I find scenarios to be horrible cards Gwent would be better off without. Here’s why.
1. One card playing three cards is a violation of the important design principle of one card for turn. This principle serves thes game well and gives Gwent its unique character. While other cards allow two cards to be played, these are generally much more controlled and are already among the strongest cards in Gwent. The eight point spell tutors give a 2 point body and ability to tutor a very specific sort of spell. Dandelion: Poet for 11 provisions, adds a four point body. Triss:Telekinesis spends 11 provisions for a 4 point body and a somewhat random bronze special. For 10 provisions, Novigradian justice will give an extra 5 point body and allow you to tutor a type of bronze card. Note that in each of these cases, the second card is an inert, low value body — for the provision cost, I take no issue with these cards. Some leader abilities grant the playing of a card — but these are Iconic, once a game actions. Portal, for 12 provisions, will summon (not play!) two 4 provision, semi-randomly chosen cards. And I am really not OK with portal either — for this same reason.
2. Every scenario is badly overpowered. If one counts provisions, every scenario plays about 13 or 14 provisions worth of cards for 13 to 15 provision cost. But it only requires one card to effectively play 3 — it effectively saves two turns! Just what is a turn worth? If I very conservatively estimate an average of 8 points per turn, this is 16 points in value. How many provisions would a 16 point card be worth? If we even use the portal model, we pay 12 provisions to summon (not even play) 8 provisions worth of cards, using one play rather than two. Thus one saved turn is worth at least 4 provisions. With two saved turns and 13 provisions of played cards, scenarios should cost a minimum of 21 provisions.
3. Scenarios trade up against virtually everything. If not answered, they generate more points than virtually anything. The few exceptions to this are engines I would argue are themselves badly broken (Cahir, Gezras, Kolgrim, Brouver, Foltest, etc.) At least these engines are susceptible to removal. For 15 provisions, Heatwave and Alzur’s Thunder could remove both the scenario and the card it played — but this takes two turns while scenarions only take one. Again, how much is a turn worth.
4. Scenarios significantly reduce game variety — and they do this in multiple ways. Because they are so OP, they virtually guarantee winning the round in which they are played unless answered. And the only viable answer is Heatwave. Thus, most viable decks contain Heatwave (already less deck variety). Unfortunately, Heatwave also answers everything else. It’s ubiquitous presence prevents the viability of a large number of other decks as omnipresent removal forces every usable card to play for immediate value. Then, scenarios significantly reduce the effective sequencing of cards — making game play more predictable and linear. And finally, scenarios straightjacket deck design by forcing tags and synergies.
1. One card playing three cards is a violation of the important design principle of one card for turn. This principle serves thes game well and gives Gwent its unique character. While other cards allow two cards to be played, these are generally much more controlled and are already among the strongest cards in Gwent. The eight point spell tutors give a 2 point body and ability to tutor a very specific sort of spell. Dandelion: Poet for 11 provisions, adds a four point body. Triss:Telekinesis spends 11 provisions for a 4 point body and a somewhat random bronze special. For 10 provisions, Novigradian justice will give an extra 5 point body and allow you to tutor a type of bronze card. Note that in each of these cases, the second card is an inert, low value body — for the provision cost, I take no issue with these cards. Some leader abilities grant the playing of a card — but these are Iconic, once a game actions. Portal, for 12 provisions, will summon (not play!) two 4 provision, semi-randomly chosen cards. And I am really not OK with portal either — for this same reason.
2. Every scenario is badly overpowered. If one counts provisions, every scenario plays about 13 or 14 provisions worth of cards for 13 to 15 provision cost. But it only requires one card to effectively play 3 — it effectively saves two turns! Just what is a turn worth? If I very conservatively estimate an average of 8 points per turn, this is 16 points in value. How many provisions would a 16 point card be worth? If we even use the portal model, we pay 12 provisions to summon (not even play) 8 provisions worth of cards, using one play rather than two. Thus one saved turn is worth at least 4 provisions. With two saved turns and 13 provisions of played cards, scenarios should cost a minimum of 21 provisions.
3. Scenarios trade up against virtually everything. If not answered, they generate more points than virtually anything. The few exceptions to this are engines I would argue are themselves badly broken (Cahir, Gezras, Kolgrim, Brouver, Foltest, etc.) At least these engines are susceptible to removal. For 15 provisions, Heatwave and Alzur’s Thunder could remove both the scenario and the card it played — but this takes two turns while scenarions only take one. Again, how much is a turn worth.
4. Scenarios significantly reduce game variety — and they do this in multiple ways. Because they are so OP, they virtually guarantee winning the round in which they are played unless answered. And the only viable answer is Heatwave. Thus, most viable decks contain Heatwave (already less deck variety). Unfortunately, Heatwave also answers everything else. It’s ubiquitous presence prevents the viability of a large number of other decks as omnipresent removal forces every usable card to play for immediate value. Then, scenarios significantly reduce the effective sequencing of cards — making game play more predictable and linear. And finally, scenarios straightjacket deck design by forcing tags and synergies.