[NR] Amphibious assault devotion buff

[1990BW]

Devotion NR is at a OK spot balance wise however it lacks the consistency when compared to other echo cards that can draw cards like SK blood eagle & NG coup de grace.
The great thing about bloodeagle is that you can set it up in multiple ways to play a warrior of +7 provisions and NG has double Roderick to find golds consistently.
Amphibious assault lacks the reach which means you need to always draw your 9+ provision cost golds like Anseís, Foltest, Viraxis, War Elephant, Roache...
Not drawing them does mean you lose a lot of value in a match and makes certain devotion strategies like Foltest unplayable because you don't have the guarantee to play it.
To enable all NR devotion strategies Amphibious assault could have full reach when you play devotion and have for example inspired 3 on your side of the board.
The boost remains the same when you play a lower provision card meaning anything above 8 provision cost won't get boosted.

 

[MikeBiazzo]

AA is a very powerful card as it is now. Adding more value even with devotion condition doesn't seem a very good idea because it will transform that card into the weakless (this word exists?) tutor ever.

 

[Draconifors]

AA does not need a buff; it's already stupid the way it is now with the boosting.

 

[1990BW]

AA does not need a buff; it's already stupid the way it is now with the boosting.

Why is the boosting stupid?

 

[Markus_Wirth]

To my mind AA is probably the strongest tutor of all. To my mind it´s completely fine to limit it in terms of provision costs. By the way Blood Eagle is also limited to warriors.

 

[Draconifors]

Why is the boosting stupid?

It's points, it makes the cards harder to remove (e.g. Tridam is a 4P removal target due to its high point ceiling, and with AA it has a large body right off the bat), plus it's synergistic with cards like Anna Strenger.


Additionally, AA has Echo, which in itself is stupid as far as I'm concerned (but that's a separate discussion).

 

[Markus_Wirth]

I think the whole idea of having tutors boosting by provision (the more the higher) is alright. But I really do not think that this card needs a buff.

The upside of this tutor is that you can tutor cards with 4 provisions for +5 boost. Kaedweni Knight is a 12 summoned with Amphibious Assault for instance and it can be used to make the removal of engine cards less probable. The downside of this tutor is the limitation of max 9 provisions.

If you want to change I would do the following:
Devotion: Play a unit with order instead and give it Zeal. There will not be any boosts of the tutored units.

=> Actually like the idea of creating cards whose devotion not only has an upside, but also some kind of downside.

 

[1990BW]

To my mind AA is probably the strongest tutor of all. To my mind it´s completely fine to limit it in terms of provision costs. By the way Blood Eagle is also limited to warriors.

The fine thing about blood eagle is that it has full range if you have bloodthirst 3 or deathblow.
These conditions are not very hard to meet because most warriors deal damage.
SK devotion is so good because it's very consistent thanks to blood eagle you can almost always tutor the card you need during a match.
The same with NG and their spies package where it's very unlikely to miss your Ball or Usurper through Roderick + Coup for example.
In my experience this is a problem with devotion NR decks because your match value is highly depended on your draws because you can't tutor your 10p+ units during a round.
This lack of consistency not only disables a lot of NR devotion decks but it also is a lose condition you can't solve in the deckbuilder.

 

[Tucoffin]

AA is quite strong as it is, if the devs were considering to change it I reckon it'd be a nerf instead of a buff.

 

[1990BW]

It's points, it makes the cards harder to remove (e.g. Tridam is a 4P removal target due to its high point ceiling, and with AA it has a large body right off the bat), plus it's synergistic with cards like Anna Strenger.


Additionally, AA has Echo, which in itself is stupid as far as I'm concerned (but that's a separate discussion).

