Removal to point generation ratio and state of the game

+
As we all know, removal and other forms of control are an important part of the game, adding a strategic layer to the game, and is meant meant to snipe crucial enemy units to secure advantage.

The problem, as of last several patches (including pre-MM, but especially past 7.2), is that removal options are so numerous and so affordable that most of the time there's no way to play out a combo or put your engine to good use, because anything good that doesn't come out with big value/go wide or is an on-deploy card in the first place, basically is an elder bear. Avalable protective measures are vastly inadequate - for example, today I've had my Steel Pact-> Sigridifa's-> Steel Pact -> Sukrus chain nullified several times by some SK/NR/NG decks which is arguably fair on its own...

...what isn't, is that they STILL had enough tools to nuke 2 to 5 more pretty tall units after burning 3 hard removals...and keep putting out decent bodies, while at that. SK is the worst offender right now, but non-devotion SC is even worse in terms of how easily they generate value while simultaneously running yours into ground.

It's gotten so bad, people even remembered (my favorite card in the game) Aglais, and it's no coincidence - because she appears on board at the last second, and her setup is Thunderstorms which are effectively non-removable now, she's one of the few big plays still allowed in the game. Conversely, I see much fewer Yrdens/Gignis around - because why run an expensive and brickable tech, if you can reliably nuke most dangerous things anyway?

Point is, as of now, control only takes away from the depth of the game by making many stragegies impossible and cards non-viable. There's very little strategy in it, too - you can afford being rather careless with what you nuke, because there's more where it came from.

Any interesting non-boosting engine that needs to stick around (and isn't called Keltullis) just...can't, most of the time. In the end, most games boil down to just slamming damage-on-deploy and hoping that you still have enough value in the end.

Note that it isn't exactly a meta rant - I don't think a couple of nerfs/buffs here and there can fix this. Because merely nerfing removal would only lead to non-stop pointslam fest which isn't much fun either (but still more fun than not being able to play any fun cards outside of meme decks, IMO).

What we really need is a major overhaul for removal tools - maybe add more complex conditions, while increasing killing power as a compensation, so that they're truly strategic tools they were meant to be, and not a no-brain spam plays. I think I would be okay with six "heatwaves" in a deck - as long as they involve some kind of setup/risk of bricking. Oh, and poison has to either go away as a concept, or become something else entirely, precisely because "stack 2 of the same" is a bit too easy of a condition for too much payoff.

Discussion is welcome.
 
As we all know, removal and other forms of control are an important part of the game, adding a strategic layer to the game, and is meant meant to snipe crucial enemy units to secure advantage.

The problem, as of last several patches (including pre-MM, but especially past 7.2), is that removal options are so numerous and so affordable that most of the time there's no way to play out a combo or put your engine to good use, because anything good that doesn't come out with big value/go wide or is an on-deploy card in the first place, basically is an elder bear. Avalable protective measures are vastly inadequate - for example, today I've had my Steel Pact-> Sigridifa's-> Steel Pact -> Sukrus chain nullified several times by some SK/NR/NG decks which is arguably fair on its own...

...what isn't, is that they STILL had enough tools to nuke 2 to 5 more pretty tall units after burning 3 hard removals...and keep putting out decent bodies, while at that. SK is the worst offender right now, but non-devotion SC is even worse in terms of how easily they generate value while simultaneously running yours into ground.

It's gotten so bad, people even remembered (my favorite card in the game) Aglais, and it's no coincidence - because she appears on board at the last second, and her setup is Thunderstorms which are effectively non-removable now, she's one of the few big plays still allowed in the game. Conversely, I see much fewer Yrdens/Gignis around - because why run an expensive and brickable tech, if you can reliably nuke most dangerous things anyway?

Point is, as of now, control only takes away from the depth of the game by making many stragegies impossible and cards non-viable. There's very little strategy in it, too - you can afford being rather careless with what you nuke, because there's more where it came from.

Any interesting non-boosting engine that needs to stick around (and isn't called Keltullis) just...can't, most of the time. In the end, most games boil down to just slamming damage-on-deploy and hoping that you still have enough value in the end.

