To be objective here, I put together a quick, all unit Patricidal Fury deck with no units over 5 provisions to quickly finish two quests — play 25 cards under 6 provisions and play 30 units. To my surprise, the deck is now 5-0, although admittedly not against strong competition. Other factions do deserve equivalently good bronzes.
Lippy is just INSANE right now.
No idea why CDPR would buff Lippy in the current season when they were already doing so well last season.
Last week, when I was doing my quest (playing neutral cards), I had a neutral deck, two card advantage in the third round and 2 machines running (one was stopped after 3 turns). It wasn't enough against Skellige which was a bit frustrating losing 52:53. Well, I was a bit unlucky with Triss Telekinesis.
I still remember in the early year of 2020 when Slama talked about Skellige is one of the least played factions. The result was that they pushed it over the top.
I still remember in the early year of 2020 when Slama talked about Skellige is one of the least played factions. The result was that they pushed it over the top.
Also Gutting Slash, I mean a potential 6 instant damage for 4 provisions? Just make it 5 dmg on bloodthirst 2 OR instead of doing +2 damage it gives 2 bleeding.
Brokvar Hunter and Elf Swordmaster both get a provision boost in the patch. Both are basically the same conditional 1 point per turn damage engines. Except for some reason, the hunter has zeal and the sword does not. CDPR SK balance in a nutshell there.
Yes, and how many more elves do you think are played per round by ST decks that include swordmasters than beasts by SK decks that play hunters? The parallel isn’t as perfect as it first appears.
Last edited:
Ohhh, I get it. So Brokvar was made that way so he can be used in beast and non-beast decks alike, while Swordmaster is only usable in elf swarm decks. Yes, that makes it so much better.
I don’t think “beast decks” are viable if even possible. To my knowledge, only SK Druid decks use beasts in a significant way (other than by transformation or summoning), and they typically use fewer than 6 actual beast cards. While elves are ubiquitous in ST decks (except for dwarf decks).
I think a better argument about imbalanced bronzes is counting the number of 4 provision cards you would likely prefer to hunters in SK vs. the number you prefer to swordmasters in ST. For me (and I may not be truely objective) there are three generally preferable ST cards at 4 provisions (pyrotechnicians, miners, and cat witcher adepts) with a handful of others that are preferable in certain decks. Even these are at best marginally better.) With SK there are 8 I find generally preferable (gutting slash, Bear witcher adepts, invaders, savage bears, protectors, villagers, ravages, and marauders) and several preferable in certain decks. This variety and overlapping synergies make SK bronzes so formidable.
Viable is debatable, but yes, they are definitely possible. You have the bears (4), the crows (2), the boar, the dire beast, ulf, dracoturtle, cambi, olaf, mork, and thats not even going to neutrals like squirrel, etc. And elves are NOT ubiquitous in any ST decks OTHER THAN elf decks. Nor are, consequently, swordmasters.
I'm also not crazy about the argument to count preferable 4p cards, because 1) it illustrates (if anything) more the state of the faction rather than compares the two cards, and 2) I don't necessarily agree with your ST selection.
One other thing I forgot in my original comparison: the swordmaster is row locked, while the hunter is not.
It is fair enough to disagree on the “generally best” 4 provision cards — that is certainly a matter of taste and play style. It is also fair to wish to limit comparison to two cards, rather than the state of the faction.
But be careful, cards must be compared in the context of their factions. For example, sentries are extremely valuable ST cards (if only for movement archetypes), but they would be pure junk for SK.
In the context of their respective factions, I consider swordmasters and hunters roughly equivalent. To me, initiative is more than offset by the ability to reduce cooldown more often — I’m not really worried about removal (if my opponent wastes removal on my cheap fillers, I’m generally happy), but it is easier to time pings with initiative. On the other hand, I would expect swordmasters to play for an average of 1/2 to 1 point more than hunters because of shortened cooldown frequency. I had not recognized the row locked conditions — that might be a factor. Again, I would not worry about an opponent disabling the unit by moving it, but I don’t know how much a row locked unit interferes with ST row stacking as I don’t own the cards for which row stacking is an issue.
