thin, do not exist, of course that is value in and on itself, however it is definitely not a 7 provision 9 point play, it is a consistent 13 provision 9 point play that thins 2 4 provision cards.
To be fair your assumption it is a 7 provision play makes absolutely no sense.
What you are giving up are 9 transformed provisions for a 9 point play, while transformed provisions are usually considerably below the points you get.
I agree you have a point it is a 9 point play, which cannot be countered with Gerald/Leo Bonhart, however it is not point/provision effective by any means, the nerf of it requiring 3 more provisions is a massive nerf.
I am not saying they are bad, however they are usually overrated and not effective, apart from the potential tempo of using a single 9/12 point play.
You assume that the provisions you invest into the other 2, which you thin, do not exist, of course that is value in and on itself, however it is definitely not a 7 provision 9 point play, it is a consistent 13 provision 9 point play that thins 2 4 provision cards.
To be fair your assumption it is a 7 provision play makes absolutely no sense.
What you are giving up are 9 transformed provisions for a 9 point play, while transformed provisions are usually considerably below the points you get.
I agree you have a point it is a 9 point play, which cannot be countered with Gerald/Leo Bonhart, however it is not point/provision effective by any means, the nerf of it requiring 3 more provisions is a massive nerf.
I am not saying they are bad, however they are usually overrated and not effective, apart from the potential tempo of using a single 9/12 point play.
Wrong, it IS a 9 point, 7 provision, because the poor game design means you only ever use around 17 cards. The hand sizes are too small, mulligans not right, lack of blacklisting ill-conceived. All of this is rendering the 25 card deck wrong, should be 21 cards or so.
Wrong, it IS a 9 point, 7 provision, because the poor game design means you only ever use around 17 cards. The hand sizes are too small, mulligans not right, lack of blacklisting ill-conceived. All of this is rendering the 25 card deck wrong, should be 21 cards or so.
So you do not count the resources on the others because you state cards you (propably) do not draw cannot cost you resources ?
It is still reliant on the other 2 being in the starting deck and whether you draw them or not does not magically change the fact you have to put them in your deck and pay the resources.
People do not count the other 2 because you do not get to play those 7 provision cards, it is because you count the packages, not the starter, by your logic Menno Coehorn is a 10 provision Gold with the same ability as Commanders Horn, which implies that you play a 14 provision card you do not draw (/are not allowed to draw to make the calculation true).
Not drawing such a card is a game losing stroke of bad luck.
By your logic people would always play those tutors, however they do demand ridiculous amounts of provisions, which is why people do not play them, the same principle applies to Silver Witchers, only that their price is not absurd.
So you do not count the resources on the others because you state cards you (propably) do not draw cannot cost you resources ?
It is still reliant on the other 2 being in the starting deck and whether you draw them or not does not magically change the fact you have to put them in your deck and pay the resources.
People do not count the other 2 because you do not get to play those 7 provision cards, it is because you count the packages, not the starter, by your logic Menno Coehorn is a 10 provision Gold with the same ability as Commanders Horn, which implies that you play a 15 provision card you do not draw (/are not allowed to draw to make the calculation true).
Not drawing such a card is a game losing stroke of bad luck.
By your logic people would always play those tutors, however they do demand ridiculous amounts of provisions, which is why people do not play them, the same principle applies to Silver Witchers, only that their price is not absurd.
Sorry, I didn't quite follow. In my opinion, you only play around 75% of your deck. This is ludicrously low for the provision model CDPR introduced, and so means that - with two Mulligans each round and no chance of using all 25 cards - playing the Witcher trio is a 9 point card which cost 7 provs. There's no scenario where it doesn't carry this value, aside from a bad luck Mulligan when it costs more. But it's no more costly than Steffan being nerfed pre-Horn, or Shupe RNG-ing the wrong card to destroy, etc.
