New Syndicate cards

+

Vattier

CD PROJEKT RED
The Syndicate will continue to grow stronger.

Take a look at the 4 new SY cards coming June 8th!

1920_EN.png


TOKEN_EN.png


More reveals:
Thanedd Coup
 
Last edited:
Question about the wording on Scoundrel. It says, damage THE unit rather than the normal damage A unit. So does it only damage the unit it specifically summoned?
 
Solid additions for bounty archetipe, nothing super amazing, but nothing too bad either. I like it, but SY will definitely not be the first faction i try, but it will not be the last :)
 
Question about the wording on Scoundrel. It says, damage THE unit rather than the normal damage A unit. So does it only damage the unit it specifically summoned?

That's how I read it.
i think since you only can put bounty in one unit, only one enemy unit will have bounty.

thats why "damage the enemy unit with bounty" - because only one unit will have bounty, and, in that case, will be "the enemy unit with bounty"
 
Scapegoat looks pretty fillerish to me, it's the angry mob of this expansion.

5p card is interesting, it's got some carryover potential, at least

the Epic seems like worse procession of penance, frankly

The gold looks really good
 
i think since you only can put bounty in one unit, only one enemy unit will have bounty.

thats why "damage the enemy unit with bounty" - because only one unit will have bounty, and, in that case, will be "the enemy unit with bounty"
I got that part, but my main concern was if he will be able to damage other units with bounty after that or if he is limited to that single card drawn (which seems to be the case that he's a one and done deal with the damage fee).

How good is that then to thin a bronze from your opponent's deck, effectively helping their chances of them drawing a gold later on, while also playing into tall punish? Aside from drawing a much needed aristocrat if they only run enough to trigger ball, that relict that can go tall, and maybe a couple other situational cases, I don't see the desire to thin a bronze for the opponent and potentially help them in later rounds.

I get that, with the tribute effect, knowledge is power, but to me this feels like an overly elaborate R3 point slam more than anything else. And at that rate, Ignatius would be better in that regard for the provisions.
Post automatically merged:

Scoundrel would be a 12 for 10 if you don't use tribute and don't count added value from synergies, or 12 for 12 if you use tribute and not counting synergy value, while, if the match goes well, Ignatius could be 12 for 6.
Post automatically merged:

I guess thematically Scoundrel fits the description, "Some people believe they have power by persecuting those who actually wield it." He gives the illusion of a massive point swing by damaging/killing the summoned card, while effectively only really playing for 12 points plus synergies. Not that I'm trying to discount a 12 point play by any means.
 
Last edited:
I got that part, but my main concern was if he will be able to damage other units with bounty after that or if he is limited to that single card drawn (which seems to be the case that he's a one and done deal with the damage fee).

How good is that then to thin a bronze from your opponent's deck, effectively helping their chances of them drawing a gold later on, while also playing into tall punish? Aside from drawing a much needed aristocrat if they only run enough to trigger ball, that relict that can go tall, and maybe a couple other situational cases, I don't see the desire to thin a bronze for the opponent and potentially help them in later rounds.

I get that, with the tribute effect, knowledge is power, but to me this feels like an overly elaborate R3 point slam more than anything else. And at that rate, Ignatius would be better in that regard for the provisions.
Post automatically merged:

Scoundrel would be a 12 for 10 if you don't use tribute and don't count added value from synergies, or 12 for 12 if you use tribute and not counting synergy value, while, if the match goes well, Ignatius could be 12 for 6.
Post automatically merged:

I guess thematically Scoundrel fits the description, "Some people believe they have power by persecuting those who actually wield it." He gives the illusion of a massive point swing by damaging/killing the summoned card, while effectively only really playing for 12 points plus synergies. Not that I'm trying to discount a 12 point play by any means.
I mean, no mather what card you use, you can only put One bounty per time. So If an unit has bounty and you put a bounty in another unit The first bounty will go.

So it always have only One unit with bounty, and thats os "The unit with bounty". Understand?
 
I mean, no mather what card you use, you can only put One bounty per time. So If an unit has bounty and you put a bounty in another unit The first bounty will go.

So it always have only One unit with bounty, and thats os "The unit with bounty". Understand?
I understand what you are saying and how bounty works, but that isn't what I'm talking about. The wording of the card makes it sound like it will only ever damage the initial bountied unit, and not any other unit that receives bounty after that. As in, it summons the bronze card and puts bounty on it, I damage and remove that bountied unit, I place bounty on a separate unit after that, and Scoundrel will not damage that unit because it itself did not place bounty on that unit.

