Possible Fix to Card Advantage Issues

[time_drainer]

But I dislike Yield in round 1 primarily not because of that. It's primarily because of blocking opponent's set-ups in round 1, some decks want to thin a lot in round 1 (and can possibly brick in round 2 without thinning).

Well save Bran, not much thinning they can do in just one round. But yeah I'm getting your point, and start to change my preference in favor of Second Player Rule. (Weird thing is Yield would actually be more consistent with the Winner's Rule, but again that's hardly a major point.)
Btw love the Advance / Retreat labels, they're very flavorful and also match perfectly with the mechanics.

Then about CA spies.
Here's a calculation for regular CA spies in round 3:
- Say each player's hand is 4 cards. But you have 1 CA spy as 1 of your cards.
- You play first, and play a CA spy.
- After playing your CA spy, you give your opponent 13 points. But it's still the same, 4 cards vs 4 cards.
- Because of that -13, logically the round is actually about ~3 cards vs 4 cards.

That -4 is highly interchangeable. This one does need testing. Having last say doesn't mean having 1 more card, or like, supreme advantage.

Yeah I really didn't get why people do that, often even when it doesn't really count that much. Maybe my opponents are just hand-bricking heavily in R3 against me.
That said last say can be a deal-breaker in many cases and the very stake of round 1. So giving it too cheap would be a problem, so that point value would indeed needs testing and tuning.

Also for those Final effects alone I would happily pay the 4 points. Cantarella's ability to get you just the card you need seems outright OP, but pretty much all of them would easily generate positive points on long term without costing a card and in addition to get you last say.

Francesca can choose anything as well, but she is not OP. Stefan Skellen might be another case for that, but this one is hardly a comparison to that.

Francesca is a Leader and a very low value play (for a leader). Stefan Skellen is gold and he only grants your wish next turn (or you need another effect to draw it).
These are Silver cards.
Maybe promoting them to Gold would make sense - but could be an awkward change to implement fairly (like providing everybody who already has them full Silver scrap value, and requiring them to earn the Spy card again).

 

[overcold_ice]

For 2nd and 3rd rounds, the player with the most cards in hand goes first. For ties, the player that won the last round goes first.

That causes 100% safe bleed on round 2.

Then about my Cantarella, she reveals the card, and her -4 play is conditional. That draw any card compensates for that conditional effect. I mean, it's round 3. If it's short she can even be a -14 play. Also, NG doesn't have any generic long-term-value bronzes (like knight-elect, weather-pullers). That -4 won't automatically become positive just by long-term-effects, at least for NG. Then keep in mind that the opponent's long-term value might also increase.

For monsters however, that frightener seems OP... Might tone it down when I have the time.

 

[Kinglionsfox]

That causes 100% safe bleed on round 2.

You mean winning the 1st round and having the loser go first so you can get an extra card advantage? I don't think so, and the 3rd round would change as well. I'll give some examples with my idea:

Player 1: Ann, Player 2: Bob (for just ease of reading)

Ex 1:

Ann and Bob are at even CA (card advantage), Ann is losing the round, and Bob passes. Ann can play 1 card to win the round and go to -1 CA, or pass to lose at even CA.

If Ann plays a card to win the 1st round, Bob will go first in the 2nd round because of his +1 CA. Ann has control of the 2nd round because she won the 1st round, and passes after Bob plays a card, evening up the CA. Because Bob won the 2nd round and CA is even, Bob goes first in the 3rd round. If Ann manages to bleed Bob for an extra card in the 2nd round, Ann would go first in the 3rd round because of her +1 CA.

Instead, if Ann passes to lose the 1st round at even CA, Bob will go first the 2nd round because he won the 1st round with even CA. Bob has control of the 2nd round and dry passes, forcing Ann to play a card and go to -1 CA. In the 3rd round, Bob will go first again. If Ann has carryover from the 1st round into the 2nd round, she wouldn't need to play a card if Bob dry passes, keeping the CA even. Ann would go first the 3rd round in this carryover case because she won the 2nd round with even CA.

Ex 2:

Ann is down 1 CA (card advantage), and losing, and Bob passes. Ann can play 1 card to win the round and go -2 CA, or pass to lose at -1 CA.
In both situations, Bob will go first 2nd round because of his CA.

Lets say, Ann playes a card in the 1st round to win and goes to -2 CA. Ann has control of the 2nd round and she passes after Bob plays a card in the beginning of the 2nd round, bringing the CA to -1 for Ann (up one from -2 CA). Bob will still go first in the 3rd round because of the card advantage. If Ann manages to bleed Bob for an extra card in the 2nd round, evening up the CA, Bob will still go first in the 3rd round.

Now if Ann passes in the 1st round for a loss, but she stays at -1 CA. Bob goes first 2nd round because of CA. Bob dry passes, forcing Ann to play a card to win the round, going to -2 CA. Bob will go first again in the 3rd round because of CA. If Ann has carryover from the 1st round into the 2nd round, she wouldn't need to play a card if Bob dry passes, keeping the CA at -1. Bob would still go first the 3rd round.

Ex: 3:

Ann is up 1 CA (card advantage), and losing, and Bob passes. Ann can play 1 card to win the round and even the CA, or pass to lose at +1 CA.

If Ann plays a card to win the 1st round, evening the CA, she will go first the 2nd round. She has control of the 2nd round and dry passes, forcing Bob to play a card giving Ann +1 CA. Ann will go first again in the 3rd round because of her CA.

If Ann doesn't play a card, but passes and loses the 1st round at +1 CA (which you probably should never do), she will go first the 2nd round. Bob has control of the 2nd round and passes after Ann plays a card, evening the CA. Ann would go first in the 3rd round because she won the 2nd round with even CA. If Bob manages to bleed Ann for an extra card in the 2nd round, Bob would go first because he now has +1 CA on Ann.


What the current system in Gwent does is increases the spread of card advantage after rounds depending on how they finished. My idea diminishes this effect.

PS: Sorry if I say the same thing more than once in the examples, just trying to be clear.

 

[overcold_ice]

I've thought about those and also an exact same rule as yours, both in many many variations and iterations, and eventually came up with a simple rule that also fix a major coin-flip issue. But it causes problem when it's applied in round 2, the 100% safe bleed. It's like having played a CA spy but without the 13 body, therefore unlimited bleed. Then I made a solution to limit that bleed. But then again it's rather silly the more I think about it. And as time_drainer pointed out, the round 2 can possibly be a round of dumping bad cards due to bleeding automatically available in a safe way.

You can read the old thread, it's in the spoiler.