Lore Inconsistencies with Cards and Mechanics

+
I think you have covered a lot of them dude!

I too really miss the weather synergies! Hounds spawning frost, and foglets appearing with fog fit thematically really well!

I disagree regarding the crones however! You absolutely have to play them together as each one gets stronger when another has been played. I honestly prefer what they have done with the crones than the current Witcher trio which is a lot more basic in comparison, and again thematically, they are witchers, they work usually alone so it doesn't make much sense to have them all appear together!
 
What other cards from other factions you feel are out of place?

You were talking about the Monster faction, but you forgot something else important. The Witchers can be played in the Monster faction which doesn't make sense, lore-wise. Actually, a lot of things don't make sense; too many to mention, really.

(PS. thread merged)
 
You were talking about the Monster faction, but you forgot something else important. The Witchers can be played in the Monster faction which doesn't make sense, lore-wise. Actually, a lot of things don't make sense; too many to mention, really.

Cards that interact with each other in a way that contradicts the lore concerning the depicted characters is unavoidable in a card game (e.g. A Geralt card destroying a Ciri card) but Hybridizati0nn was talking about the abilities of the cards themselves. They should definitely tell a story about the character shown on the card.

Take Bonhart, for instance. When he's on the melee row, he can destroy a card that has eight power or higher which is a reference to his excellent swordsmanship.
When he's on the ranged row, however, he can destroy a witcher. Bonhart is known in the books to be a witcher killer but I find it very interesting that this ability is triggered by the ranged row, as if it is implied that Bonhart didn't kill those witchers in a fair fight but rather from a distance or through treachery.
 
You were talking about the Monster faction, but you forgot something else important. The Witchers can be played in the Monster faction which doesn't make sense, lore-wise. Actually, a lot of things don't make sense; too many to mention, really.

(PS. thread merged)

I agree these are some things that REALLY don't make sense lore-wise, but there's nothing to be done for that...

...except that personally I'll never put Witchers or any other type of humans to my monsters deck as it puts me off.

DoubleDealer elaborated my point really well, it is these abilities or use cases of a card that feel out of place when there are options that would reference an event involving said character or a trait said character has.
 
1) Prize-winning cow
This card used to have a deathwish and had a certain flavor. It was a reference to the W3 cows of White Orchard, where killing a bunch of them had a chance to spawn a chort.
Now you have to ORDER your cow to TRANSFORM into a chort.

2) Cadaverine
In witcher lore this is an alchemy ingredient, usually gathered by witchers from the bodies of drowners and the likes. Beside being completely inappropriate for acting as an Artifact, it's also improved by tactic cards. Now this is a Nilfgaard card and this faction is also the best to support a witcher archetype. It would make much more sense to for Cadaverine to gain charges from Witcher cards, because they are usually the ones collecting this stuff.

3) Skjall
Probably the most changed card in gwent history, with an ability that isn't bad, but in totally the wrong faction. This should be a Scoia'tael ability, the "undamaged" fits the ambush flavor, meaning that the target is not currently in combat. This means that this card would land the first strike against a, possibly unaware, unit.
Skellige is the complete opposite of what this card represents. Even the faction unique ability, Bloodthirst, is based around damaged enemies.
 
Like Gregoire, there are tons of other cards which can potentially fit into other factions but are not - like Cleaver should ideally be in Northern Realms, along with King of Beggars.

Why is Villem a Neutral? Sure he was a traitor, but in that case, so was Stefan Skellen (and even Cahir!) yet he retains a spot in NG.

If you want Gregoire to be Neutral, make sure to send Zoltan: Scoundrel to Scoi'tael too. Before you shout start screaming 'but muh lore', it is more fitting for Zoltan: Scoundrel to be in ST than Rainfarn in NG (He was from Cintra for God's sake) . Send Villem to NR as well, while you're at that.

Reddit is so damn biased towards NG they're willing to overlook anything and everything to get their way.

PS: I have no access to my Reddit account atm.
 
I agree, many characters/cards are supposed to be in a certain faction. For example Skellige Storm, i understand that it's a weather effect but it literally says "Skellige". Other factions having access to that seem not lore-friendly. If you have a creative mind, just imagine Scoia'taels summoning a Skellige storm in a fight. Weird right.
 