I can say I would almost never consider a hunter in an SK deck (although certainly some players much better than I do selectively use them.) And I would use a swordmaster in several ST decks. But I think the reason for this is that I can always find a much preferable choice to hunters in SK; I don’t find better options than Swordmaster ST.
So, let me get this straight. These two cards have almost the same capability printed (Order: Damage an enemy by 1; Cooldown 2; Reduce the cooldown when you play a card of certain category). One is row locked and the other is not. One doesn't have Zeal and the other has (immediately playing for 5 for 4, while the other doesn't). If they get removed by a 4P removal card, one card would have played for more points and has the freedom to play on any row.
Fantastic!
If the units are removed the turn they are played, Hunter would have played for more points. It is not for disabling the unit by moving it. There are plenty of reasons to play a card on ranged row for ST and row locking it severely affects it. It is for the freedom and flexibility the row lock is more of a restriction.
But what you said in the last paragraph summerises the problem in total. There are plenty of awesome alternatives for Hunter, but where as for ST, the 4P cards are worse than other factions; and it is blatant when other factions have similar cards but with much better flexibility.
My problem with self-wound has been and continues to be consistency. Win conditions are multi-card combinations (or maybe leader combinations), and it’s usually hard to compete in round one without drawing Svalblod priests.
I do not own Oneiromancy — it may help with win conditions. But I can’t find a way around dependence on priests — substitutes tend be too low tempo for round one.
I do not own Oneiromancy — it may help with win conditions. But I can’t find a way around dependence on priests — substitutes tend be too low tempo for round one.
Last edited:
It is absolutely possible to stop Lippy decks, this discussion always turns into a hyperbole with all the impending doom. Yes, even the one improved by Snowdrop. It is still the same old concept, with the same old downsides. It is popular, because (unless you brick hard) it is very easy to play at a competitively acceptable level.
Just as the bells were rung when Viy was the weekly favorite, the same thing happens now that players re-discovered Lippy.
No, it will not dominate serious pro rank by itself, but yes, it will be there among the most played decks this month. Nothing gamebreaking.
Just as the bells were rung when Viy was the weekly favorite, the same thing happens now that players re-discovered Lippy.
No, it will not dominate serious pro rank by itself, but yes, it will be there among the most played decks this month. Nothing gamebreaking.
No one re-discovered Lippy. It didn't stop being strong so this isn't a "weekly favorite"...being less OP than the rest of SK doesn't make it any less difficult for other factions. Again you seem to miss the point, you have to build a deck with specific cards to stop it and now it's even more consistent. No one is saying it can't be stopped. But once again you can't tech against every broken mechanic in this game so you either have to tech against it and hope the matching algorithm gives you SK opponents (which it won't) or you build your deck as you would normally and just forfeit when you come across Lippy. Some decks have built in counters like NG but that's it.
Last edited by a moderator:
And you are again missing the point of CCG balance.
It was never a realistic goal that you shouldn't tech differently against different decks. That is indeed where things start to work well in a game like this. As soon as your comfort zone deck with your carefully selected cards start to get wins against most decks, we are in the zone of unblanced meta - see SK for months. Now that was indeed a deck where you had no need to spec against anything specifically - simply because nothing could burst your safe bubble and force you to do that.
Releasing this "I need to tech against every broken mechanic" mindset is the first step towards success. You build your deck one way and you take the risk that you will get steamrolled by someone who teched against you specifically. This is the basis of a diverse and challenging game. The important part comes down to your personal skill level to adapt to these uncomfortable (or broken, if you prefer?) situations and how many you can actually overcome of these unfavored mathcups. Pro players get there by dedication and practice.
God save us from a gamestate where we can cover most situations with one set of cards.
Last edited:
