It is time to inform the great Emperor to Banish "Warrit The All-Seeing"

+
45db9c442e295f0a08b9fde1e51c3477.png


Dear Community

Don't get me wrong this is not a typical Nilfgaard whining Thread.

I'm a loyal servant of the Empire and a True believer in the Great Sun.

Capture.PNG


But during the present time, the empire has been intoxicated by this dirty witcher by the name of "Warrit The All-Seeing". With his cursed spell to steal your greatest war power without much sacrificing [7 Body for 8 Provision; Followed by 5 Body for 5 Provision]. The only way to counter this abomination is forced to play the card, perform advanced drawing techniques, or swap with the Courier.

Capture2.PNG


It is time to inform the great Emperor himself to cleanse the land, I can't stay idle any longer.

Hael Ker'zaer!
 
Last edited:
I don't think you're a loyal servant of the Empire because what you are saying it's traison. But well, I can admit it's just a thougt...
Jokes aside, I don't see so much problem with him. His ability os dependan on the next card played by the NG, but also by me. As you say, I can play something to use that high value card and that's all. It's true it can breaks some strategies, but most of the decks are not dependant on just one card.
For me it's a great adition.
 
That's three ways.
The 3rd thing he mentioned is basically insignificant since it's a card that sees no play since it's an incredibly situational SY/NG card. "advanced drawing techniques" this is only available to NG Tactical Decision and to SK drawing cards OR via Snowdrop but again she just doesn't fit into many decks AND actually only fits into decks that already have advanced drawing techniques (so they can get more boosts on her) like the previously mentioned NG and Lippy decks...
So taking those into consideration I agree with the OP, it IS ONLY 2.5 ways. He didn't say "only one" he said just "only" which means it's too small which is the proper way to use the word.
 
So taking those into consideration I agree with the OP, it IS ONLY 2.5 ways. He didn't say "only one" he said just "only" which means it's too small which is the proper way to use the word.
If you want to nitpick: 'way' is singular, therefore one.

And I don't really see a problem with the card. Without a combo it's a 7 for 8 that gives zero benefit, which is garbage.
 
The 3rd thing he mentioned is basically insignificant since it's a card that sees no play since it's an incredibly situational SY/NG card. "advanced drawing techniques" this is only available to NG Tactical Decision and to SK drawing cards OR via Snowdrop but again she just doesn't fit into many decks AND actually only fits into decks that already have advanced drawing techniques (so they can get more boosts on her) like the previously mentioned NG and Lippy decks...
So taking those into consideration I agree with the OP, it IS ONLY 2.5 ways. He didn't say "only one" he said just "only" which means it's too small which is the proper way to use the word.

Ahh, i see you are a man of culture as well. May the Great Sun shine on you.
Post automatically merged:

I don't think you're a loyal servant of the Empire because what you are saying it's traison. But well, I can admit it's just a thougt...
Jokes aside, I don't see so much problem with him. His ability os dependan on the next card played by the NG, but also by me. As you say, I can play something to use that high value card and that's all. It's true it can breaks some strategies, but most of the decks are not dependant on just one card.
For me it's a great adition.

Wise choice.

This abomination is a perfect counter for a deck with only 1/2 keys cards.

But yes, a deck with many strong cards and versatile tactic should be fine.
 

DRK3

Forum veteran
First of all, that is an impressive commitment to NG, based on your wins, you play +90% with that faction alone, not to mention its a huge number. Im a big fan of NG but my time is very well distributed among all 6 factions, i dont think i could stick a faction for so long without getting bored, even if it was my favourite.

Regarding Warrit, i dont think he's that problematic. Yes, he may be a bit undercosted, but NG has had so many toxic, oppressive BS through the years this doesnt even enter my top 10 of NG decks/strategies i hated facing. And right now, there are much bigger problems affecting Gwent's balance than this.
 
Warrit + Viper Alchemist is indeed one of the most idiotic combos Satan was able to infiltrate into Gwent.
Not only can you just cheaply steal an Oneriomancy or any other high provision card, the alchemist also makes it a fairly safe trade for you cause you can PICK THE TOP 3 CARDS FROM YOUR DECK!!! To make sure you really end up winning in the trade.
 
How about CANTARELLA, that plays for (min 8 - max 30) provision and consuming opponent's unit slot, with a provision cost of 7?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
How about CANTARELLA, that plays for (min 8 - max 30) provision and consuming opponent's unit slot, with a provision cost of 7?
Unless you place that card on top Cantarella is just a highroll card and I do not see how you reach "min 8".
At worst Cantarella is -1 points (ignoring hitting something like CoC, which can be something like -21).
 
