Sheldon Skaggs

[Charles5pencer]

Very well explained. Some people overlook the conditional plays/setup to make Sheldon buffed.

My experience has taught me, that rather than overlook, it tends to be manipulation. Either intentional, when somebody ignores important factor in order to get "better looking result out of argumentation" (that is the worse case) or unintentional, when somebody is unable to make fair evaluation, because of various reasons (most often emotional affection) and he keeps that view even when he is confrontated with factor, which he omits. Neglecting need of setup to make Skaggs more useful is a book example of such approach.

 

[C7Racehead]

My experience has taught me, that rather than overlook, it tends to be manipulation. Either intentional, when somebody ignores important factor in order to get "better looking result out of argumentation" (that is the worse case) or unintentional, when somebody is unable to make fair evaluation, because of various reasons (most often emotional affection) and he keeps that view even when he is confrontated with factor, which he omits. Neglecting need of setup to make Skaggs more useful is a book example of such approach.

*confronted
*textbook example

Who's manipulating what?

 

[Charles5pencer]

@C7Racehead I wrote generally about what I see in this topic discussion, but to understand it, it is important is to read posts, which were answered by and then reacted to - https://forums.cdprojektred.com/index.php?posts/11482789
Especially "funny" is argumentation about carryover in https://forums.cdprojektred.com/index.php?posts/11483011 Sheldon Skaggs has nothing to do with carryover, it is effect of other cards and Sheldon Skaggs is mere "bearer of message", while it could have been almost any other unit than discussed Dwarf. It is like shooting messanger for bringing bad news (you know that proverb, right?) I do not want to put on display every manipulative argument presented in this discussion, but if you did not notice this one, you would probably not notice other as well.

 

[4RM3D]

Sheldon Skaggs has nothing to do with carryover, it is effect of other cards and Sheldon Skaggs is mere "bearer of message"

I am not disagreeing here, but I do want to point out that Sheldon can "bear the message" quite a lot better than other units. Where things get sketchy, though, is with Marauder. This unit does potentially have (extra) carry-over value, but only when another handbuff unit enables it.

 

[Guest 4339135]

What Restlessdingo32 is trying to explain is that the value Sheldon produces is : his 3 points body + the damages he deals. It is pretty logical and obvious...
In order to calculate his contribution to your game, you must put aside the buffs he received from other units.

Otherwise, it is obviously a bias calculation.
With Sirssa and Ithlinne buffs, Milaen becomes a 10 body who deals 4 damages for 9 provision points...
With Sirssa and Ithlinne buffs, a Vrihedd Dragoon becomes a 10 body for 4 provision points...

The fact is, any units can become deadly with these boosts. The counterpart is that you have to play some slow tempo or conditional units.

It appears that your problem is not only about Sheldon, but about handbuff as a whole...

I however agree on the fact that most of the time, Sheldon is really effective.
I don't think his cost needs to be raised, but a 9 provision cost for him would be acceptable. On the other hand, 10 or more provision points would be total madness...

But do you really think that the urgency is to nerf ST units when MO and SK have dominated the game for several months ?

I know what he is trying to say, but it's incorrect. Because the important thing is the value in the crucial round where you play Sheldon to win the game. And in this round he is for example 14 points worth when you boosted him to 7. Yeah, handbuffing transfers the value on the other cards too, but only Sheldon gets better and better with the boosts. The thing that you people forget about is that Sheldon is a removal tool, he doesn't only bring value on the board. Sheldon offers you the possibility to remove every card on the board that you want, he brings massive points and could destroy essential cards from the opponent. For example Ocvist or other engines or even Olaf, Milaen does with handbuff always only 4 damage. The possibilty to stop the essential play from your opponent rises the strenght of Sheldon to an absurd point, with a boosted Milaen you couldn't remove Ocvist and Olaf even will be better when you hit him...do you see this crucial fact? His strenght is not only his big value, you always forget this.

And the 'counterpart' isn't really a counterpart. Hanbuffing is without Sheldon a good strategy, Ithlinne or Sirssa are very good cards without Sheldon, so it's easy to put them in your deck. And to play Ithlinne in round 1 is a solid 5p. play and Sirssa in the same way, there is not a single problem to do this. Yeah, you have to be careful with the Agitators but only when you go first (but then you have tactical advantage, so you can play one Agitator too), with some experience you know when you can play one of them and when not.
9 provision would be a beginning, it's ok for me. But I would say 10 is the better option.

