Nerf Lock Please

[4RM3D]

With everything going (wr)on(g) with Gwent, isn't Locks kinda not a big deal? Locks haven't been an issue in ages and, while I am out of touch with the meta, this expansion doesn't really makes much difference, it seems, in that regard. Poison, on the other hand... that I can understand.

 

[stephen1974]

It's not lock that he considers the problem, its the tactic of using lock to set up a kill. Nilfgaard already have an abundance of power to two shot any card, they dont need any more.

 

[Raziel_888]

Lock already lost a lot with the separation of texts and status and the fact that they get removed upon entering the graveyard. Plus you can purify it.
To do the combo you are talking about you need 2 cards, including the lock which, as you said, is USELESS + unless a strategic withdrawal is used, necessitates to turns so you have time to see it coming, giving you the time to answer it...

Lock is definitely NOT a problem, not even without considering all the other things happening now...

Post automatically merged: Jan 14, 2020

It's not lock that he considers the problem, its the tactic of using lock to set up a kill. Nilfgaard already have an abundance of power to two shot any card, they dont need any more.

In that case skellen is worst than albricht... And they were there before all the crazy things we have now. And again you waste a lock card and a turn with. I run albricht a lot when i use locks and it bricks more often than not if you don't really commit to locks... You also have to use him to destroy a card that is already rendered unusable. Seriously, I don't see the problem here...

Yen invocation is too strong, enslave is strong, poison is strong, assimilate, mill, but lock? Not that easy to run a lock deck with the point generated by other archetypes...

 

[Draconifors]

I use this combo, so I'm biased -- but even if it was something I didn't use, I wouldn't consider it a problem any more than any other targeted, two-step removal.

Locks don't always find an actual use even when trying, and Vanhemar is worthless without a locked enemy unit. So, it definitely needs be possible to use the combo in a way that doesn't actually utilize the lock except as an enabler for Vanhemar.

Besides, the combo can only remove a single card, unless additional cards (e.g. resurrection) are involved.

(And yes, I would say the same thing if I didn't use a single lock in my deck.)

 

[Draconifors]

NG also have a destroy unit if it gains a status.

Yes, a single card, and I'm pretty sure he's a Legendary too.

The fact remains, a lock should only be effective against cards that actually have something to lock. Seems a bit mental that a card can be locked without anything to lock.

No, locks would become bad if they needed to always have a target with an ability. Except with Vanhemar or the vampire (whose name I can't remember though I play him in most matches), locks are just a flat 3-4 points when they don't actually do anything. Some decks don't run many cards worth locking -- perhaps ironically, lock-heavy decks are an example of such.

There's no need to restrict the usefulness of locks when they can be more or less worthless as it is. And when they can be countered with Purify or an unlocking ability (though the latter is very rare).

 

[Iuliandrei]

The fact remains, a lock should only be effective against cards that actually have something to lock. Seems a bit mental that a card can be locked without anything to lock.

There's nothing wrong with wasting your lock on a unit with no ability.
Also why play a lock, like alba cavalery + Vanhemar when you can play 2x Fangs of Empire, first combo costs 11P and puts 7S on the board, the second combo costs 8P and puts 8S on the board, while also destroying a any unit.

 

[MysticJoey]

completely unnecessary, it's not a strong combo, sure it will work fine sometimes in certain matchups, in most it won't, there are much better and much more efficient ways of dealing with tall units (poison OP pls change)

 

[Draconifors]

Lock used to do a lot more than it does now, so in that sense it has already been nerfed. It used to get rid of Resilience and Quen (Shield), but those are Statuses now.

Restricting Locks' targetting would effectively ruin the cards. As a side effect, it would prevent plays such as locking Defenders, which could be annoying; intentional "misplays" are a thing. Denying strategies like that wouldn't be a good thing in a strategy game, when there is no objectively valid reason for doing so.

PS. I forgot to mention Vattier de Rideaux last night -- he could be used to steal a high-value unit even it had no ability to actually lock.
But even taking him into account doesn't justify nerfing Lock, because he is another single, Legendary card and also, unlike Vanhemar or Vincent van Moorlehem, has his ability as an Order. (He is too easy to neutralise, so I don't even use him.)

 

[Gen_Liu]

I've read a few comments on the forum advising of a NG deck. It appears there's a certain NG unit that can destroy locked units.

[...]

Just why should a high unit of 9 point or more, which clearly states 'NO ABILITY', be lockable simply for the purpose of being destroyed- despite having nothing to lock? There is no reason, is the answer to that question.

CDPR, please sort out this mess of a lock mechanic, thanks.

Before I give my opinion about your point, I want to make it clear that I have absolutely nothing against you and fully respect you and your opinion.
It may be kinda weird to say but since it's the second time on two different topics in a row that I disagree with you, I wanted to point that out. It just happens to be like this, I'm not stalking you or any weird stuff like this.

So, as you may imagine from the intro, I disagree with your point and I'm going to explain why. There is two reasons why I think this whole interraction is fine and why lock shouldn't be nerfed.

The first one being, in its primary form, lock is very conditional. It's a tech that find no value whatsoever if your opponent doesn't have a good target to lock.
Now, you could argue that there's quiet a few target for it in the current meta but still, it's not an effect that provide guaranteed value, you need a target and a good one.

Therefore, giving this effect a chance to get additional value with the support of other cards is not only a genius idea from CDPR (at least imo) but should be what they need to do with every hyper tech effects in the game. This is what the game needs, conditional effects that can now be used and shine even if your opponent don't play what our tech effect is supposed to counter (because, as I said many times before, Gwent doesn't have a side board, tech cards cannot be implemented as just tech cards in this game).

The second reason being, the interraction isn't nearly as powerful as you may think.
It kinda shocked you because you didn't know it was a thing, you weren't prepared for it and couldn't play around it.

Once you do, however, it's just like any other hard removal. It's a 1 for 2 even, since you have to lock the unit with another card prior to destroying it with Vanhemar.

You can see it coming, Purify your big fatty after it got locked or try to deploy reasonably sized units so your opponent doesn't find a good target.

It's strange this is the interraction that attracted your attention though because the game is full of them (any pin effect + Vabjorn, Gaunter + ...well, Gaunter, Status + Vincent Van Moorlehem (which btw, could have been the dude responsable for this topic since he can target locked unit as well), Bounty + Graden...).

Long story short, I think it would be sad if lock gets nerfed since it would be litteraly doing the opposite of what the game need right now (nerfing tech effects to make sure nobody play them anymore instead of making them more relevant and find ways to make them provide value even if your opponent don't play what they're supposed to counter).

 

[BoYoDes]

Maybe Vanhemar has become a bit more playable now with the two new cheap Lock cards that were introduced in the game, while combined with the Poison support he becomes too much, but the card has rarely seen play for a long time now.

Vanhemar is fine and one could argue that he's even a victim of the power creep in the game, but I have huge problems with Moorlehem and the SY Philippa. There is a reason why a card like Vattier de Rideaux is having orders - because of the impact he can have on the game. Yet he needs 2 or 3 turns (depends on the state of the board) to trigger - first there must be a big Unit that you would like to lock, second you Deploy him and third, if he's not countered, you get the swing (yes, I am aware that you can deploy him and Lock the Unit on the turn you give the order, but more often it's the opposite). In this regard Vanhemar is fine, as he only destroys a card and he comes at only 2 STR while still needs a turn set up. Moorlehem is 6 STR and can be used on any sort of Unit with any Status (like on a Defender, though I haven't actually seen this, or a Unit with Vitality), while Philippa for me is just ridiculous - basically a Vattier on steroids, while she's even cheaper than both Vattier and Moorlehem.

Those are way more in a need of a check than Vanhemar.