Nilfgaard Sweers vs units with armor

[Jan_Szybawski]

Sweers with his current ability (strengh 3, seize unit up to 3 strengh, 8 provinsion) was created few months ago when there wasn't armour in the game. So it was balanced - You seize unit with 3 so get instant 6 points + 3 strengh of sweers geave You 9 points for 8 provinsion and - optionally - seized card ability. So 9 for 8 , taking under consideration small risk of missuse due to absence of require cards in opponents deck was ok. But now when armour is in the game sweers can easily seize unit with not only 3 strengh but also with armour and that geave him ability to seize unit with total 5 strengh and often usefull ability (like for example redanian archer) what for 8 provinsion card is to strong IMHO. Therefore I think that card need balance - or higher provinsion, or ability to seize unit with total armour + strengh up to 3

 

[4RM3D]

Nah, it's fine because normally you don't care much for the armor to begin with and you would rather to try to steal an engine. You just happen to mention the single exception where the armor actually matters. However, that's not enough reason to change Sweers. Incidentally, the exact same problem already existed with Queen Adalia giving shield to a 3 strength unit, only to get seized by Sweers. It's something you should always take into consideration when playing against NG and sometimes you can even use it to bait out the card.

 

[Jan_Szybawski]

Nah, it's fine because normally you don't care much for the armor to begin with and you would rather to try to steal an engine. You just happen to mention the single exception where the armor actually matters. However, that's not enough reason to change Sweers. Incidentally, the exact same problem already existed with Queen Adalia giving shield to a 3 strength unit, only to get seized by Sweers. It's something you should always take into consideration when playing against NG and sometimes you can even use it to bait out the card.

Maybe You 're right, i am surely biased because I play only Northen Realms and -fortunatelly or unfortunatelly - NR had a lot of cards that Sweers can sieze, like Redanian Knight ,or , mentioned above , Redanian Archer ; But in other fractions - maybe except these new 2 strength 5 shield dwarves in ScoiaTell - there Indeed aren't any really good targets for sieze after consideration. Maybe if in future more 3 strengh + armor engines appear in other fractions, it will be a matter to discuss

 

[Anima_13]

sorry but this is totally nonsense.

First, armor is irrelevant for the field value. It is power that decides the game. If you sweer a unit It can have 100 armor it still be 3 power and 3 points for my field. IF you field a unit with armor you won't get more value for your armor either. You will only gain more value if that unit can generate extra value= its an engine.
You think its unfair I can steal an engine? Play Nilfgard. See how weak our engines are how much they rely on other cards. How they can't generate any value on their own (few exeptions). This is no big deal as long we have access to control options. But it is If those get nerfed. Also you can sort of bait sweers early game and there are other pretty mechanism to dodge it by boosting your units.

Second, unless you play ardal you don't swim in seize options. Solving issues with damage is limited to certain cards.
The number of insanely strong standalone engines with low hp are increasing(just in iron judgement 5 highthreat engines at least + syndicate defender). Multi summoning everywhere.
Once you have established a field control factions crumble.
Sweers is minimum at this point. In fact we could easily use a second one. The multi summoning weakens control (which is usually single target) a lot. But multi control solutions options would probably break the game.

Finally, a conditional 9 point swing for 8 provisions? I am pretty sure we could name many cards that generate point advantages way above their provision cost. +1 is a joke at this point.

 

[Jan_Szybawski]

sorry but this is totally nonsense.

First, armor is irrelevant for the field value. It is power that decides the game. If you sweer a unit It can have 100 armor it still be 3 power and 3 points for my field. IF you field a unit with armor you won't get more value for your armor either. You will only gain more value if that unit can generate extra value= its an engine.
You think its unfair I can steal an engine? Play Nilfgard. See how weak our engines are how much they rely on other cards. How they can't generate any value on their own (few exeptions). This is no big deal as long we have access to control options. But it is If those get nerfed. Also you can sort of bait sweers early game and there are other pretty mechanism to dodge it by boosting your units.