I never said that ST should be nerfed, it's only about Sheldon...it doesn't matter in which faction he is. As I said it before to other poeple, the affinity, the dominance of a faction or being the underdog in the last months has nothing to do with this single card nerf, it's only because of his strenght. For me it seems that most of the people who are against a nerf of Sheldon belong to the ST faction, so what they say is far away from an objective assessment....as it often the case is in this forum.
And I always belonged to the people that stand for an MO and SK nerf in the last months. I was not happy with the 'big MO nerf' which ended in 4 little card nerfs. And it was good to nerf Detlaff, but the way it happened among this season where many players abused him to get a good score and all other players don't have this chance now is an injustice and impertinence...but it's typically CDPR. So, SK got a nerf after the last season and the current meta shows that now ST is the dominant faction. You can see that the problem is not really SK and MO, but the weakness of NG and the fact that there are so many control freaks are out there and play decks like Eithne Heavy Control, which only have one or two cards in it, that aren't removal and then they have to play cards like Panther when they go first, because this decks are so dumb. So NR has a hard stand in such metas. When NR and NG get a buff, then I think there is no dominance of SK and MO anymore. Whereby I think that by now ST is the dominant faction.

 

[StrykerxS77x]

I know what he is trying to say, but it's incorrect. Because the important thing is the value in the crucial round where you play Sheldon to win the game. And in this round he is for example 14 points worth when you boosted him to 7. Yeah, handbuffing transfers the value on the other cards too, but only Sheldon gets better and better with the boosts. The thing that you people forget about is that Sheldon is a removal tool, he doesn't only bring value on the board. Sheldon offers you the possibility to remove every card on the board that you want, he brings massive points and could destroy essential cards from the opponent. For example Ocvist or other engines or even Olaf, Milaen does with handbuff always only 4 damage. The possibilty to stop the essential play from your opponent rises the strenght of Sheldon to an absurd point, with a boosted Milaen you couldn't remove Ocvist and Olaf even will be better when you hit him...do you see this crucial fact? His strenght is not only his big value, you always forget this.

And the 'counterpart' isn't really a counterpart. Hanbuffing is without Sheldon a good strategy, Ithlinne or Sirssa are very good cards without Sheldon, so it's easy to put them in your deck. And to play Ithlinne in round 1 is a solid 5p. play and Sirssa in the same way, there is not a single problem to do this. Yeah, you have to be careful with the Agitators but only when you go first (but then you have tactical advantage, so you can play one Agitator too), with some experience you know when you can play one of them and when not.
9 provision would be a beginning, it's ok for me. But I would say 10 is the better option.

I never said that ST should be nerfed, it's only about Sheldon...it doesn't matter in which faction he is. As I said it before to other poeple, the affinity, the dominance of a faction or being the underdog in the last months has nothing to do with this single card nerf, it's only because of his strenght. For me it seems that most of the people who are against a nerf of Sheldon belong to the ST faction, so what they say is far away from an objective assessment....as it often the case is in this forum.
And I always belonged to the people that stand for an MO and SK nerf in the last months. I was not happy with the 'big MO nerf' which ended in 4 little card nerfs. And it was good to nerf Detlaff, but the way it happened among this season where many players abused him to get a good score and all other players don't have this chance now is an injustice and impertinence...but it's typically CDPR. So, SK got a nerf after the last season and the current meta shows that now ST is the dominant faction. You can see that the problem is not really SK and MO, but the weakness of NG and the fact that there are so many control freaks are out there and play decks like Eithne Heavy Control, which only have one or two cards in it, that aren't removal and then they have to play cards like Panther when they go first, because this decks are so dumb. So NR has a hard stand in such metas. When NR and NG get a buff, then I think there is no dominance of SK and MO anymore. Whereby I think that by now ST is the dominant faction.

As someone who plays SC I do think Sheldon will most likely have to be adjusted at some point. I don't like the idea of it being now when SC is so weak. SC recently got a very powerful high provision card in The Great Oak. How often does anyone see this card get used? I've tried to use it myself many times and the card just doesn't feel worth it. It takes too much risky set up to really get his value. Elves and Dwarves are weak or incomplete archtypes. SC just needs all the help it can get right now.

