Just rework Imlerith like this already!

[Alexander_Volgin]

1. Imlerith's wrath: Provision change 8 - 9 ; ability change to: destroy an enemy unit.
2. Imlerith: Power change 7 - 5, provision changed to 11 and ability change to: Order: Disable your opponents leader ability.
3. Imlerith: Provision change 8 - 9, power change 7 - 5 and ability to: Summon a random unit from your opponents deck, then destroy one of his units.
4. Imlerith: Power change 7 - 5, provision change 12 - 10 and ability: Damage an enemy unit by the amount it is boosted.
5. Imlerith: Power change 7 - 5, provisions still 12 and ability: Damage a random enemy for each WH unit on your side of the field.

Nice suggestions, but yeah, they remind a lot of NG abilities, a bit uncreative as well. But sure, Rapture or 'damage by the amount the target is boosted' is like Mork or Baron. Honestly, at some point you will find these abilities in all 6 of the factions. Golds are becoming more and more of stand alone power play. No support for the archetype whatsoever. It's not the direction I want to go.

Big No-no from me.

 

[KaynOfNosgoth]

That was exactly the point i was getting to. All of those are abilities that already exist in game but i just changed the wording a bit to see if you'll catch on or not. All of those cards there generate more than a 20 point power swing under the right circumstances while my suggestion is a 20 at best and lets face it, most of the times you'll end up killing a 5 or maybe 6 point engine with Imlerith's Wrath and be left with the 10 point body for the dominance aspect so yeah. Considering some of the crazy cards that already exist in this game, my suggestion is child's play.

 

[Iuliandrei]

All of those cards there generate more than a 20 point power swing under the right circumstances while my suggestion is a 20 at best

No they don't and they're not balanced around the "right" circumstance but the average one. If you take Morkvarg for example, in an SK mirror it often plays for just 6 points, while in the "right" circumstances it kills a 14 points Ozzrel so the average is closer to its provision cost. Your suggestion would play for at least 15 with a cap of 20, including removal and i love how you casually say that "after removing a 6 point engine you're left with a 10 point body" like that's nothing, just a small bonus of a Goliath.

 

[KaynOfNosgoth]

Morkvarg is a round ender so yeah, he'll find the right circumstances in 90% of the cases (if the player has any clue how to play the game) and he NEVER plays for a 6 point since his body alone is a 5 pointer so that's out of the question.
The Ozzrel scenario is good, sure but there are others even better and if you couple that with an An Craite Greatsword or Dagur the point slam is ridiculous. And before you bring the argument that it's a 2 card combo again keep in mind my suggestion is also a 2 card combo.
Other completely bs cards would be Yennefer's Invocation which is the reworded first suggestion of mine a few posts ago which also is a total bs card and the list goes on.
There are some crazy unfair combos in this game but this is not one of them. There's no way you can convince me that a 20 point (at best) power swing with a 2 card combo with a WH only limited deck is too much for the current state of the game.

 

[Iuliandrei]

Morkvarg is a round ender so yeah, he'll find the right circumstances in 90% of the cases (if the player has any clue how to play the game) and he NEVER plays for a 6 point since his body alone is a 5 pointer so that's out of the question.

The value of Morkvarg has less to do with how you play it and more to do with what deck your opponent is playing, like i mentioned there are decks that don't utilize boosts much or at all, i got a SK deck like that so playing Morkvarg against my deck, even if kept as round finisher, you will get only 6 points out of it EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.

The Ozzrel scenario is good, sure but there are others even better and if you couple that with an An Craite Greatsword or Dagur the point slam is ridiculous. And before you bring the argument that it's a 2 card combo again keep in mind my suggestion is also a 2 card combo.

Yours not a 2 card combo, you seem confused about what constitutes a 2 card combo. Wild hunt riders is NOT a 2 card combo, look at their provision cost.
This is why i said you don't understand how to evaluate provisions, a card in deck is not the same as a card in hand. The Witcher trio should be the best example here. Originally they were 4 STR each, by your measure they were 12 STR for 24 provision, terrible right? Yet they were incredibly OP they had to be nerfed to 3 STR each. That's 9 STR for 24 provision and STILL they were played in every single deck.

 

[KaynOfNosgoth]

Hold on, so by your logic, any tutor in the game is a 1 card and not a 2 card combo right?

 

[Iuliandrei]

Hold on, so by your logic, any tutor in the game is a 1 card and not a 2 card combo right?

That's the common understanding, if you want to cite miriam-webster now and prove that "technically" it is, that's your problem cause it has nothing to do with game balance.

 

[4RM3D]

Hold on, so by your logic, any tutor in the game is a 1 card and not a 2 card combo right?

That's the common understanding [...]

We need to make a few distinctions here, one for reliability and one for provision efficiency. While it's true that any tutor isn't strictly a real combo because you play it as one action, it still the depends on your arguments whether or not that even matters.

