Nilfgaard Sweers vs units with armor

[croloris]

I wish I could give 4RM3D 2 red points for the answers he gave...but for now have my 2 cents.

I do not see what the problem is with the seize version of Sweers. In previous metas, he has had a problem finding targets that had 3 points of strength, but now this is not the case. He is an 8 provision card that usually steals a 5 provision card from an opponent and gives you 3 points of strength...which is 8 provisions for net gain of 18 provisions (8 for Sweers, a -5p to opponent +5p card to NG) ...or a net gain of 9 points of strength for 8 provisions.

The only reason he is not in every NG deck is because NG has a number of different deck builds that are competitive and fun to play as and oppressive to play against...as Control factions should be.

Northern Realms has a ton of cards that reach this strength if unanswered...in a 10 card round

Redanian Archer is 5 provisions for 3 health, 2 armor, and 9 - 10 points of targeted damage...so that is a 5p for 13 power...
Arbalest does the same thing, for a provision and armor less
Reenforced Trebuchet does nearly the same thing, if boosted, though non targeted damage
Aretuza Adept doubles the output of those units

By my count, you can have all 8 of these cards in one deck vs 4 - 6 bronze removal cards in an average NG deck. If Sweers steals one of these cards, you have 7 vs 7.

Sweers should be compared to Vysogota...who if unanswered as a 3rd or 4th card play in a 10 card round, is worth about 16 strength of boosts for 8 provisions... (closer to 20 strength if either player plays a card that summons more cards.)

Or compare him to Anna...who can also output 20 points of strength if allowed to sit on the board unmolested for 7 or more rounds...and these are just the tip of the engine iceberg NR has.

Not to mention all the other factions have equally ridiculous engine options. All of which are cost less than the 5 abilities that control them. Sweers, Muzzle, Enslave, Succubus, and the worse of them all...Philippa Eilhardt...(followed by Madame Luiza into Savolla.)

Post automatically merged: Nov 5, 2019

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

Before the Warfare BS was given to Northern Realms, John Natalis summoned Tactics cards and Menno Coehorn destroyed any spying unit. Later Menno became a copy of John Natalis, and Royal Decree got the Tactics tag along with a few other neutral cards (Garrison, Marching Orders, Commander's Horn and Decoy) primarily to help Northern Realms muster more units.)

This was also the time period when CH was considered fairly OP because it was a gold that gave 15 health for 14 provisions...one of the only gold's that was a positive on power to provision output....my how times have changed.

 

[petr_klokan]

I wish I could give 4RM3D 2 red points for the answers he gave...but for now have my 2 cents.

I do not see what the problem is with the seize version of Sweers. In previous metas, he has had a problem finding targets that had 3 points of strength, but now this is not the case. He is an 8 provision card that usually steals a 5 provision card from an opponent and gives you 3 points of strength...which is 8 provisions for net gain of 18 provisions (8 for Sweers, a -5p to opponent +5p card to NG) ...or a net gain of 9 points of strength for 8 provisions.

The only reason he is not in every NG deck is because NG has a number of different deck builds that are competitive and fun to play as and oppressive to play against...as Control factions should be.

Northern Realms has a ton of cards that reach this strength if unanswered...in a 10 card round

Redanian Archer is 5 provisions for 3 health, 2 armor, and 9 - 10 points of targeted damage...so that is a 5p for 13 power...
Arbalest does the same thing, for a provision and armor less
Reenforced Trebuchet does nearly the same thing, if boosted, though non targeted damage
Aretuza Adept doubles the output of those units

By my count, you can have all 8 of these cards in one deck vs 4 - 6 bronze removal cards in an average NG deck. If Sweers steals one of these cards, you have 7 vs 7.

Sweers should be compared to Vysogota...who if unanswered as a 3rd or 4th card play in a 10 card round, is worth about 16 strength of boosts for 8 provisions... (closer to 20 strength if either player plays a card that summons more cards.)

Or compare him to Anna...who can also output 20 points of strength if allowed to sit on the board unmolested for 7 or more rounds...and these are just the tip of the engine iceberg NR has.

Not to mention all the other factions have equally ridiculous engine options. All of which are cost less than the 5 abilities that control them. Sweers, Muzzle, Enslave, Succubus, and the worse of them all...Philippa Eilhardt...(followed by Madame Luiza into Savolla.)