Note that it isn't exactly a meta rant - I don't think a couple of nerfs/buffs here and there can fix this. Because merely nerfing removal would only lead to non-stop pointslam fest which isn't much fun either (but still more fun than not being able to play any fun cards outside of meme decks, IMO).

What we really need is a major overhaul for removal tools - maybe add more complex conditions, while increasing killing power as a compensation, so that they're truly strategic tools they were meant to be, and not a no-brain spam plays. I think I would be okay with six "heatwaves" in a deck - as long as they involve some kind of setup/risk of bricking. Oh, and poison has to either go away as a concept, or become something else entirely, precisely because "stack 2 of the same" is a bit too easy of a condition for too much payoff.

Discussion is welcome.

It’s funny, I have the exact opposite opinion. I feel removal is way too limited. In the early days of gwent before initiative and tutoring point slam was a big deal. Then over time the removal options got good enough that monsters had to adapt. Now the new point slam is swarm. Volunteers, footmen, Deadeyes, ravens, dwarves, etc... To make matters worse, while there are plenty of tall removals, the number of wide removals is painfully limited. Defense is just as important as offense to the health of the game, and wide defense is lacking.

To your point about tall removal, I think you are missing the larger point. Cahir is a great example of a game breaking card. If you lack a removal or mover card Cahir is essentially going to win the round. He completely neutralizes any boost archetype. Now when you play against NG you may be tempted to blow your removal cards against assimilate, but doing so leaves you open to Cahir. Harold Gord is another good example. There is literally no counter to Harold if you don’t get final play. His very existence forces you to play for final play and to keep a big removal in reserve. The alternative is you can ignore what your opponent is doing and try to out score them, but then you often turn the game into an engine competition and competition over who got the better draw.

Look at SK in the current meta. SK has a vast selection of value bronzes that play for big points in the final round. They don’t rely much on engines and more often then not their best engines are damage engines. Removal isn’t as effective and so they dominate. You could argue that since removal doesn’t always work it shouldn’t work at all. But as you said yourself above, by limiting artifact removal they created a super powerful Aglais finisher. With handbuff and then with 12 added thunderbolt points the card is quite lethal. Maybe even game breaking when done correctly. The only defense is last play and that often comes down to coin toss. By the simple act of limiting artifact removal they made the game less about strategy and more about draw and point slam.

We need more removal options not less.
 
It’s funny, I have the exact opposite opinion. I feel removal is way too limited. In the early days of gwent before initiative and tutoring point slam was a big deal. Then over time the removal options got good enough that monsters had to adapt. Now the new point slam is swarm. Volunteers, footmen, Deadeyes, ravens, dwarves, etc... To make matters worse, while there are plenty of tall removals, the number of wide removals is painfully limited. Defense is just as important as offense to the health of the game, and wide defense is lacking.

To your point about tall removal, I think you are missing the larger point. Cahir is a great example of a game breaking card. If you lack a removal or mover card Cahir is essentially going to win the round. He completely neutralizes any boost archetype. Now when you play against NG you may be tempted to blow your removal cards against assimilate, but doing so leaves you open to Cahir. Harold Gord is another good example. There is literally no counter to Harold if you don’t get final play. His very existence forces you to play for final play and to keep a big removal in reserve. The alternative is you can ignore what your opponent is doing and try to out score them, but then you often turn the game into an engine competition and competition over who got the better draw.

Look at SK in the current meta. SK has a vast selection of value bronzes that play for big points in the final round. They don’t rely much on engines and more often then not their best engines are damage engines. Removal isn’t as effective and so they dominate. You could argue that since removal doesn’t always work it shouldn’t work at all. But as you said yourself above, by limiting artifact removal they created a super powerful Aglais finisher. With handbuff and then with 12 added thunderbolt points the card is quite lethal. Maybe even game breaking when done correctly. The only defense is last play and that often comes down to coin toss. By the simple act of limiting artifact removal they made the game less about strategy and more about draw and point slam.

We need more removal options not less.
But that's the point - using your removal should be an important choice, not something you can spam indiscriminately. Either engine, or (possible) Cahir, not both. Engines should be allowed to work sometimes, don't you think?