The Witcher Trio was mentioned as being OP for 12S/24P, but it still has a terrible provision efficiency. This normally doesn't matter because you don't play your whole deck, but when you do, it might no longer be worth it. So, points per provision per tutor becomes more relevant the more you can reliable cycle through your whole deck.

Reliability is another thing to consider. If you can only tutor one card, for example, that card must remain in the deck, otherwise the tutor will brick. There are other possible restrictions that decreases the reliability. This is especially true when it's actually a multi-action combo. That's why it's always a good idea to have multiple targets for the combo/tutor.

 

[KaynOfNosgoth]

That's the common understanding, if you want to cite miriam-webster now and prove that "technically" it is, that's your problem cause it has nothing to do with game balance.

My "problem"? There is no problem here. The reality is simple. You don't understand what a "card combo" is so let me explain it to you.
A card combo doesn't mean that each card has to be played in different turns. That's a tutors very purpose. That's why it's ability is to play a card from the deck instead of some other ability.
In other words, as long as a card takes up provisions to be in your deck it doesn't matter if it's been played in the same turn with a tutor. It still counts as a 2 card combo.
Cards with the tag "create" now that's a different story since they "create" a card that doesn't actually take up provisions to be in your deck so in that sense, even though you technically play 2 cards in 1 round it's not a combo. It counts as only 1 card.

 

[Iuliandrei]

The Witcher Trio was mentioned as being OP for 12S/24P, but it still has a terrible provision efficiency. This normally doesn't matter because you don't play your whole deck, but when you do, it might no longer be worth it. So, points per provision per tutor becomes more relevant the more you can reliable cycle through your whole deck.

Considering the structure of the game you need a minimum of 25 cards in deck and can only draw 16, with few exceptions, the rest have to be tutored, so in your example the evaluation isn't strictly as STR/Prov but you need compare the cost of tutors because obviously you need many of them. So the power of the witchers totally depends on the alternatives.

In other words, as long as a card takes up provisions to be in your deck it doesn't matter if it's been played in the same turn with a tutor. It still counts as a 2 card combo.

I can't stop you from making up definitions, i can however point out that you're talking nonsense when you compare a combo like Greatsword + Morkvarg/Old Boar with a tutor that pulls a card from your deck. I already said this twice but the value of playing a card directly from your deck is not the same as playing it from your hand, if you still can't understand that, it's not my problem.

 

[4RM3D]

[...] you need a minimum of 25 cards in deck and can only draw 16 [...] So the power of the witchers totally depends on the alternatives.

Yes, but you'll have to look at how many cards you can cycle through, not how many you can actually play. This "cycling" can be done with mulligans and other similar effects. Hypothetically speaking, if you can always draw the perfect hand throughout the game, the Witcher Trio's pay-off is horrible (unless they are the reason you can pull off this feat, in the first place).

Either way, it remains a complex calculation. How much provisions is one extra mulligan worth? This is probably the core question. And similarly: How much extra provisions can you gain from having one less card in your deck? This depends on the variance and spread of provisions in one's deck, among other things.

 

[KaynOfNosgoth]

I can't stop you from making up definitions, i can however point out that you're talking nonsense when you compare a combo like Greatsword + Morkvarg/Old Boar with a tutor that pulls a card from your deck. I already said this twice but the value of playing a card directly from your deck is not the same as playing it from your hand, if you still can't understand that, it's not my problem.

It's not a 'Made up definition". If you have no argument to contradict me that's your problem but i'll have to ask you to stop taking cheap shots like that at me unless you want this to devolve into something it shouldn't. I'm here to make suggestions for a card rework not to trade cheap shots like that with you.

The same goes for the "talking nonsense" as far as cheap shots go. Look a few posts behind and you'll find a few more. Again i'll have to ask you to cut it out if you wanna have a constructive conversation and not some cheap trash talking. I think i put up with your cheap shots enough at this point.

Now, as far as the combos you've mentioned, i was simply talking point value and that's something you don't seem to get. I understand you refer to the deck thinning aspect and you're saying it's too much compared to other tutors in the game but the limitation's more than make up for it. I'll list them again:

1. Exclusive for WH decks (from the start that takes out about 5 almost auto-include in most WH decks)
2. Pulling out ONLY Imlerith's Wrath which as 4RM3D mentioned, if you get unlucky in the mulligan stage, the combo is done.
3. 21 provisions for a maximum of 20 points of power. (if anything Imlerith's Wrath can be adjusted a bit to reduce the value if it's too much. I'm more interested in the Dominance aspect of the card and the deck thinning)
4. This would be the ONLY good finisher the WH has so it's not like you'll have to deal with it each round.
5. You would have to add quite a few low provision - low point cards to make up for the space this 2 cards alone would take.

All in all, having such a finisher in your deck would limit the deck's power quite a bit but considering the WH has no finishers ATM, i would gladly take those out to have a good round ender like other factions have (Oak, Morvark, Savolla,etc)