Witch hunter says "damage a unit with bounty" as in damage any unit as long as it has bounty. Scoundrel says "damage the unit with bounty" as in it will only ever target the unit that it specifically gave bounty to, and nothing else for the rest of the round even if another unit receives bounty.

Cheers for trying to clarify though :beer:

EDIT: Witch hunter executioner doesn't literally say damage a unit with bounty, but that is what it does. Put it up for question to Jean Auquier on twitter. Will update if/when I get a response or when I test it out after the update. If it does in fact damage any unit with bounty, I would suggest a QOL change in its wording to say damage A unit with bounty.
 
Last edited:
I understand what you are saying and how bounty works, but that isn't what I'm talking about. The wording of the card makes it sound like it will only ever damage the initial bountied unit, and not any other unit that receives bounty after that. As in, it summons the bronze card and puts bounty on it, I damage and remove that bountied unit, I place bounty on a separate unit after that, and Scoundrel will not damage that unit because it itself did not place bounty on that unit.

Witch hunter says "damage a unit with bounty" as in damage any unit as long as it has bounty. Scoundrel says "damage the unit with bounty" as in it will only ever target the unit that it specifically gave bounty to, and nothing else for the rest of the round even if another unit receives bounty.

Cheers for trying to clarify though :beer:

EDIT: Witch hunter executioner doesn't literally say damage a unit with bounty, but that is what it does. Put it up for question to Jean Auquier on twitter. Will update if/when I get a response or when I test it out after the update. If it does in fact damage any unit with bounty, I would suggest a QOL change in its wording to say damage A unit with bounty.
Well like i said, since no mather what there is only One unit with bounty, for me thats "The unit with bounty".

But, of course, other People (like yourself) can Understand different, and Maybe a change in The card description its welcome
 
Well like i said, since no mather what there is only One unit with bounty, for me thats "The unit with bounty".

But, of course, other People (like yourself) can Understand different, and Maybe a change in The card description its welcome
I do understand where you are coming from, and hope that that is correct and it is just my misunderstanding and over analyzing a single word difference. Your view of it would definitely make it a better, if not slightly OP card. Cheers, and thanks for dealing with my excessive thought train. :beer:
 
I do understand where you are coming from, and hope that that is correct and it is just my misunderstanding and over analyzing a single word difference. Your view of it would definitely make it a better, if not slightly OP card. Cheers, and thanks for dealing with my excessive thought train. :beer:
You're definitely over analysing it.
Witch hunter executioner doesn't literally say damage a unit with bounty, but that is what it does.
The Executioner acts differently, it has to target a unit. So the wording will be different. The Scoundrel will just look for a unit with Bounty on the opponent's board and auto target it. In this way it could hit targets behind a Defender or with Immunity.
 
The Executioner acts differently, it has to target a unit. So the wording will be different. The Scoundrel will just look for a unit with Bounty on the opponent's board and auto target it. In this way it could hit targets behind a Defender or with Immunity.
This I fear.
Basicly Scoundrel is the evil Tibor. After the buffs to NG reveal, SY reveal incoming:smart:. Or SY mill?
 
I humbly admit that you all were right about my misinterpretation! Glad that scoundrel is much better than I thought it would be.
 
I actually think Scoundrel is bugged, and is only supposed to damage the unit it pulled. The wording seems to suggest that too clearly for the current behaviour to be correct.
 
I actually think Scoundrel is bugged, and is only supposed to damage the unit it pulled. The wording seems to suggest that too clearly for the current behaviour to be correct.
Why would it be limited to the unit he summons ?
Based on the wording it just means that he will hit the unit that is currently bountied (without targeting it, so ignoring defenders etc).
 
I actually think Scoundrel is bugged, and is only supposed to damage the unit it pulled. The wording seems to suggest that too clearly for the current behaviour to be correct.
I don't think so. The card says damage the unit with bounty by 1. Since there can only be 1 enemy unit with bounty at a time, I dont see any misunderstandings with the wording.
Post automatically merged:

Do you not see the obvious issue with this?

More than one unit having Bounty.

Based on the card's wording he should only target the unit he summons.
That's not possible for quite some time by now
 
Do you not see the obvious issue with this?

More than one unit having Bounty.

Based on the card's wording he should only target the unit he summons.
Only one bounty can be applied and based on wordings like this I am fairly sure they will never go back on that decision (to the initial case of unlimited bounties at the same time).
 
Top Bottom