it's really not 9 points for 7 prov and I've never seen anyone try to put it that way before. It doesn't even make sense to call it 9 opints for 7 prov. that is not what the trio is. it's really more like 9 points 21 prov but lets you play a 23 card deck
It's whatever you want it to be and whatever you want to grasp at this point.
Post automatically merged:
Lolll. Nothing apparently
Post automatically merged:
Let's word it differently for you to understand:
What do you base yourself on in order to come up with the points per provision ratio? A card's deploy ability is a good indicator right?
- An Craite Marauder's deploy ability can net him 6 points / 4 provisions
- Leo Bonhart's deploy ability can net him 11+ points / 10 provisions
Right now, you're just looking at the Witcher cards for their power & provision; you're not factoring in their deploy ability. By your logic & everybody else saying the same thing, An Craite Marauder is 2 points / 4 provisions and Leo Bonhart is 3 points / 10 provisions. You're only going to play 1 out of the 3 Witchers from your hand during the game; you're going to activate one deploy ability.
If that doesn't clarify it for you well so be it.
Last edited:
marauder and leo don't require you to spend 14 provisions in order to make use of their deploy. you literally can't call the witchers 9 for 7. that's ridiculous. I'm very on board of them being probably still being too good, or more just the only neutral good thinning, but they aren't 9 for 7.
Provisions aren't like mana in MTG; you're not "spending" provisions when you're putting a card on the board. You can play anything you want in Gwent at any point during the round; there's no risk of not having enough mana in order to play a more expensive card. It only implies that your deckbuilding is more limited when you're including the Witchers. This doesn't really matter as stated previously since you're not going to be playing your whole deck. So you might as well include the trio that will net you the points every time rather than 3 separate cards that you won't always get to benefit from.
View the Witcher that you play as spawning the other 2; that's practically what it is. You're not reaching the bottom of your deck; there's no downside to it. I'll stand by my numbers and you can stand by yours.
View the Witcher that you play as spawning the other 2; that's practically what it is. You're not reaching the bottom of your deck; there's no downside to it. I'll stand by my numbers and you can stand by yours.
They're not too good though. They're extremely inefficient. What they do provide is thinning and reasonable tempo together. The former is needed most of the time to ensure consistency. The latter of the two is necessary to win games.
The reality is a lot of the existing thinning tools are garbage unless you build the deck around them. There are a few exceptions, as some faction thin tools are decent. Most of the decent tools are there to provide thinning and tempo. Sounds familiar I bet.... Some of them are garbage in almost any scenario. Others are RNG. Witchers are consistent, reliable value. Until thinning is addressed overall people will play Witchers. Nerfing them only serves to make the game worse. If they keep getting nerfed eventually they'll just be unplayable and anyone trying to thin a deck will be completely fucked
.
So I assume you play the ~16 highest points per prov cards you can jam in a deck right? because hey that's how many cards you're going to play. That's literally just a stupid argument that is not the correct reason for why the witchers are good.
The argument of only playing 75% of your deck and then cherry picking which cards get counted is wrong, and by the way, once you have build your deck the provisions are completely inconsequential once the game starts, so there is no such thing as provisions outside of deckbuilder.
The math does indeed require to take into account the other above 4 provision cards you have to run.
In case you want to take the fact you (usually) do not draw your entire deck you have to consider the average/expectation value, which is defined as the Sum over all events, multiplied by their likeliness.
In this case that means you have to take the total points you can get and multiply them with the fraction of deck you will see.
These cards force you to play 3 7 provision cards, which get thinned as the combo gets used, which is mutually exclusive to Assire, which (like Ghoul) just relies on grave setup, you do not consume a resource from your deck.
The Witcher Trio plays 3 * 7 provision cards, so in the deckbuilder you use 9 = 3*3 = 3*(7-4) transformed provisions to be able to put that combo in your deck, I am not going to deny that combo has a higher average value, given that drawing it is more consistent with 3 combo starters, however you act like there is no cost of opportunity to have them in your deck to begin with and you do use up 9 of your 50 + leader provisions transformed provisions.
For the excuse of only playing 75% of your deck that implies that you will see 75% of your provisions (actually more due to mulliganing) and thus one would get 75% * (transfomed provisions) = 37.5 + 0.75 * leader provisions.
The Witcher Trio for now gets simplified as 100% consistent => expected value = (100/75) * points/transformed provisions = (4/3) * (9/9) = 1.33..., which (in terms of transformed provisions) is not exactly super high, though also not too bad.