Second, unless you play ardal you don't swim in seize options. Solving issues with damage is limited to certain cards.
The number of insanely strong standalone engines with low hp are increasing(just in iron judgement 5 highthreat engines at least + syndicate defender). Multi summoning everywhere.
Once you have established a field control factions crumble.
Sweers is minimum at this point. In fact we could easily use a second one. The multi summoning weakens control (which is usually single target) a lot. But multi control solutions options would probably break the game.

Finally, a conditional 9 point swing for 8 provisions? I am pretty sure we could name many cards that generate point advantages way above their provision cost. +1 is a joke at this point.

As I said before, i agree to sweers as it is now only because there are only few really good engines in the game that he can seize and contribute a really value to Nilfgaard, like mentioned Redanian Archer; With arrival more of these kind of cards to the game and to all factions, seize engine like that will be definitely OP and needed nerf or rework - and if You think that armor of card is irrelevant its Your opinion - for me armor in engine is huge additional value and I think we have agree to disagree in these matter ;

 

[petr_klokan]

sorry but this is totally nonsense.
First, armor is irrelevant for the field value.

The problem with Sweers and size in general is that it does not lock the sized unit (ie gets the benefits of the engine = extra points)

Consider Nozzle a strong, competitive level gold: Size [5] & lock for 12p and compare with Sweers, Philippa or Enslave leader ability. Makes no sense to me.

There is a whole thread somewhere in this forum about issues with size mechanics.

 

[Jan_Szybawski]

The problem with Sweers and size in general is that it does not lock the sized unit (ie gets the benefits of the engine = extra points)

Consider Nozzle a strong, competitive level gold: Size [5] & lock for 12p and compare with Sweers, Philippa or Enslave leader ability. Makes no sense to me.

There is a whole thread somewhere in this forum about issues with size mechanics.

Couldn't agree more

 

[Anima_13]

The problem with Sweers and size in general is that it does not lock the sized unit (ie gets the benefits of the engine = extra points)

Consider Nozzle a strong, competitive level gold: Size [5] & lock for 12p and compare with Sweers, Philippa or Enslave leader ability. Makes no sense to me.

There is a whole thread somewhere in this forum about issues with size mechanics.

First: the comparison with Vigo's mozzle pretends as if balance would happen on the level of single cards. Yet it is decks that fight each other not cards. So this comparison is nonsense. Cards have to be looked at in the context of the decks and factions they are used in.

1. Mozzle is a neuetral card. Its avalible for all factions. Demanding it to be equal to faction specific solutions would be as good as demanding the end of factions. It should never be as strong as an "in faction" conterpart. In fact one could argue the very existence of this card is tricky cause exporting control options out of control factions usually destroys the chance to ever balance the game. If each faction gains full access to the perks of the other factions the differences cease to exist synergies loose their point and everyone runs decks full of standalone units which all look the same just with different color.

2. Mozzle is a weak card and not competetive lvl. IT might have had a strong period when it was a tactic (which is again a complete other issue), but thats the past. right now 12 points for a 10 point swing is a waste of resources, unless you have some very specific requirement for your deck. The game is full of cards that generate power above their provision costs. And I haven't lost a single game, not even a turn to that card in the last 3 months(since I am here).

So much to Muzzle. Now to Seize in general. Within a "control sphere" seize is a totally balanced mechanism. But to this to work out the control sphere has have the certain qualities: under average life compared to other factions(squishiness), underaverage access to damage, harder conditions to synergies ect.. These are all present in Nilfgaard. The under average power of the units forces the control sphere to compensate by unique utilities of the cards and making use of your opponents field.