Aglais and Gord both necessitate last say, which arguably makes them a huge gamble. Less so with Gord, because he isn't as high-maintenance as Aglais (trust me, winning last say while handbuffing is a hell of a problem), but he isn't even that big, so what's the problem?


Now, swarms are indeed a problem, but we're getting there. New Blizzard is a welcome addition, and I'm sure more is on the way.
 
As we all know, removal and other forms of control are an important part of the game, adding a strategic layer to the game, and is meant meant to snipe crucial enemy units to secure advantage.

The problem, as of last several patches (including pre-MM, but especially past 7.2), is that removal options are so numerous and so affordable that most of the time there's no way to play out a combo or put your engine to good use, because anything good that doesn't come out with big value/go wide or is an on-deploy card in the first place, basically is an elder bear. Avalable protective measures are vastly inadequate - for example, today I've had my Steel Pact-> Sigridifa's-> Steel Pact -> Sukrus chain nullified several times by some SK/NR/NG decks which is arguably fair on its own...

...what isn't, is that they STILL had enough tools to nuke 2 to 5 more pretty tall units after burning 3 hard removals...and keep putting out decent bodies, while at that. SK is the worst offender right now, but non-devotion SC is even worse in terms of how easily they generate value while simultaneously running yours into ground.

It's gotten so bad, people even remembered (my favorite card in the game) Aglais, and it's no coincidence - because she appears on board at the last second, and her setup is Thunderstorms which are effectively non-removable now, she's one of the few big plays still allowed in the game. Conversely, I see much fewer Yrdens/Gignis around - because why run an expensive and brickable tech, if you can reliably nuke most dangerous things anyway?

Point is, as of now, control only takes away from the depth of the game by making many stragegies impossible and cards non-viable. There's very little strategy in it, too - you can afford being rather careless with what you nuke, because there's more where it came from.

Any interesting non-boosting engine that needs to stick around (and isn't called Keltullis) just...can't, most of the time. In the end, most games boil down to just slamming damage-on-deploy and hoping that you still have enough value in the end.

Note that it isn't exactly a meta rant - I don't think a couple of nerfs/buffs here and there can fix this. Because merely nerfing removal would only lead to non-stop pointslam fest which isn't much fun either (but still more fun than not being able to play any fun cards outside of meme decks, IMO).

What we really need is a major overhaul for removal tools - maybe add more complex conditions, while increasing killing power as a compensation, so that they're truly strategic tools they were meant to be, and not a no-brain spam plays. I think I would be okay with six "heatwaves" in a deck - as long as they involve some kind of setup/risk of bricking. Oh, and poison has to either go away as a concept, or become something else entirely, precisely because "stack 2 of the same" is a bit too easy of a condition for too much payoff.

Discussion is welcome.
It's been said by many here. The two major issues with the game currently are Removal and Echo/tutors. The latter making the former even more consistent.
Post automatically merged:

It’s funny, I have the exact opposite opinion. I feel removal is way too limited. In the early days of gwent before initiative and tutoring point slam was a big deal. Then over time the removal options got good enough that monsters had to adapt. Now the new point slam is swarm. Volunteers, footmen, Deadeyes, ravens, dwarves, etc... To make matters worse, while there are plenty of tall removals, the number of wide removals is painfully limited. Defense is just as important as offense to the health of the game, and wide defense is lacking.

To your point about tall removal, I think you are missing the larger point. Cahir is a great example of a game breaking card. If you lack a removal or mover card Cahir is essentially going to win the round. He completely neutralizes any boost archetype. Now when you play against NG you may be tempted to blow your removal cards against assimilate, but doing so leaves you open to Cahir. Harold Gord is another good example. There is literally no counter to Harold if you don’t get final play. His very existence forces you to play for final play and to keep a big removal in reserve. The alternative is you can ignore what your opponent is doing and try to out score them, but then you often turn the game into an engine competition and competition over who got the better draw.