Because of the dreadful reliance on a good deal, there's no point trying to create different 7 point synergies because the odds are significantly high you won't draw all three of those cards. Besides which, if you DO draw a different 7 point card, it's just as likely to be in the place of a card you want as opposed to a lower card you don't.
The Witcher Trio are ridiculous because the game is ridiculous. They should be an expensive include, not automatic. They are included in every deck because maths. And simple maths says, as you can mulligan two away in each round, that playing ONE 7 prov card will get you 9 points on the board.
Bring back the large R1 hand from Beta and get rid of this stupid 10 card start/limit. Strategy has been heavily diluted in HC76 and they desperately need to go back to at least some of the gameplay that made Gwent a decent strategic card game. At the moment it's closer to Top Trumps than a strategy game.
You assume that the provisions you invest into the other 2, which you thin, do not exist, of course that is value in and on itself, however it is definitely not a 7 provision 9 point play, it is a consistent 13 provision 9 point play that thins 2 4 provision cards.
To be fair your assumption it is a 7 provision play makes absolutely no sense.
What you are giving up are 9 transformed provisions for a 9 point play, while transformed provisions are usually considerably below the points you get.
I agree you have a point it is a 9 point play, which cannot be countered with Gerald/Leo Bonhart, however it is not point/provision effective by any means, the nerf of it requiring 3 more provisions is a massive nerf.
I am not saying they are bad, however they are usually overrated and not effective, apart from the potential tempo of using a single 9/12 point play.
The numbers you threw out make no sense. Even while trying to follow your logic stating that the 2 Witchers being thinned are the equivalent of 4 provisions each which results in 13 provisions for 9 points makes no sense (that would be 15 provisions for 9 points). But that doesn't make any sense. As a result, you thinking they're overrated is just as flawed a statement.
You're playing 1 Witcher out of your hand and bringing +9 pts to your side of the board. That 1 Witcher in your hand is a 7 provision card. The only condition that has to be met is that you don't have the other 2 in your hand. It's as simple as that. Let's compare it to other prevalent cards in the meta that we can easily quantify and see why they're not overrated as well as why they're widely used competitively shall we?
The 2 examples that I used to compare the pts per prov have greater conditions to live up to than the Witchers. For Commander's Horn, you need to make sure that 5 units survive on a row to net its full value; for Uni-Chiro, you have to make sure that the 1st one played survives AND have the 2nd one in hand to net its full value.
You don't have to believe me; you can go check what the top players used in the recent event. The Crach list created by Molegion uses the Witcher trio on top of the SK discard/thinning package because he understands what the inherent value of these cards are. Yes, you can have success with MO by not using the trio. That speaks to the imbalance of certain cards in that faction vs. the others right now.
Post automatically merged:
To further iterate why they're so good, remember that the trio is 100% a proactive play. You're not relying on your opponent playing something on their end or a unit/artifact surviving on your end to net the full value.
You're getting that 1.28pts/prov so long as you don't have the 2 others in hand.
look the math doesn't work like that because the other provisions you pay for them do still exist. but the other benefit is that the witcher trio let you essentially play a 2 card smaller deck with a 136 P cap (before leader bonus). You can't just assign all their points into 7 provisions since that also isn't accurate. They do still cost 21 P.
In terms of putting points on the board it does (the math) indeed work like that.
Deckbuilding space and putting points on the board are 2 mutually exclusive things. This holds true because you're not playing all 25 cards in a game with the vast majority of builds. Until (and if) the game allows you to go through your whole deck so that every cards' points are accounted for, there is little room to argue a lack of utility from the trio. Their value can only be legitimately questioned under this type of scenario.
As the game stands, it's about how many points you're bringing on the board on average per round and how consistently you can do it. You can bring more points on average with the Witchers because you have a higher probability of having 1 in hand and because the play is purely proactive. They have a good point per provision ratio and they allow you to get those points pretty easily given the high consistency.
This is also why we see Assire and Roach so often. The same theory applies.