Now if I look on the seize within Nilfgaard the only really discussable thing is Damien resetting enslave. Its discussable because Damiens power is unbalancable per design.
But then again, enslave is also very predictable. Being pushed into having 8-12 tactic cards puts you in a severe disadvantage so you really rely on that ability. You provide vital information about your deck composition at the beginning of the game already. And your opponent can go full units and simply outfield you If you can't keep up with their fielding. This is even more easy with the explosion of options to field several units within a turn. Portal, units summoning other cards or cards that autosummon themselves, heroes creating card advantage: They are all "nerfs" to size. Very strong ones. The only thing you have to care about is not fielding units that give zeal on round 3 and to keep your solutions for a potential damien/defender ready when they arrive.
Maybe it is because I am a relatively new player: To me Ardal/enslave was never a real issue. I probably got most of my wins out of beating them. Portal poses a bigger threat in my eyes then an enslave.

Keeping the extra points from engines is only a real threat with the steal of high power engines. The low power engines are all easy to destroy and the decks using them swim in damage and kill them with ease is if I steal them. On top of that the majority of them is tutorable. Quardo dwarf, double roche or portal a duo vs a single Sweers?

I would understand if you would complain about Damien or the off faction enslave abilities, But Sweers? Please I cant take this serious. You just want cheap wins against Nilfgaard.

 

[petr_klokan]

You just want cheap wins against Nilfgaard.

I am an old time Beta player, who embraced HC but would like to see a bit more sense and balance in some game mechanics as well as less RNG cards. I am not after “cheap wins”.

I have a decent card collection and have played NG frequently (not always).

Regarding Nozzle you don’t have enough experience to appreciate its quality and you see it ‘week’ because the other size is OP in comparison. That was my point.

NG has superb access to removal and plenty of solid ‘tactics’ that synergise.

So let’s agree to disagree. No hard feelings.

 

[Anciluart]

You just want cheap wins against Nilfgaard

Or maybe you want cheap wins in general.....

Ardal and Sweers are new in the game if we compare them with Muzzle. Muzzle is not a "bad seize", the others just have powercreep.

In addition, the characteristic of NG is this case would be access to multiple seize tools, there is no need for them to do it more efficiently with extra benefit over the provisions / profit balance.

It is quite difficult to take into account those arguments that you present considering your season history.
In addition to how any type of logical reasoning is overlooked and where you think it is not only enough to deny an important unit to the opponent but it is also okay to make that unit generate points naturally as if you had played it.
The first part corresponds to the nature of the control, the second is simply incoherent.

We don't talk about Damien anymore, what are we going to say? That card should not even exist.

 

[Jan_Szybawski]

Cyprian Wiley - 9 provinsion, 8 points in total to get rid of unit up to 3 strengh; in comp: sweers: 8 provinsion 9 points in total get rid od unit + take card ability and her armor

Heatwave- get rid of very strong opponent unit ; in comp. Yennefer Invocation - 9 provinsion - get rid of very strong opponent unit + play it from Your deck in nex turn (usually card for 11+provinsion)

All other fractions best leader ability - play additional card in turn - in comp. nilfgaard enslave - not only play a extra card in turn but also get rid of dangerous opponent card in the same time

Sorry but these is tottaly out of balance for me

And one other thing: there are usually neutral counterparts for every usefull fraction cards , expect there isn't any neutral card with ability to seize unit - why? Its beyond me. Probably because - and it is a only one reasonable explenation that I see - seizing of unit is just way too strong ability to cerate a neutral card for that , because it will become instantly autoinclude to all decks. But if it is too powerfull to create neutral with that, it indicates that ability should be definitely reworked instead of beeing domain of one fraction

 

[RaynStargaze]

The problem still is that engines are ultra broken and seize is just the countermechanic.

 

[Jan_Szybawski]

The problem still is that engines are ultra broken and seize is just the countermechanic.

Lol - dmg, lock or banishing unit is a counter for engines. Seize is something different , works like: destroy engine + create engine. And it is broken, not engines

 

[4RM3D]

Cyprian Wiley - 9 provinsion, 8 points in total to get rid of unit up to 3 strengh; in comp: sweers: 8 provinsion 9 points in total get rid od unit + take card ability and her armor

Heatwave- get rid of very strong opponent unit ; in comp. Yennefer Invocation - 9 provinsion - get rid of very strong opponent unit + play it from Your deck in nex turn (usually card for 11+provinsion)

You are comparing neutral cards with faction cards. The latter is suppose to be a bit stronger. Also, even the neutral cards have their place in certain decks. Furthermore, they are not mutually exclusive.