I agree, many characters/cards are supposed to be in a certain faction. For example Skellige Storm, i understand that it's a weather effect but it literally says "Skellige". Other factions having access to that seem not lore-friendly. If you have a creative mind, just imagine Scoia'taels summoning a Skellige storm in a fight. Weird right.
Lore takes a backseat when it comes to Balance. Skellige Storm could have been replaced by just "Storm" and still make sense. The term "Skellige" was attached to it to add the significance of it being a card from the Witcher Universe.

But my point is that the gwent sub is a such a NG circlejerk that they fend for only that one faction overlooking similar differences/balance issues in others. Villem was a character long before Gregoire yet no one protested that it be NR. I called for Zoltan: Scoundrel to be neutral, but again that was downvoted by the fanboys.
 
I don't know how the devs classify a card/character to be a neutral when clearly they should belong to certain faction. Villem NR, i believe Eyck should be NR too, Zoltan ST, i think Xavier should be NG too (wasn't he an agent of Nilfgaard all the time). Also, how did Vivienne: Oriole became neutral if Vivienne is NG? NG at day, Neutral at night? hmmm.
 
[Lore Error] Named the Golden Dragon Mosaic as 'Saskia' in spite of her "not having a single Golden Scale" on her body as quoted in The Witcher 2. Clearly, the Golden Dragon is a reference to her father Vilentretenmerth.

nv6jygggbor21.png
 
Last edited:
Lore Inconsistencies with Cards and Mechanics

So one thing has struck me as being super odd about playing the Skellige deck, and please forgive me if this hasn't been raised before, and that is the Skellige deck is really focused on necromancy, particularly with the Priestess of Freya resurrecting bodies from your own graveyard and even Udalryk bringing the dead from the opponents graveyard. I don't ever recall in the Witcher 3 that the Skellige peoples were so focused on resurrecting the dead. I mean it wasn't even explored. These people are hard, brutal warriors and they'll fight tooth and nail but once they are dead they are dead.

Though moving on from that point I feel that, on the other hand, the characters transforming into bears makes a whole lot more sense. As though they are gravely wounded and in a sort of rage when they get revived and have enough strength to carry the battle forward in a second wind of strength..

I mean this is all a contradiction in a sense, one purpose the people die and go into the grave, and then another it is to transform. I mean even generally across the whole of Gwent when you win a round, does that mean that even the victors of a round died and went to the grave? It's more of a place to rest the sick and wounded during the round and after the round is concluded (unless you've applied resistance of some sort to continue that card through to the next round).

As such I feel that the term "Graveyard" is used too loosely as it is a multi purpose area by which the cards get deposited and potentially drawn from again. If anything it should be some kind of stand by area, like a Temple, medic tent or any place of healing. The true graveyard really is only for those units that get banished and cannot be used again in battle.

So what are your thoughts? Perhaps Skellige did do a lot of necromancy that I completely forgot about (I doubt it as I got 100% in achievements in that game)? What are alternate names or explanations for the graveyard? Am I overthinking this as a non experienced person playing a card game?

Let me know!


It made perfect sense here: "...it's good for them!"

 
Technically Scoia'tael is a guerrilla mostly composed of elves fighting oppression, racism, and freedom. Most of the cards in "Scoia'tael" faction have nothing to do with the actual Scoia'tael. :think:
 
But they can surely fit in a dwarven mountain range, siege field, open field, nordic shore, forest...

Maybe but I think a warship can not navigate in a Dwarven mountain...

The point is that not everything in the game is logical. But if it´s playable it does not matter.

xena.gif
 
As witcher 2 and 3 are the extent of my witcher lore I'm ok with it.

I know they took liberties with the books but non human races makes sense to band together. I don't remember many dryads, buy w2 had the dwarves and Saskia of Mahakam repelling the attack against humans.

What's a monster and what isn't is also a bit of a debate. Sometimes they'll put monsters in a nonMO that clearly wouldn't fit with the other units in that faction.

I get where you're coming from but for me I voted yes
 
I know they took liberties with the books but non human races makes sense to band together. I don't remember many dryads, buy w2 had the dwarves and Saskia of Mahakam repelling the attack against humans.
However please note, that humans are also part of Scoia'tael in Gwent. Your description does not reflect "Gwent reality". At example there are Smugglers and Pavko Gale as Scoia'tael so it is not fitting your idea of "non human races band together".
 
Top Bottom