Look at SK in the current meta. SK has a vast selection of value bronzes that play for big points in the final round. They don’t rely much on engines and more often then not their best engines are damage engines. Removal isn’t as effective and so they dominate. You could argue that since removal doesn’t always work it shouldn’t work at all. But as you said yourself above, by limiting artifact removal they created a super powerful Aglais finisher. With handbuff and then with 12 added thunderbolt points the card is quite lethal. Maybe even game breaking when done correctly. The only defense is last play and that often comes down to coin toss. By the simple act of limiting artifact removal they made the game less about strategy and more about draw and point slam.

We need more removal options not less.

OR...no single card should allow you to win a match without major restrictions. Cahir and Gord fall into that category as does Yenvo. It's the same issue with poison and why ball was so toxic. And rather than addressing the actual problem (poison) they added veil. Your suggestion to add more removal is the same perspective the devs appear to have. Then they suddenly decide to give ball doomed....several months later...still not acknowledging the fact that the poison mechanic needs to be removed or reworked.
 
Last edited:
It's been said by many here. The two major issues with the game currently are Removal and Echo/tutors. The latter making the former even more consistent.
Post automatically merged:



OR...no single card should allow you to win a match without major restrictions. Cahir and Gord fall into that category as does Yenvo. It's the same issue with poison and why ball was so toxic. And rather than addressing the actual problem (poison) they added veil. Your suggestion to add more removal is the same perspective the devs appear to have. Then they suddenly decide to give ball doomed....several months later...still not acknowledging the fact that the poison mechanic needs to be removed or reworked.

Yet you forget that poison unlike pure removal also puts points on the board. Ball gives you 8 points from fangs plus at least 2 to the engine for the poison itself. Removal tutors give 2 points and the removal card. I am not advocating more points plus removal just more removal.

To your second point about too much removal being the consensus problem, I disagree entirely. The problem is more efficient engines keep the power creep going. Frigate gives +2 every turn as a bronze and sets up all kinds of buffs. Shieldwall turns duel cards into insta kill but it also turns Vys into a mega engine. The lack of banish removal allows Warriors to return ad nauseam. Effective removal allows you to counter the enemy. Without it you get engine slam (symbiosis makes 3-5 point cards play for as much as 12 to 14.) As to the tutors, that is a piece of it, but it’s more about the consistency the tutors allow. If they didn’t buff cards or let you pick literally any card in your hand they would be less problematic. Also, echo cards should start at 15 provisions and go up from there. They are as dangerous as scenarios and play twice.

You simply must admit power creep is an issue. In the face of power creep you either need to add removal or refine it enough that it allows you to manage your opponents situation. In the face of shield wall we need more remove shield and damage not less. In the face of symbiosis we need more splash damage and reset row, not less. In the face of veterans we need more banish not less. In the face of swarm we need weather to hit more targets not less.
Post automatically merged:

@ShinAkira00 I forgot to say elite legendary cards that turn the tide have been a thing since beta. Even in the earliest days (Gigni was one such card way back in early beta.) Trying to remove them would potentially bring balance but it would also elevate other cards to top dog status. Even with some bronze cards a failure to remove is catastrophic in a long round. Longship sets up bloodthirst. Hamadryads not only set up symbiosis but also enable 2 point per round vitality engines. You cannot tame all the game changers much less all the game breakers. You therefore need reasonable and affordable counters in the form of strong removal.
 
Last edited:
You cannot tame all the game changers much less all the game breakers.
Yes, you can. Powercreep needs to be fought directly, by bringing old and forgotten cards to the same level as the new stuff, or, rather, not making new stuff so glaringly more powerful in the first place. Trying to fight it with more nukes hurts weaker cards more, because stupid Keruak frigate has better chances surviving removal attempts (courtesy of drummers and AA) than, say, Vernossiel Commando. Knee-jerk jury-rigging isn't a solution, because it begets even more issues. Look at Veil - it hardly solved poison issues, but definitely made Vampire decks go extinct . Address the root cause, not the end result.
 
Yes, you can. Powercreep needs to be fought directly, by bringing old and forgotten cards to the same level as the new stuff, or, rather, not making new stuff so glaringly more powerful in the first place. Trying to fight it with more nukes hurts weaker cards more, because stupid Keruak frigate has better chances surviving removal attempts (courtesy of drummers and AA) than, say, Vernossiel Commando. Knee-jerk jury-rigging isn't a solution, because it begets even more issues. Look at Veil - it hardly solved poison issues, but definitely made Vampire decks go extinct . Address the root cause, not the end result.