My opinion on Sheldon specfically is how he collects carryover and then doubles it's value through removal. As long as buffing Sheldon works out for you in previous rounds this is a massive play. Carryover is always a strong mechanic. Sheldon just takes it to a new level.

 

[Panos_Sigma]

(I'm replying to the op.) IMO Skaggs is good but overrated. He requires a lot of setup and he basically costs more than 8 provision points to make him good. Just consider Ithlinne (11pts) and 2 Hawker Smugglers (7 + 7 = 14pts). Agitators are cheap (4pts) and work well for him, but are risky to draw all of them together in round 1 or 2. Now, if you put the whole package around him, it costs 33 provisions to make an 8 one playable for a total of 41 points. 1/4 of all your provisions to fit one card. Plus, his setup is very low tempo and it can cost you to lose round 1 on even or pass very early and a 2-0 loss if the opponent decides to bleed you and you are unlucky to draw all the pieces for him in round 2 instead of 1. Also consider, that if all of the above work for Skaggs for round 3, he is one of the very few good finishers or strong cards for a short round this faction has.

He is being used by many Scoia decks, because the whole faction has been reduced to the boost and damage faction in HC, so there aren't many other good options which can combine both. Spellatael & Scorchtael are a meme, elves or dwarves only oriented decks are weak and badly designed, movement is ok only because of Brouver with traps or lacerate and the new Dana harmony decks are the most solid ones IMO.

PS It's both funny and sad though, since the beta days, how ppl propose nerfs for Scoia when it reaches a playable spot.

 

[Grimshackle]

I know what he is trying to say, but it's incorrect. Because the important thing is the value in the crucial round where you play Sheldon to win the game. And in this round he is for example 14 points worth when you boosted him to 7. Yeah, handbuffing transfers the value on the other cards too, but only Sheldon gets better and better with the boosts. The thing that you people forget about is that Sheldon is a removal tool, he doesn't only bring value on the board. Sheldon offers you the possibility to remove every card on the board that you want, he brings massive points and could destroy essential cards from the opponent. For example Ocvist or other engines or even Olaf, Milaen does with handbuff always only 4 damage. The possibilty to stop the essential play from your opponent rises the strenght of Sheldon to an absurd point, with a boosted Milaen you couldn't remove Ocvist and Olaf even will be better when you hit him...do you see this crucial fact? His strenght is not only his big value, you always forget this.

And the 'counterpart' isn't really a counterpart. Hanbuffing is without Sheldon a good strategy, Ithlinne or Sirssa are very good cards without Sheldon, so it's easy to put them in your deck. And to play Ithlinne in round 1 is a solid 5p. play and Sirssa in the same way, there is not a single problem to do this. Yeah, you have to be careful with the Agitators but only when you go first (but then you have tactical advantage, so you can play one Agitator too), with some experience you know when you can play one of them and when not.
9 provision would be a beginning, it's ok for me. But I would say 10 is the better option.

I never said that ST should be nerfed, it's only about Sheldon...it doesn't matter in which faction he is. As I said it before to other poeple, the affinity, the dominance of a faction or being the underdog in the last months has nothing to do with this single card nerf, it's only because of his strenght. For me it seems that most of the people who are against a nerf of Sheldon belong to the ST faction, so what they say is far away from an objective assessment....as it often the case is in this forum.
And I always belonged to the people that stand for an MO and SK nerf in the last months. I was not happy with the 'big MO nerf' which ended in 4 little card nerfs. And it was good to nerf Detlaff, but the way it happened among this season where many players abused him to get a good score and all other players don't have this chance now is an injustice and impertinence...but it's typically CDPR. So, SK got a nerf after the last season and the current meta shows that now ST is the dominant faction. You can see that the problem is not really SK and MO, but the weakness of NG and the fact that there are so many control freaks are out there and play decks like Eithne Heavy Control, which only have one or two cards in it, that aren't removal and then they have to play cards like Panther when they go first, because this decks are so dumb. So NR has a hard stand in such metas. When NR and NG get a buff, then I think there is no dominance of SK and MO anymore. Whereby I think that by now ST is the dominant faction.