Post automatically merged: Nov 5, 2019

Before the Warfare BS was given to Northern Realms, John Natalis summoned Tactics cards and Menno Coehorn destroyed any spying unit. Later Menno became a copy of John Natalis, and Royal Decree got the Tactics tag along with a few other neutral cards (Garrison, Marching Orders, Commander's Horn and Decoy) primarily to help Northern Realms muster more units.)

This was also the time period when CH was considered fairly OP because it was a gold that gave 15 health for 14 provisions...one of the only gold's that was a positive on power to provision output....my how times have changed.

Thank you for the account of historical events. It doesn’t answer my question: how is a neutral card with one faction flavour justified today? Why isn’t Marching Orders a Warfare, for example? Why should it have any faction specific tag at all?

 

[croloris]

Gwent's history is one of revising factions / cards and making them relevant at their own pace. Tactics was conceived to be one overarching genre of cards, but it keeps getting split into sub genres like Raid, Warfare, Nature, Traps etc for no explicable reason (because that reason cannot be balance...)

The revision to "Tactics" has not happened yet, so everything will just sit there as is until Cyberpunk is released they have time to fix it.

 

[4RM3D]

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

Fair? Maybe not. Problematic? Not really.

Muzzle was reinforcing the Enslave deck; too much so for a neutral card. On the other hand, Royal Decree is just a simple tutor that can benefit every faction equally. The Tactics tag is only really good for meeting the Enslave requirement. While Menno can tutor Royal Decree, it's less of an issue.

It doesn’t answer my question: how is a neutral card with one faction flavour justified today? Why isn’t Marching Orders a Warfare, for example? Why should it have any faction specific tag at all?

As explained, it might have something to do with interactions from now defunct archetypes. While I mentioned that neutral cards shouldn't cater to specific archetypes, there is an exception when it comes to tags. For example, there are quite a few neutral Dwarfs that work well in a Dwarf deck (or used to, at least). There are always some factions that gain more benefits from certain neutral cards than others. As mentioned in my previous post, Triss: Telekinesis works well with any deck that wants more copies of bronze Specials and she can work alongside Ermion. This is fine, as long as such a card isn't favoring one specific deck.

 

[Guest 4368268]

I feel like when playing removal you ought to sacrifice tempo. Seize is a mechanic that not only defies that but actually creates swings in your favour which is something I extremely dislike. Besides that, I don't mind that Sweers doesn't take armour into account. I do think it's too low provisions.

But then again, these cards that pile up charges like Redanian Archers, Fire Scorpions etc. even with their low base strength are too strong as well. Because when they go off it will board wipe you which is the kind of gameplay I loathe.

 

[Jan_Szybawski]

If the "seize" ability is not OP as some of You claim, why then there aren't any neutral cards with these ability, accessible to all faction's?
Let's create reasonalbe "seize" neutral unit, and let's check statistics after a month what will be procentage of usage of it in decks? My guess? 90% or more, and I dare You to prove me wrong. Because as far as I know, all seize cards avaible for now are auto-include in all decks - sweers in NG and Filippa in Syndycate. Without a reason, eh?

 

[4RM3D]

If the "seize" ability is not OP as some of You claim, why then there aren't any neutral cards with these ability, accessible to all faction's?

Man, you are really hammering down on this. Anyhow, what you are implying doesn't make sense because your argumentation can be used for every mechanic. Just because something is (not) OP, doesn't mean it should be made accessible to all factions. This will only kill faction identity. I like the factions precisely because they have their own unique mechanics.

 

[Anima_13]

Answers Part 1

First I might have went a bit overboard with my last sentence. I am sorry if I insulted anyone-this was never the purpose-, yet I also feel desperate how this thread ignores the relation of things. As If there wouldn't be any powercreep, in other parts of the game where seize has to keep up. As if all factions would function the same way. As If neutral cards would be equal to faction specific cards. And so on..

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.

I might not have enough experience (with this particular card game) yet I can see the relationship of provision cost versus potential points winnable. The rest is math. We both agree that Muzzle is a weaker seize but our evaluation is different. You say the other seize options are OP, I say Muzzle has to stay weaker because control options outside a control faction break the balance. And this works the same way for any faction. If I give the pointslam options of monsters or the resurrect options of the skellige free for all factions for the same cost, the factions would lose their specific trait that helps them to win. Also I strongly differentiate between those other seize options.