Okay, let me ask it this way. Pick 10 cards to remove in addition to all scenarios and all evolution cards. Can you really tell me with all those new provisions and power vacuum you could not find another 10 cards that would be as dangerous or at least significantly more dangerous than they are before you removed those cards? In the old days resilience didn’t reset power levels so ST built around resilience. Once that was nerfed they built around double scorch. Once that was nerfed, they found something else to build around. Harmony, assimilate, symbiosis, veteran, these are your power creeps. You want to remove them you either need to find a way to keep the game interesting (my preference is unique faction identity,) or better still go back and give older cards new tags to keep them relevant.
 
Okay, let me ask it this way. Pick 10 cards to remove in addition to all scenarios and all evolution cards. Can you really tell me with all those new provisions and power vacuum you could not find another 10 cards that would be as dangerous or at least significantly more dangerous than they are before you removed those cards? In the old days resilience didn’t reset power levels so ST built around resilience. Once that was nerfed they built around double scorch. Once that was nerfed, they found something else to build around. Harmony, assimilate, symbiosis, veteran, these are your power creeps. You want to remove them you either need to find a way to keep the game interesting (my preference is unique faction identity,) or better still go back and give older cards new tags to keep them relevant.
I never said anything about removing cards or merely trading one top dog for another. My point was that less relevant cards and tags should receive direct upgrades or/and support, so that they can at the very least work as a meme, or, ideally, be as viable as all the in-vogue stuff. Many dead cards don't even need a major rework to stop being such, merely a small value buff or a provision cut. Some do, and this is a great opportunity to introduce new archetypes. Bandit deck when?
 

DRK3

Forum veteran
Agree with OP, i've been complaining about how effective and cheap removal is since HC launched, and honestly im too tired to make another long post about it, im sure most of what i would say has already been said here.

I will just comment on a particular case: Shieldwall (and Amphibious Assault).
The reason its so effective its because it actually protects the engines, of the tons of removals in the game, only a few like Heatwave can be effective against it, that's why NR is the only faction that can dominate with engines while the rest rely more on removal that also puts points on the board (SK and ST).
 
I think the over abundance of cheap removal is a subtle consequence of removing wide control cards like epidemic (RIP). Full disclosure, I tend to play mostly control, so it doesn't bother me, but swarms are too prevalent now, IMHO. And there's no good way to counter them because they can be played so cheaply even in round 3 after the big guns have already been played. Without wide control it's basically swarm vs swarm ad nauseum...
 
My point remains valid. If you don’t use enough control it becomes engine vs engine and the better faction wins (especially with a good draw.) Swarm makes most removal insufficient. Blizzard is a good first step, expanding weather to 1 damage on the entire row is the next step. Lacerate should cost 5 points and surrender 6. We need more control to deal with power creep not less. For example removing artifact removal increases the danger of scenarios. They are practically auto include for many of the archetypes. Control is the answer to power creep.
 
My point remains valid. If you don’t use enough control it becomes engine vs engine and the better faction wins (especially with a good draw.) Swarm makes most removal insufficient. Blizzard is a good first step, expanding weather to 1 damage on the entire row is the next step. Lacerate should cost 5 points and surrender 6. We need more control to deal with power creep not less. For example removing artifact removal increases the danger of scenarios. They are practically auto include for many of the archetypes. Control is the answer to power creep.
So that's long r3 final values are solid 12/7. So much for having various interesting abilities and conditions in the game. I've been abusing a Dragon's Dream Aglais deck for a while, started doing that long before she even got that 2 points boost a month or two ago (and still do, when netdeckers start getting on my nerves too badly) and let me tell you something about that - this deck plays out the same in every possible matchup and the only possible issue is R2 bleed, but you need to draw a truly awful hand to lose R1 in the first place. The end result? You wipe their side of the board almost entirely, unless they go very, very wide, like MO rat swarm, or maybe something extremely low-unit.