But isn't that the whole point of AA? Most of NR bronzes and low end golds are engine cards their value is generated by sticking on the board.
Don't get me wrong the card is already very good but what NR lacks in devotion lists is consistency.
I think some changes on AA can enable a lot more devotion NR archetypes which is good for meta diversity.
If the boosting is too much right now I wouldn't mind to reduce it's standard ability to tutor a 8 or perhaps even a 7 provision cost card but buff it with devotion bonus(ses).

 

[Draconifors]

But isn't that the whole point of AA?

I don't know, but even if it is I can still think it's stupid.

 

[Guest 4563100]

AA does not need a buff; it's already stupid the way it is now with the boosting.

AA is quite strong as it is

Yes. AA maybe is the strongest card. But devotion nr is not. Devotion boost to AA would not be so crazy.

Devotion nr stuggle with consistency and utility. that would fix consistency. but giving aa unlimited royal decree ability is too much. i would make it "Devotion. Play any unit. If unit is over 9 provision, damage it by the difference."

Or something like "Devotion. You can also choose a random unit of 9 provision or more."

 

[Guest 4375874]

Yes. AA maybe is the strongest card. But devotion nr is not. Devotion boost to AA would not be so crazy.

Devotion nr stuggle with consistency and utility. that would fix consistency. but giving aa unlimited royal decree ability is too much. i would make it "Devotion. Play any unit. If unit is over 9 provision, damage it by the difference."

Or something like "Devotion. You can also choose a random unit of 9 provision or more."

That's hardly a reason for a buff, other factions have bad devotion. MO Devotion is terrible - zero control or utility to counter anything, their echo is arguably the worst one and it's doubtful it'll ever see a buff. So it's hard to argue that one of the best performing factions NR which has the most versatile echo needs their echo buffed. That's a hard No, if anything it needs a nerf.

 

[Guest 4563100]

That's one way to think about it. But I think cards are only strong or weak when they are in strong or weak decks. Card strength in vacuum is totally not important.

other factions have bad devotion. MO Devotion is terrible - zero control or utility to counter anything, their echo is arguably the worst one

Then buff that too. Frost is weak because very little frost payoffs. But this is a different topic.

That's a hard No, if anything it needs a nerf.

Why nerf the maybe weakest faction now? Nerfing cards in vacuum because they are strong compared to other cards in vacuum is bad balancing. How strong decks and factions are compared to opther decks and faction, this is important, not the cards in vacuum.

I hope you understand my point

 

[quintivarium]

That's one way to think about it. But I think cards are only strong or weak when they are in strong or weak decks. Card strength in vacuum is totally not important.



Then buff that too. Frost is weak because very little frost payoffs. But this is a different topic.



Why nerf the maybe weakest faction now? Nerfing cards in vacuum because they are strong compared to other cards in vacuum is bad balancing. How strong decks and factions are compared to opther decks and faction, this is important, not the cards in vacuum.

I hope you understand my point

If a faction is weak (and I don’t believe NR is), the worst, most unbalanced choice is to buff its strongest cards — at best this creates one meta faction deck and stifles creativity. A better choice is to buff the midrange cards — those almost, but not quite usable. In that way, multiple different deck designs become enabled.

Echo cards are a terrible mechanic with hairline balancing. The game would be better off if none were prominent.

 

[Guest 4563100]

If a faction is weak (and I don’t believe NR is)

Then which faction is weaker now in your opinion?

the worst, most unbalanced choice is to buff its strongest cards — at best this creates one meta faction deck and stifles creativity. A better choice is to buff the midrange cards — those almost, but not quite usable. In that way, multiple different deck designs become enabled.

Okay. This sounds reasonable in thoery. But:

1) How does better devotion AA not make multiple different decks enabled? Every NR deck has AA. More devotion NR decks could enable if AA give more consistency in high golds. Not only classc Shieldwall which is already weak now. Devotion NR problem is they can't tutor high golds. Devotionless NR always has Oneiromancy or Quen for that big problem.

So how do you not enable more decks by solving the biggest problem? Doesn't matter which card solves this problem. Better the card you will always use anyway in all decks, not the midrange card only good for some decks.