I do not see how you reach "min 8".

Banish a card from top of your opponent's deck (4-15), create a copy of it and play it (4-15)

With a cost provision of 7 and (-1 that also steal opponent's unit slot) it always will be profitable card that plays for additional provision points for NG deck
(+1 provision in a case of 4 provision card and + 23 provision in case of 15 provision card)
 
Last edited:
Banish a card from top of your opponent's deck (4-15), create a copy of it and play it (4-15)

With a cost provision of 7 and (-1 that also steal opponent's unit slot) it always will be profitable card that plays for additional provision points for NG deck
(+1 provision in a case of 4 provision card and + 23 provision in case of 15 provision card)
... you ... count removing a 4p card from the opponent's deck as getting 4 points ???
That is not making the opponent lose 4 points, it is increasing the overall provision density of their deck ...
Your calculation only makes sense if Cantarella would play the card from the opponent's hand.
By that logic Kingslayer would be an 8 for 6 at worst and should be a staple in NG decks ...
 
... you ... count removing a 4p card from the opponent's deck as getting 4 points ???
By that logic Kingslayer would be an 8 for 6 at worst and should be a staple in NG decks ...

I count provision

Bribery costs 8
Kingslayer costs 6

Cantarella costs 7 and have both of its effects (even better, becase bribery was nerfed to creating units only) at the same time, doesnt look well designed
 
I count provision

Bribery costs 8
Kingslayer costs 6

Cantarella costs 7 and have both of its effects (even better, becase bribery was nerfed to creating units only) at the same time, doesnt look well designed
You cannot just count removing a 4p card from the opponent's deck as 4 provisions you gain. The opponent will just draw another card and if you remove a 4p card the card they will draw instead is worth more than that 4p card, so you actually give your opponent provisions, rather than gaining some.

Kingslayer costs 6p. With your logic it gives you 4 power and at the very least 4 provisions, so it is an 8 for 6 provisions at worst. If that were to be true it would see general play.
I do not see why you bring up Bribery, given that it is just a bad card.
 
You cannot just count removing a 4p card from the opponent's deck as 4 provisions you gain.

You understand it wrong, i will repeat again a different descripiton of cantarella's ability

For Cantarella:
It gives (-1 point), but also takes enemy's unit slot, what might be used to prevent opponent from getting more points by losing correct units placement (Bear Witcher + Caduch)

Therefore, there is no reason to consider that (-1) point loss

Banish a card from top of your opponent's deck (4-15 provision), create a copy of it and play it (4-15 provision)

You waste 7 provision of your deck, that always will play for 8 provision, as minimum and for 30 as maximum


For kingslayer:
(it is one of the strongest 6 provision bronze (even gold) cards)

Unlike Cantarella that plays (-1) Kingslayer gives 4 points
There is only two 4 provision cost card that plays for 4 points (Wolf Pack, Squirrel) , if you want turn Kingslayer's 4 points into provision, it will be 3 or less)

Banish a card from top of your opponent's deck (4-15 provision)

You waste 6 provision of your deck, that always will play for (7) provision, as minimum and for (18) as maximum
 
You understand it wrong, i will repeat again a different descripiton of cantarella's ability

For Cantarella:
It gives (-1 point), but also takes enemy's unit slot, what might be used to prevent opponent from getting more points by losing correct units placement (Bear Witcher + Caduch)

Therefore, there is no reason to consider that (-1) point loss

Banish a card from top of your opponent's deck (4-15 provision), create a copy of it and play it (4-15 provision)

You waste 7 provision of your deck, that always will play for 8 provision, as minimum and for 30 as maximum


[...]
That makes no sense, you are not bound to gain anything by removing it from the opponent's deck.

Let me fix that last sentence.
You "waste" 7 provisions of your deck, that always will play for 4 provisions (and removes a low provision deck the opponent would mulligan, so in this case you might as well count it as a free mulligan), as minimum.

Edit: Regarding Warrit the All-Seeing I do not think he is unbalanced ... although binary, which might be the strongest argument against him.
If the opponent cannot get the card you can just get rid of it and if the opponent tutors it you just forced it out (something like a Scenario comes to mind), which gets balanced by the odds of drawing the top end in the opening hand, which I would describe as inherently unhealthy. The issue is that the outcome is completely dependent on the targets opening hand and can completely screw them over for not drawing their top end immediately.

To sum it up I can understand the argument against him.
 
Top Bottom