Nivellen, DD, crushing trap, Yrden, a couple of leader charges and poof - your points are all gone.

This effectively eliminates all the variety in a very unhealthy way - no matter what they do, how tall go or what engines they employ - in the end it all usually goes "poof".

The only kind of fun you can derive from it is vindictive pleasure of abusing the abusers.

So...what you are saying is that the game should be more like this, which in the end is worse than "engines vs. engines", because it completely eliminates differences between playstyles and strategies, and the final outcome boils down to initial values of your units. Note that you don't even need to bother with DD, because just surrender+lacerate is already enough to cancel most unboosted rows, and there's always Yrden in case they try funny business.

Tl;dr, cheap row punish would all but kill variety in the game.


Edit:
Here's an interesting question for you - why even HAVE engines in the game, if not to compete with them? Do you really think their main purpose should be dying?:)
 
Last edited:
So that's long r3 final values are solid 12/7. So much for having various interesting abilities and conditions in the game. I've been abusing a Dragon's Dream Aglais deck for a while, started doing that long before she even got that 2 points boost a month or two ago (and still do, when netdeckers start getting on my nerves too badly) and let me tell you something about that - this deck plays out the same in every possible matchup and the only possible issue is R2 bleed, but you need to draw a truly awful hand to lose R1 in the first place. The end result? You wipe their side of the board almost entirely, unless they go very, very wide, like MO rat swarm, or maybe something extremely low-unit.

Nivellen, DD, crushing trap, Yrden, a couple of leader charges and poof - your points are all gone.

This effectively eliminates all the variety in a very unhealthy way - no matter what they do, how tall go or what engines they employ - in the end it all usually goes "poof".

The only kind of fun you can derive from it is vindictive pleasure of abusing the abusers.

So...what you are saying is that the game should be more like this, which in the end is worse than "engines vs. engines", because it completely eliminates differences between playstyles and strategies, and the final outcome boils down to initial values of your units. Note that you don't even need to bother with DD, because just surrender+lacerate is already enough to cancel most unboosted rows, and there's always Yrden in case they try funny business.

Tl;dr, cheap row punish would all but kill variety in the game.

Pretend you are using fewer more powerful units instead of swarm, now row sweep is not as effective. For every card there needs to be a counter.
 
I think the over abundance of cheap removal is a subtle consequence of removing wide control cards like epidemic (RIP). Full disclosure, I tend to play mostly control, so it doesn't bother me, but swarms are too prevalent now, IMHO. And there's no good way to counter them because they can be played so cheaply even in round 3 after the big guns have already been played. Without wide control it's basically swarm vs swarm ad nauseum...
But swarm decks were always around, they just weren't abused. So what changed? The consistency with which you can play them has, so again you're focusing on the symptom. Even if you manage to punish wide play, your opponent can recover almost immediately thanks to tutoring or they can easily protect or in NR's case they have a million more engines even after you manage to remove Frigate
 
Pretend you are using fewer more powerful units instead of swarm, now row sweep is not as effective. For every card there needs to be a counter.
What are those powerful units you're referring to, exactly? Big Dummies MO? Veteran SK? Invulnerability SC (is it even a thing?) Because these are the only ones meaningfully big by default, which results in underwhelming values anyway...and because everyone and their dog have multiple tall removals on them now, this style is very unlikely to become viable anytime soon.

Consider this - an NG/NR deck can realistically cram in up to three instant uncapped removals without stretching their provision cap too much, and then some more if they're really dedicated. Now add cheap row sweep to the equation...see the problem here?
 
What are those powerful units you're referring to, exactly? Big Dummies MO? Veteran SK? Invulnerability SC (is it even a thing?) Because these are the only ones meaningfully big by default, which results in underwhelming values anyway...and because everyone and their dog have multiple tall removals on them now, this style is very unlikely to become viable anytime soon.

Consider this - an NG/NR deck can realistically cram in up to three instant uncapped removals without stretching their provision cap too much, and then some more if they're really dedicated. Now add cheap row sweep to the equation...see the problem here?