This, basically. I've only been playing Gwent for a week and have had a Sheldon Hammer dropped on me at least 4 times on the last play to the tune of a roughly 18pt swing. I haven't played ST yet but from what I've seen of the cards it seems pretty easy to get this 8 provision card to a pretty game-breaking level, and it's extremely hard to defend against. He should definitely have a higher provision cost. Alternatively, you could have his ability activate on a timer after a round has passed, auto-targeting your opponent's highest unit. This will allow the possibility to defend against it.

 

[glaeddyvan_]

The vast majority of Dana decks that I see use him. That says something.

Any deck that can realistically fit him in is plain dumb not to.

Because Dana demands diversity?

This is a badly thought out point. I use Carnmer in his stead and some use Skagss himsef, being of the same provision.

A change in Skaggs will call upon many other changes such as a change in Hubert who hits atleast 20 in a game gone good.

 

[StrykerxS77x]

Because Dana demands diversity?

This is a badly thought out point. I use Carnmer in his stead and some use Skagss himsef, being of the same provision.

A change in Skaggs will call upon many other changes such as a change in Hubert who hits atleast 20 in a game gone good.

Dana needs diversity but you certainly don't have to use Sheldon which then requires those other buff cards.

I haven't used Hubert or see him very often in game. He's a different card which requires different set up.

 

[Roi_Barbichette]

Tobi_113 :
ST is indeed my main faction and therefore, I might be a little bit biased.
I also think that the ones who are asking for Sheldon nerf are the ones who suffer the most of his powerful blow. So, they might not be totally unbiased either.

However, you have noticed that I said it would be acceptable to increase Sheldon provision cost by 1. I'm not a fanatic .

And trust me, I do not underestimate the fact that he can deal 5+ damages, this is of course a huge advantage. But still, to raise Sheldon consistency, you need to include agitators in your deck, who are low tempo units.

In your examples, everything seems to work well because you go second and play agitators in round 1, or play them in round 2 whereas your opponent has already passed.

But sometimes, agitators brick or slow down your game so badly that you lose 1 card advantage.
During the first ten days of this season, I played a real handbuff deck, with Filavandrel as a leader and with 2 hawker smugglers in it. I climbed from rank 5 to rank 0 with this deck.

And you know what ? Agitators cost me victory several times... (they also grant me victory more than once...).

I would add that Sheldon is not the only one who can deal an insane amount of damages. Since I have an important number of engines in my handbuff deck (2 hawker smugglers, 2 mahakam defenders, 3 harmony units, weeping willow...), I have often been penalized by big damage dealers.

It was not rare that a 6, 7 or 8 points mahakam defender was killed instantly on the board.

Here is the list of the "big hitters" that don't need a lot of set up :

- Sheldon (obviously),
- Hjalmar (it's pretty easy to deal 6, 7 or even 8 damages with him),
- Serrit,
- Seltkirk (with Foltest power),
- Anseis (with Meve or Foltest power)
- Cyclops,
- Surin....

Actually, each faction owns at least one "big hitter", and strangely, they are all nearly auto-include...

And don't even make me talk about Geralt of Rivia, Bonhart and co, my worst nightmares...

I know what you will say : the problem about Sheldon is that he deals a huge amount of damages and benefits of the handbuff at the same time, which makes him a terrifying finisher.

But all the other big hitters I have listed have their own merits and can be devastative as well.

 

[mzeebra]

And finally, ST has been the underdog for a while now and they are deserving of a few good units. Taken everything into account, I think Sheldon is fine.

I agree, but I also disagree somewhat. I agree that ST needs good cards, but when I met Skeldon, he did feel somewhat overpowered. And I generally tend to lock/kill all hand boosting cards. He does massive damage if he is the only dwarf on hand and boosted 2 times by the 2 point "boost dwarf 4" cards. Then he can take out an 11 point unit, while putting 11 points on the board.

It's a fair enough card, somewhat comparable to Hubert. Just, it's a better card and more decisive. So perhaps 10 provisions would be better. Cleaver is 9 provisions, a good card, but not better than Skeldon.

 

[glaeddyvan_]

Dana needs diversity but you certainly don't have to use Sheldon which then requires those other buff cards.

I haven't used Hubert or see him very often in game. He's a different card which requires different set up.

Doesn't matter. Both cards need set up. Many-a-times I haven't drawn agitators or Do not eat the yellow snow and played a cheap 6 pointer. I repeat, he's good as he is, ST doesn't have enough quality Gold cards - its only now after CC its becoming a tad bit better.