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

No doubt, yet we have to take a closer look on those synergies. Just because cards synergize they arent necessary equal up. Those combos/synergies can easily have completly different values.

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

There were no hard feelings. I just enjoy discussing balance. I trying to show you my point of view to have a chance to reevaluate your positions. I am also eager to hear your arguments. But I want hear arguments and not repetitions.

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

I see it this way: There is a general powercreep in the game. To be able to keep up with that there has to be powercreep in Nilfgaard too. On top of that Sweers is relatively easy to counter and outplay and is useless in in several matchups as its a card too overspecialized. I am using or from your point of view abusing this card regulary. I see it as an important part of the card ecosystem to keep other cards in check which would get too op without that.
There is a general trend in card games to meet aspects of control with complete rejection. Instead of adjusting ones gameplay or teching onces deck against these decks, people complain and want nerfs. They project their unwillingness to evolve their playing skills, their uncomplete cardpool or the frustration of the shift of balance on an enemy. Sometimes these are justified as control is hard to balance but they have to get looked at in detail and in context. This didn't happen here. This thread is full of bias against Nilfgaard. And then I think I was mild.

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.

This is one point of view. Yet we could also just say that seize mechanism are there to punish the overreliance on single cards on field , to punish standalone cards and especially engines that can generate easily an extra 9-20 ish extra points when staying on field. For a faction with underaverage power(=loses the previous turns investments much more easily) the majority of engines (but also multi summoning ect..) pose an above average threat for which they require hardconters in form of the functionality of their cards.
In the powercreep we agree but not in its evaluation.

It is quite difficult to take into account those arguments that you present considering your season history.

I understand that. But this isnt the only card game in the world and Nilfgaard not the first control faction. And the arguments are still there for the discussion. They need to get answered. Whether I am a good player or not is of lesser relavance here.

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.

I have provided several arguments in my previous post and additional ones here too and they are still unanswered. So "overlooking logical reasoning" is something I could give back.
You feel the ability to gain access to your engines and skills is incoherent. I understand that it feels unfair. Yet this ability Is already in many cards present in form of card steal, card copy ect. Letho: the Kingsslayer[copy], Yennefers Invocation[steal], Cahir Dyffryn [copy boosteffects], bribery [copy], cantarella [steal], Duchess's Informant [copy] or Double Cross hero ability. This aspect is part of this control faction. Its a strong aspect no doubt but its also weak the same time. It is reactive and leaves the initiative to the opponent. It punishes strong standalone cards, unequal provision distribution. It fails in face of strong synergies and combos that cant be copied with a simple card.

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

Its exactly Damien we should talk about. He is a many times bigger issue then Sweers will ever be. The minimum should be a relative balancing in function of the heroes skill he copies. For example: using his skill could damage himself in function of the extra provisions cost the hero provides. And the same treatment for Skellen in function of the copied tactics provisionscost.

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

If you have read my previous posts It might get obvious that card vs card comparisons wont really convince me cause they aren't the best way to evaluate a cards real power. They pretend as if the rest of the decks wouldnt exist. The Neuetral vs faction specific comparison doesnt make it better either.

Still, comparing Sweers with deploy units is probably a much better idea then with spells at least(Would have preferred Toad Prince). In this case both of them ignore armor. We have to include the fails of these cards too. Not every one runs valuable low hp units and especially in a short round sweers can fail hard. In case there is no target unit for these cards: Sweers fails at 3 points for 8 provisions while Cyprian at 5 for 9; 2 for 9 If you mess it up really big (I didnt see a case where banishing your own unit would really benefit you yet ) but one could argue just as well that you did something really wrong if you run this card together with potential targets in your deck and no damage support to put enemy cards in your banish range.

No doubt Sweers is way better. But thats it then. Its the same neutral vs faction specific comparison. It fails to consider the faction specific context. Cyprian might be a neglected card like many others. OR a specific solution for specific needs. Also it ignores the other cards powercreep.

PS somebody pls write here something it doesnt let me post Part 2

 

[4RM3D]

PS somebody pls write here something it doesnt let me post Part 2

Okay.