Yes I see the problem. You haven’t put any points on your side of the board in the short round 3. If all you have is removal you are playing for a tie. You are ignoring Shieldwall, Nature’s bounty symbiosis, ect... You cannot defend against everything and still win.
 
short round 3.
Not the most standard situation in the first place. But even so - many removals come with a unit body currently...and low-unit decks have been a thing for a while now, and those usually have a failsafe for the risk of having no points in the end. What you describe requires a poorly composed deck that doesn't, and then some bad R3 draws. Not exactly the average scenario.
 
Not the most standard situation in the first place. But even so - many removals come with a unit body currently...and low-unit decks have been a thing for a while now, and those usually have a failsafe for the risk of having no points in the end. What you describe requires a poorly composed deck that doesn't, and then some bad R3 draws. Not exactly the average scenario.

When I was running my NG quick win deck I used 12 specials all removal. The other 13 went heavy on poison and a few high point finishers. It happens more often than you would think that you get no units. Also, even going removal heavy I could only dominate games without swarm. I have a lot of experience with removal decks (got over 500 wins with them across all 6 factions, and I can tell you, you can guard against tall or wide but not both effectively.
 
you can guard against tall or wide but not both effectively.
Not yet, anyway. But that Blizzard update indicates that yes, CDPR sees all these swarms going on, and with a couple more such additions, you will be able to guard against everything. A meta of total mutual wipes boiling down to who has a bigger high point finisher, sure. I believe you've mentioned hating such contests. Or is it just engines that you hate?

The other 13 went heavy on poison and a few high point finishers. It happens more often than you would think that you get no units
Funny, when the Double Ball was at large, I experimented with all kinds of no-unit things, and I only ran into no-unit hand issue maybe 2 times per 100 games. So that's my experience against yours.

Consider this, though - tutoring is stronger than ever, so ending up with no points to play is less likely than ever before.
 
Not yet, anyway. But that Blizzard update indicates that yes, CDPR sees all these swarms going on, and with a couple more such additions, you will be able to guard against everything. A meta of total mutual wipes boiling down to who has a bigger high point finisher, sure. I believe you've mentioned hating such contests. Or is it just engines that you hate?


Funny, when the Double Ball was at large, I experimented with all kinds of no-unit things, and I only ran into no-unit hand issue maybe 2 times per 100 games. So that's my experience against yours.

Consider this, though - tutoring is stronger than ever, so ending up with no points to play is less likely than ever before.

You tell me how to win a hundred games with invigorate, stockpile, and all the other trash leaders without going neutral heavy. Removal works when you pick your spots because you can effectively nuke either wide or tall but not both. Blizzard is one card, easily defeated thanks to initiative tag and ineffective in many other situations if the opponent runs even basic point control.

You asked what I hate so let me give you some examples. In the old days of Gwent MO could almost never compete with NR. NR was engine heavy even back then and MO played largely on their own side of the board. Ask anyone from Beta and they will tell you pointslam MO could not match engine NR. So the devs added removal options to MO as well as giving them some engine units as well and things got a bit better. Now let me ask you, how would MO stack up against NR today if you couldn’t play on the opponent side of the board? NR with Vys, freighters, Windhalm, Anna, Belohan, drummers, ect... oh and by the way that ignores the charge related boost cards. Engines are out of control the last few updates. Defenders to protect them, scenarios to spawn at least one of them. Order engines that play for way more than provision cost. This is a real problem.

Last year I took the time to get to pro and it almost made me stop playing forever. I was so disappointed by the meta decks and lack of originality/diversity. It literally drove me away for over a year. Since coming back I almost never play ranked. I despise repeated meta matches. What I have been doing is contracts. I can tell you that offense or defense can win a game. The key is who you are up against more than what you are running. If your opponent goes removal heavy and you go removal heavy the game is a mess. If both go offense heavy the game is essentially an uneven race (based mostly on who is playing which faction and who draws better engines.) When one player is running offense and the other defense it all boils down to tall vs wide. You ask do I like games that come down to one final play, not especially. But ask me if I love shutting down meta decks with over the top removals, yeah I do. The game desperately needs to restore faction identity. Until then, defense must remain a viable deck build or offense will run wild and the game will fail.
 
Top Bottom