Echo cards are a terrible mechanic with hairline balancing. The game would be better off if none were prominent.

Many people disagree with this. Maybe majority?

 

[Lord-Misplay]

You are trying to mix factions. Lots of people do that with no reason. Gwent is based on a game which is based on books with a specific lore behind it and the factions are created based on this lore. You start altering this philosophy and the game will lose its identity. Trying to make AA do what Blood Eagle or Coup does is doing just that. So NR is based on boosts, SK on damage, NG on manipulation, ST is balanced between boost and damage. Monsters have a terrible echo card. Syndicate the same. They fit on specific decks only. Also on mechanics alone Blood Eagle needs to be set up to pull the higher targets. NG has a lot of golds that you dont want to pull at anytime. So AA is at least balanced with the other useful echo cards.

 

[quintivarium]

Then which faction is weaker now in your opinion?

I included this remark parenthetically because it wasn’t really the point I wanted to argue. But I am unconvinced NR is weak based upon four things:
1. The latest season play and win rates. If I remember correctly NG was played (all leaders combined) about 14% of the time. While a little below the expected 16.7%, this does not suggest a mass exodus from a weak faction. Moreover, it has a leader in the top 10 or so.
2. Observed streams. Good streamers I watch still appear have success with the faction.
3. Tournament play. NG still receives play in tournaments.
4. Personal experience. While I still lack a large number of cards, not only is my strongest deck NR, I find NR to be the easiest to build effective decks from. While this doesn’t represent overall faction strength, it probably does reflect the game experience of players at lower levels.

In my opinion, the real question is not whether NR is currently the weakest faction; it is whether NR is so weak as to need a faction-wide buff. I believe the answer is a resounding NO.

I think many players do not appreciate just how delicate balancing in Gwent can be — I know I didn’t for a long time. Look at SY. Prior to the latest card release. Around 4% of the total play rate was SY. No SY leaders had 50% or better win rates; 0 players were even bringing SY decks to tournaments. Talk about needing a faction buff! But in the latest release of cards, SY got Cleaver — obviously a good card, but hardly overwhelming compared to Eist and Unseen Elder, and a boost to Tunnel Drill which made the card only slightly better than the existing Freakshow, and suddenly an SY deck is very top tier.

 

[Molock7]

I think many players do not appreciate just how delicate balancing in Gwent can be — I know I didn’t for a long time. Look at SY. Prior to the latest card release. Around 4% of the total play rate was SY. No SY leaders had 50% or better win rates; 0 players were even bringing SY decks to tournaments. Talk about needing a faction buff! But in the latest release of cards, SY got Cleaver — obviously a good card, but hardly overwhelming compared to Eist and Unseen Elder, and a boost to Tunnel Drill which made the card only slightly better than the existing Freakshow, and suddenly an SY deck is very top tier.

 

[Guest 4375874]

I think many players do not appreciate just how delicate balancing in Gwent can be — I know I didn’t for a long time. Look at SY. Prior to the latest card release. Around 4% of the total play rate was SY. No SY leaders had 50% or better win rates; 0 players were even bringing SY decks to tournaments. Talk about needing a faction buff! But in the latest release of cards, SY got Cleaver — obviously a good card, but hardly overwhelming compared to Eist and Unseen Elder, and a boost to Tunnel Drill which made the card only slightly better than the existing Freakshow, and suddenly an SY deck is very top tier.

Can't agree with that. It's not about balancing being delicate, I don't think we can make that claim when there is zero balance and there never has been since I've been playing the game. People didn't play SY because there are other factions that gives them ridiculous wins, why wouldn't they. It's not that SY was bad so much as the other factions are too overtuned.

If anything SY was the most balanced faction because you had to think and strategize due to the coin management. That's how all the factions should be and that's why we now have a new mechanic called Adrenaline. The devs are just very slow to realize what is sometimes obvious.