Let us now take a card like Ghoul on Old Speartip Asleep into account, in that example we use 6 = (10-4) and 4 = (8-4) transformed provisions, and get 9 and 10 points respectively
=> (10+9) / (6+4) = 1.9 points per transformed provisions.
Of course you can argue that I should not increase the points on the Witcher Trio and lower the other effectivenesses, however that is just a relative linear transformation and does not change the relative difference between the expected value, so it does not matter.
You are forgetting about cards like Ihuarraquax and it wouldn't surprise me if more cards are going to be introduced that rely on provisions.
While that's true, in reality it's not that simple. You have a limited pool of provisions and every expensive card you play in the first round removes provisions that could have been played in a latter round (not including graveyard interaction).
If you play 75% of your deck on average, those other 25% of the cards are wasted. This is especially painful when the remainder are expensive cards. If you run a deck with mostly expensive cards and 25% junk cards and you could perfectly draw all good cards, then the intrinsic value of those cards is insane as you have extracted all the remaining value from your deck. That also means that the Witchers don't cost you 21 provisions. However, as soon as you can cycle through your whole deck, the Witcher's advantage diminishes and big boy's advantage increases, like that of Speartip.
On a closing note, coming back to Ihuarraquax. If it summons a critical card of the opponent's (let's say Schirrú), Quax's value skyrockets. However, this is on the assumption that the opponent could have drawn into his key card. This is relevant to the argument you made for the Witchers.
TL;DR: If you can cycle through your whole deck, then the Witcher's value diminishes, while Speartip's value increases.
It is actually one of the reasons why they're good. The other reason would be that they allow you to reach your other good cards more consistently in the later rounds.
Look at the top decks and tell me what they're trying to achieve.
Post automatically merged:
I know about expected value and I see what you're trying to achieve.
If you're not taking into account the point per provisions given a card's effect on a board, how is it that you go about measuring efficiency when it comes to cards that I've mentioned previously (Leo & Marauder)?
Last edited:
Of course I took the effect into consideration, otherwise I would say they would be a 7 provision 3 point play, which would be the worst thing in the game.
As for Marauder it is a 4 provision, 0 transformed provision (from now on tp) card, which gets 2-6 points, with up to 6 points being reliable, in case it hits less than 4 damage there would be even less points on the opponent's side, so it trades their board away AND adds 2 points on your side, which is more than respectable for a minimum provision card (in fact that already sounds problematic).
As for Leo Bonhart we have to take 4 different situations into consideration:
1.) Leo hits nothing: it is a 3 point play with 10 provisions (6 tp), which is easily gamelosing.
2.) Leo needs a Nilfgaardian Knight and hits a 6-7, in this case Leo and the Knight cost you 15 provisions (7 tp) and grant you
9 points + the removal of a 6-7 = 15-16 points, which is neat.
3.) Leo hits something at 8 or above: Leo gives you 11+ points and thus is at least 1 point above provision cost.
Also you can play Nilfgaardian Knights and rainfarn without their downside.
Beyond that I am not "trying to achieve" somthing, what I am saying it actually founded and you have not given me even a single argument yet why my calculations would be wrong, let alone yours being true.
If you argue you do not draw them you cherrypick your hand to try and excuse your argument or willingly mulligan 7 provision cards away, which is not exactly a value move, not to mention the opportunity cost means you cannot play other large provision cards, because you have to run the other 2 of the Trio as well, so you cannot just ignore the provisions you have to invest into those and pretend that does not happen.
All jokes aside, if you want to argue with the distribution of points as a strenght then do so, I am not denying they are well distributed, though that does not change the total amount of points placed on the board.
You got me there, I forgot about that card, so provisions actually do exist in games.
Though this does not cancel my argument (which I am not pretending you intended to do).
What you're saying is founded? Give me a link discussing what transformed provisions are and how they are accounted for.
Until then, what you're saying (albeit it being interesting) is not factual.
I made it clear during previous posts on the same topic, however beyond that you can also look at "A take on Provisions in the deckbuilder of HC (Provision Theory)", I made a topic about that, if you have anything to add feel free to do so.
Feel free to point out if I am wrong about something.
That's cool. I enjoy the theorizing about how provisions should be accounted for; just don't pretend that any of this has been researched thus it being founded theory.
It is theory as long as you debate on a theory and as is a theory is (an often complex) not practically founded construct.
I directly stated if anyone disagrees with me I would appreciate to debate on that, I am not stating it to be the truth.
However I feel we are getting a bit of topic.