 

[Anima_13]

Answers Part 2

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)

Is this still about Sweers? If you wish I can make you a list about neuetral vs faction specific. It behaves simmilar across all factions. Also Heatwave is again a weak card/ victim of powercreep, that only makes sense in a specific context(probably skellige hate?). You seem to be attached to cards like this. Above 10 power, cards like geralt of rivia or leo bonhart perform the same action and provide 3 extra points. Under 10 the card generates minus points. No doubt it can still be useful. But with all the other powercreep going on you still have to ask yourself. Is it really worth to run a spell that has better alternatives in the range where it generates positive values and isnt it better to use other cards for the range where it in essence generates minus points?

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

Please when other factions summon 12-16 points a turn with their leader abilities, having having access to a 10-12 point swing is a point of complaint? When the majority of solutions in game are single target the rise of multisummoning options should remain without other ways to counter them? I face enslave too regulary. I lose to them, but I also win against them more. A single steal doesn't pose a threat If I use my own hero ability wise enough.
The potential issue are multiple steals with Damien but you can expect him in a deck. A thundered Damien is -6 points for my opponent. thats a huge loss, that usually seals the game. Everyone just concentrates on the high reward but Damien is also a very high risk card. Still he might need a change: my idea for his rework you can find above.

Sorry but these is tottaly out of balance for me

If your definition of imbalance is "generating more points than its provision cost", I could easily spam the forum full with complain threads about single cards. The balance has probably shifted and this is a new normality. IF you wish I can make a list of them, but dont be surprised when you see every engine in game on that list.

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

If your definition of balance is "neuetral cards should have the same strengh as faction specific cards", your understanding of balance is simply wrong. but first:
There aren't always neuetral counterparts for every usefull faction card and if there are they cost more. This is the part where your argumentation fails. I can't copy over the provision efficient pointslam of monsters into NG cause there aren't cards like that: there is no neutral ghoul no neutral AR Feiniel, Speartip, Ighern etc.. I dont have equivalents for the engines of NR or those 6-7power units that keep buffing each other. There are no neutral immune units and traps. Do you want to have a Gabor Zigrin, a Gremist, a Sigrdrifas Rite, a Savolla, a Philippa, an Azar Javed for every faction?
You are not the first person making this mistake, but just because you are many it doesnt means you are right. If you demand equality for every card in last consequence you demand the end of all factions. But the games live from this difference and from the clash of these differences. The factions make decisions in different directions due to which they gain certain strenghs and weaknesses. They also get solutions for specific issues on which they will depend a lot. This is functional assymetry. Those solutions might look overpovered out of context but they are totally justified within the faction. Thats the reason those solutions should always stay there.

 

[hachri80]

Sweers can be strong right now because with the latest expansion a lot of low power cards were introduced to the game. Before that he was almost not playable because most of the units got strenghtened. But as mentioned Sweers can also brick which can be game deciding in a short round. So I think he is perfectly fine.

 

[IndianaJohns]

Here's my sarcastic 2 cents, snatching one 3 power Redanian Archer from a deck that follows up with drummers, catapults, shieldbashing-damage-dealing guys, arbalests and apprentices, then Roche-sword-Roche for a million cards doesn't seem to be that overpowered...

 

[StrykerxS77x]

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.

Yennifer is not a bit stronger than Heatwave. Its a LOT stronger. Being cheaper in provisions and that much stronger makes very little sense.

Post automatically merged: Nov 10, 2019

Here's my sarcastic 2 cents, snatching one 3 power Redanian Archer from a deck that follows up with drummers, catapults, shieldbashing-damage-dealing guys, arbalests and apprentices, then Roche-sword-Roche for a million cards doesn't seem to be that overpowered...

It will be easier to identify if a card is over powered or not once they tweak leaders. Leaders allowing you to play multiple cards in one turn has a huge impact on the game.

 

[IndianaJohns]

It will be easier to identify if a card is over powered or not once they tweak leaders. Leaders allowing you to play multiple cards in one turn has a huge impact on the game.

I agree with that. I'd really like to nip playing 6 cards in a turn in the bud. I also agree with the person who said that Seize should automatically lock. Not because of Sweers, per se, but to keep everyone's sanity. When I Sweers, I do it for the points, if I get an Order or constant effect out of it, that's just a bonus. Locking after Seize would also be more lore-friendly: the enemy unit is now a 'prisoner', not a loyal Imperial subject.

But, as I mentioned before, I don't think Sweers is OP as a card.