 

[RaynStargaze]

Lol - dmg, lock or banishing unit is a counter for engines. Seize is something different , works like: destroy engine + create engine. And it is broken, not engines

Whats the power per cost cap for the average lock / damage?

5 for 5 alzurs thunder? 5 for 7 locks? What happens if they brick? Whats their best scenario when they cant hit an engine? ohh right

Whats the best scenario for a random 4+1 for 5 boost +1 per turn bronze in a 10 turn round? ohh right 14 - how about that. seems pretty good.

Whats the best scenario for damage 1 gain charge on effect or hefty helge? Ohh you cant play anything ever again - no synergy nothing. Please just leave the game now and save us some time.

I feel theres a bit of a difference in potential value vs worst case scenario that is really stupidly hard favouring engines.

You might notice that when you actually take the time to look at it.

 

[petr_klokan]

And why

You are comparing neutral cards with faction cards. The latter is suppose to be a bit stronger.

And why exactly are the faction cards supposed to be ‘a bit stronger’ than neutral cards?

I think there should be balance and faction identity. A good example is Royal Decree and Call of the Forest. Both are 10p, both tutor a unit. COTF tutors only ST units but gives +1 and has ‘Nature’ tag. This would be a perfect example if RD didn’t have ‘tactics’ tag. That doesn’t make sense.

 

[Jan_Szybawski]

And why

And why exactly are the neutral cards supposed to be ‘a bit stronger’ than faction cards?

I think there should be balance and faction identity. A good example is Royal Decree and Call of the Forest. Both are 10p, both tutor a unit. COTF tutors only ST units but gives +1 and has ‘Nature’ tag. This would be a perfect example if RD didn’t have ‘tactics’ tag. That doesn’t make sense.

Or Bloody Baron vs Geralt Axii - Axii is one Point less , but can puryfy defender also (especially usefull vs Nilfgaard defender) , so its even better as neutral;

 

[4RM3D]

And why exactly are the faction cards supposed to be ‘a bit stronger’ than neutral cards?

Because neutral cards can be accessed by all factions and should be balanced accordingly. This usually means making them a bit weaker. However, there is also a power-creep going on with the newer expansion(s) on top of comparing neutral cards with faction cards. Furthermore, neutral cards should have a more general utility and not cater to specific faction archetypes. Case in point, Muzzle was (unfairly) strong in NG because of the Tactics tag. Compare that to Triss: Telekinesis, which is just a general enabler to play more specials, while Ermion is better when it comes to playing Alchemy cards.

 

[Guest 4336264]

I hate Seize Leader decks.

A Player has lots of tactic cards - the most I've seen so far are decks able to nick a card with up to 6 points. Then we have the card that can steal a 3 point card. Also, a card that can refresh the leader ability (sometimes zeal that turn, sometimes decoy type card that removes refresh leader and replays again). You're looking at 3 - 4 card steals in some games (you can add the 'neutral' Muzzle, and you've got yourself a further 5 point card). For me, these types of possibilities are ridiculous and limit the type of deck that can be built if you have any hope of defeating such a deck when encountered.

I should just add that I agree with the point about Sweers being able to nick cards with armour - and that the ability isn't locked. Ability should be locked and if the unit has armour, the unit should not be able to be taken (if the ability was locked, it wouldn't be so bad). If the Archer is stolen, the armour should be removed.

 

[petr_klokan]

Furthermore, neutral cards should have a more general utility and not cater to specific faction archetypes. Case in point, Muzzle was (unfairly) strong in NG because of the Tactics tag.

Why does Royal Decree have ‘Tactic’ tag? Is that fair?