 

[StrykerxS77x]

Doesn't matter. Both cards need set up. Many-a-times I haven't drawn agitators or Do not eat the yellow snow and played a cheap 6 pointer. I repeat, he's good as he is, ST doesn't have enough quality Gold cards - its only now after CC its becoming a tad bit better.

Just saying that both require set up isn't going to give a clear answer if one is too powerful or not.

Thing with Sheldon is that he really doesn't brick. It's also unlikely to not buff him one time.

 

[Restlessdingo32]

Ok, I try to explain it for you again because literally everything you said is wrong, maybe you will get it after that.
First of all: It doesn't matter how you count the points, because the way you do this doesn't work. Unbelieveable that I have to say this again and again --> the way you do count the points is without CARRYOVER!! You are buffing Sheldon for the crucial round 3 and in this round he is his full 14-18 points worth, because of the carryover. So the way you count the points is completely useless and by the way: 41 value for 35 provision is very good and this is without the most important thing --> CARRYOVER. Many cards don't bring more points than their provisions on the board. When you don't understand what carryover means, then I can not help you.

I'd recommend re-reading my post. Overall, yes, it makes sense to value Sheldon as the complete point total of his base value and hand-buff value, including all damage. I said as much. The purpose of pointing out the other way of evaluating the hand-buff was to illustrate Sheldon value costs you value on other card plays. This is the nature of carry-over from hand-buff. You're not carrying over bonus points with hand-buff. This is to say they're not "extra" points. You're storing points for later with it. In other words, when you play a hand-buff card the value you get for that card the moment it is played is sub-par for the provision cost. You don't get the rest of the hand-buff points until you play the hand-buff card.

This fact seems to be conveniently ignored. It may not always matter significantly, such as when playing those hand-buff cards in rounds you don't intend to win. Even then it matters a little. It certainly matters when playing those hand-buff cards in a round you do intend to win.

Second: I have to say it again --> It is easy to setup Sheldon, you only need this card in your hand and there is no counter against hanbuffing. And it's easy to put these '4-6 other cards' in your deck, because only the agitators work with dwarfs, Ithlinne and Sirssa and every other handbuff card is working with the other cards too and they are good cards without Sheldon, so there is not a single problem to use this cards. And most of the time you find a good target for Sheldon, every deck plays 5-6 strenght cards and in the current meta nearly every deck has a 8+ in the deck. To use low value cards like Agitators or Ithlinne istn't a problem, because you use them in a situation where you don't need the points. And it's manageable to play an agitator in round 1 or Ithlinne (5 points in round one is a solid play). When you would understand the game, then you could see this.

The point was you have to put those other cards in your deck. This is a deck building condition you must satisfy to play Sheldon. Personally, I consider deck building conditions when choosing cards to play. They're not irrelevant. Just like conditions you must meet in game play. You also have to draw hand-buff with him. It shares more similarities with a Serrit/Auckes and less with a Regis. You also have to sacrifice value when playing hand-buff cards to store it for later on Sheldon. It's convenient to ignore all of this and say Sheldon setup is as simple as drawing Sheldon. It is not.

Ithlinne and Sirssa are good because they are hand-buff. It's a way to boost a card without opening yourself up to counters (beyond something like Shilard). It's not without it's drawbacks, however. 5 pts on an 11p gold card at the moment of the card play isn't a lot. You could instead play something like an 8 for 8 or a 11 for 9 with a shield (Gregory, wunder why it's everywhere).

Agitators are another matter. They only work with dwarves so, barring other dwarves in-hand, it's a 2 pt card. This forces you into running other dwarves with the card. This opens you up to scenarios where, even with other dwarves in a deck, you pull an Agitator and cannot use it. If you've never had this happen you're incredibly lucky . Likewise, assuming you will just play your Agitators when you don't need points is naive.

The bigger issue is when you don't draw Sheldon. When so much value is intended to be funneled into one card it's a real problem when you don't find it.

By the way: when you lose round 1 you could buff Sheldon for free when your opponent drypasses.

