I mean, yes, you're right, but that's the point - it already is like that, effectively, except it's only a few select overpowered engines/pseudoengines that are allowed to compete. They aren't really countered by removal, as demonstrated by the Alumni example above.
There's always either too much to control (Relicts, Mages, Siege, Saskia movement...), or the value is distributed so efficiently, control doesn't win you many points (Jackpot/SY in general/Assimilate/"Hyperthin" family of decks).
SY has the luxury of Freakshow, ST have their uninteractivity BS, sure, but for everyone else removal doesn't even do much anymore, because the modern archetypes it's supposed to counter are exceptionally control-resistant, and were made to be this way - why else would Saskia have freaking immuntity?. Moreso than one archetype - Dwarves - that was actually supposed to be removal-resistant, ironically
So...why should my Artis die every time, then? After all, Saskias and Genichoras are allowed to do their thing.
Besides, engine-heavy gameplay could be more fun than this triangle of binary advantage...because then we might even see stuff like Rayla and Sygvald, who knows?
Last edited:
There needn't only be 3 ways to play. We just need some decent mechanics that rely on skill, timing and prediction to pull off.
For example, we have Black Blood as a counter to board boosting, but with no body and a decently high provision cost, it's never gonna see play. The thing that's irritating is that a lot of the most broken cards at the moment have zero counterplay, and no matter what the state of the game is they can get their full effect off every time.
Speaking of boosts though, I just played against a guy playing a handbuff deck and he had more removal cards in his deck than he did boost cards. More than some actual removal decks. And he STILL managed to knock out a decent pointswing at the end with Torgque or whatever you call it. I won, but still, it was annoying to play against.
For example, we have Black Blood as a counter to board boosting, but with no body and a decently high provision cost, it's never gonna see play. The thing that's irritating is that a lot of the most broken cards at the moment have zero counterplay, and no matter what the state of the game is they can get their full effect off every time.
Speaking of boosts though, I just played against a guy playing a handbuff deck and he had more removal cards in his deck than he did boost cards. More than some actual removal decks. And he STILL managed to knock out a decent pointswing at the end with Torgque or whatever you call it. I won, but still, it was annoying to play against.
Massive pointslams, combos or shall we call 'finishers' are not necessarily an issue, if the game is properly designed and balanced around them. If generally every faction (and potentially most archetypes) have access to something similar in power, and not in effect, it is fine. Yes, they deliver a decisive amount of points, but so shall you. Call it an ultimate of the deck you play (or play against).
As the general direction of the game is moving towards these being a common part of most decks, I think it is worthless to stress too much about them being a thing in Gwent - focus should be more towards how to bring more and more decktypes to the same level of power, either by improving existing cards/combos or granting them new tools to provide competitiveness.
I for one don't see these heavy plays an issue as long as you can match them in power or have a reasonable way to play around them, potentially counter them.
The issue with big plays is that they render other plays irrelevant. If a game has 15 plays where good vs. bad plays change the outcome by a handful of points, and one play with a swing of 30+, the match will almost always boil down to that one play (and far too often to whether a key card is drawn at the right time).
Although on the surface this seems like a sensible statement, the exact process you describe is what leads to power creep. And power creep is never good. Continually adding and improving the power of cards results in a lot of cards being obsolete, and then they need to buffed, and it just gets messy fast. The problem with GWENT as I see it is that right now, completely independent of skill, certain faction/card combinations are far more powerful than others.
It doesn't take any skill to play your Tax Collector, Profit 7 Card then Whoreson's Freakshow and (using your leader ability as well) completely clear the opponents board, no matter what cards they have in place, Defender or otherwise. There is also no way the opponent can prepare for or play around this play. They simply have to sit and take it, no matter what deck they're running.
Card advantage used to matter, and thereby if someone overcommited to a round with high power cards you could just go into bleed mode and play some low value cards, then pass...but now, you either pass on 7, or 4...and that's it. Because if you don't, it doesn't matter, thanks to the draw and hand limit you will never achieve card advantage.
Geh, getting a bit off topic.
The point is, removal is necessary, but some removal cards/mechanics are just oppressive for the ease at which they can be played and the low risk/investment it takes.
A lot of this could be solved by giving us the choice to run a second Defender, a Neutral card not as strong (bodywise) as faction Defenders but that provides the utility to stall or stymie some of the damage coming out of hard removal decks, forcing them to at least implement some Purify cards, and drop some -points cards OR make Devotion have an additional effect for Defenders, i.e a timed immunity status, like "Devotion : Has Immunity for 3 turns". This would at least give engine decks time to get something to stick to the board and make removal decks be a little more creative in how and when they dish out their damage.
Last edited:
I'd fundamentally disagree here. While I admit that powercreep brings lots of challenges and difficulties that need to be addressed, it is a vital part of a cardgame (and literally any similar genres). New content has to be at least compelling for players, otherwise it will not generate profit or direct income that is based on purchases. And since this is not a friends & family product brought to us by mere generosity of the developers, I believe we need to at least accept some standards.
Is this healthy for the game? Surely not. Still, it is something that was and will always be there. The cahllenge comes from continously keeping your game on a relatively balanced and diverse state.
Moderator: A few posts deleted. Stay on topic, please, and keep it respectful.
Removing hard removal cards in the current meta would just kill the game. When you have archetypes like NR Mages that will generate 20 points from engines you need a lot of removal.
Have to say it: Even small changes can ruin the meta. And they did it, the meta before the patch was kind of O.K. Now it's full of toxic crap.
Have to say it: Even small changes can ruin the meta. And they did it, the meta before the patch was kind of O.K. Now it's full of toxic crap.
Realistically, the only deck that has enough removal to prevent Alumni from taking off is an equally toxic removal deck, like the pre-nerf Milva.
For any other deck that isn't some Assimilate degeneracy or isn't even more broken (such as Jackpot), it's mathematically impossible to win, because you consistently trade down when trying to kill off Ban Ards/Aretuzas and even if you succeed, you end up facing a bunch of high-end golds like Duels with very little provisions still left in your deck.
Speaking of toxic removal decks...having an empty board feels even more awful than looking at ridiculous numbers. It's like nothing you do matters, and it indeed doesn't, because as of now, most factions just don't have good protective measures for "normal" engines, there's simply no way around it, try as you might - while the stupidly overpowered ones don't even need them.
So no, nerfing removal can't break the game any further - because, again, modern toxic decks aren't really vulnerable to it (you can't freaking keep Saskia or the infinite flood of 4p NR bronzes or Fleders in check) , keeping it at the same level will result in only the most broken engines being viable, the way it is now, and buffing it will just flip the coin and result in a toxic control meta which is even worse than a stupid points meta.
By the way...interestingly, the logical "control" counterparts to protective measures (i.e. damage boosters/benefitters) DO exist - such as Madoc, Milva, Dagur, Bran, Deathblow bonuses etc., but CDPR competely neglected to introduce the protective measures proper and skipped straight to broken on-deploy engine value. Not sure if optimistic or lazy, either way, a bad decision.
tl;dr the game's ruined to the point where nerfing removal could only make things better, not worse.