Why would it be assumed the opponent is going to dry-pass? Do people actually assume this? Do you know what makes Sheldon less appealing? When you're forced to burn it in a round the opponent doesn't need to win. There is a reason R2 bleeds occur with greater frequency as you go up in rank/fMMR on pro rank. Better players will force you into situations you don't want to be in, or force cards able to achieve value worth several cards themselves out. If a card can yield a 20-25+ point swing it sounds like a good one to force out (yes, even if it means going down a card in some cases).

 

[Roi_Barbichette]

The bigger issue is when you don't draw Sheldon. When so much value is intended to be funneled into one card it's a real problem when you don't find it.
.

I've just lost 2 games yesterday with my Dana deck, essentially because I have 2 agitators in hand and no other dwarf to boost.
I must admit that I was particulary unlucky ; it does not happen that often. But the problem still exists.

Of course, you must run a deck archetype dozens of times to really understand its drawbacks. Otherwise, you will tend to make false asumptions.

 

[StrykerxS77x]

I've just lost 2 games yesterday with my Dana deck, essentially because I have 2 agitators in hand and no other dwarf to boost.
I must admit that I was particulary unlucky ; it does not happen that often. But the problem still exists.

Of course, you must run a deck archetype dozens of times to really understand its drawbacks. Otherwise, you will tend to make false asumptions.

How many other dwarves are in your deck?

 

[dwavenhobble]

The claim that you have to set him up with hand buffing cards is correct but they don't provide that much of a disadvantage.

If we take 1 provision = 1 value as about the present balance curve

Ithlinne -6

King of Beggars -4

Sissa -2

Dwarven Agitator -2

Smuggler -3

Taking only Sissa and Agitators (as they lose you the least)

you can boost Skaggs to 9.

Doing the maths

Value in the set up - 6
Value gained from execution +10
Total gain = 4 value which kind of can't be countered because they'll play it last almost certainly


The calculation for Ithlinne added in
Value in set up -12
Value from execution +12
Total gain = 0


So based on the stats there would be a fairly moderate imbalance. in favour of Skaggs (or more specifically component of the combo) being Overpowered in at least one set up.

3> = slightly OP
3 -5 = moderately OP
5< = very OP

 

[4RM3D]

So based on the stats there would be a fairly moderate imbalance.

In your calculation, you didn't include the scenario that Sheldon doesn't have a big enough unit to kill. Furthermore, you also didn't include the carry-over value. When you play Agitator on the pass, you actually gain more value out of him.

 

[dwavenhobble]

In your calculation, you didn't include the scenario that Sheldon doesn't have a big enough unit to kill. Furthermore, you also didn't include the carry-over value. When you play Agitator on the pass, you actually gain more value out of him.

True though you only need to really hit a unit worth 5 to break even in the first Scenario.

Skaggs is 8
buffed to 9
Costs 6 extra to get there
1 value from the buff alone
so if you hit a 5 or above you break even.

If we go for a range of values

Non Ithlinne variant

perfect value where you play agitator as carry over value on a pass
Value loss = 4
Value gained from Skaggs if he hits a 9 or above = 10 (18-8)
Total additional value on an idea play = 6


Break even play 1
where you play agitator as carry over value on a pass
Value loss = 4
Skaggs only needs to hit a unit of 3 ((9-8)+3-4)

Break Even play 2
Agitator played at a loss
Value loss = 6
Skaggs only needs to hit a 5


Ithlinne variant

Perfect play where you play Ithlinne as the pass card instead of agitator

Value in set up -6
Value from execution +12
Total gain = +6

Break Even play 1
where you play Ithlinne as the pass card instead of agitator
Skaggs needs to hit a 5

Break Even play 2
where you play don't Ithlinne as the pass card
Skaggs needs to hit a 9

Break Even play 3
Where you play Agitator as the pass card
Skaggs needs to hit a 7

Now I can't speak to Percentages (because I'm too lazy to count) or be bothered with doing the full probability maths for it but I'd guess Skaggs being value or better in the Non Ithlinne variant is likely 75% or greater while the Ithlinne variant comes in at 60% or less.

The issue is though that this is part of a far larger issue in my view of last turn super buff plays.
There's a certain Nilfgaard deck I've run into twice that can pull off a 20 value change turn.
If instead of Skaggs people ran Alglais (and people are) then you can do the same and there's more variants on Alglais, The only problem being Alglais opens you up to 1 other form of counterplay (one I've been running in few decks recently just to deal with Alglais)