So... the Blightmaker?

[ya1]

Speci also still maintains that Rience would be good, so there is that.

Specimen always has meme points about meme cards because he likes meme gameplay. But he was in top 64 once or twice, have you? And Rience is not bad per se. He's just meme. His ceiling is horrendous.

[...]

If there would be a 4p bronze that automatically mills itself at the end of Round 1 I would always play 2 copies of that card

And what? Would you say they are 0 for 4, worse evaluation than Peasant Militia by 4 points?

I honestly don’t care what Bushy said if it is wrong.

Freddybabes also said it, DevilDriven also said it, and iirc TheaBeasty from Aretuza also said it. I don't watch Twitch, just YT, but I know TLG guys also evaluated thinning plays like this, and wouldn't say Justice into Volunteers is 12 for 20.

 

[InkognitoXI]

[...]

And what? Would you say they are 0 for 4, worse evaluation than Peasant Militia by 4 points?

[...]

No I would not.
Also I am not calling Blightmaker + Mage Assassin an 11 for 9, it is an 11 for 5 that also has to mill a specific 4p card from your deck.
My argument is that that part (which is the difference to what they are saying) is practically almost just an upside, so much in fact that I would run a card if it would only do that last past.
What I am saying is that Blightmaker + Mage Assassin is practically even more impactful than a simple "11 for 5" would be.

 

[quintivarium]

Freddybabes also said it, DevilDriven also said it, and iirc TheaBeasty from Aretuza also said it. I don't watch Twitch, just YT, but I know TLG guys also evaluated thinning plays like this, and wouldn't say Justice into Volunteers is 12 for 20.

If you really care about convincing me, don’t keep repeating what I have argued is an inaccurate statement — refute my reasoning.

I am not trying to argue the true strength of blightmaker on assassin — I do not dispute that it is very strong. What I am arguing is that presenting the combo as 11 points for 5 provisions is dishonest (which is not synonymous with inaccurate). Let me lay out that argument one more time.

1. To present an opinion as fact is dishonest.
2. Points per provision suggests a mathematically based formulation of fact, not an arbitrary, subjective assessment.
3. The calculation of the value of a combination by giving the ratio of the points generated to the cost of the triggering card without mention of other factors is in no context a meaningful mathematical formula because it would evaluates a five provision card onto a four provision card at exactly the same value as a five provision card onto a fourteen provision card. In some cases, even a bad formula can give accurate answers (just as a broken clock gives the correct time twice a day), but that doesn’t make the formula correct.

This argument does not apply to statements like blightmaker / assassin plays with the strength of an 11 for 5. (This phrases it as opinion.) Nor does it apply to a statement like like blightmaker is an 11 for 5 when it thins a specific four provision card as such a statement does not imply the five provisions is acting in a vacuum.

 

[Celadyl]

the whole x for x debate is kind of misleading imo.
it's a matter of fact that you need to have 25 cards in your deck and each card costs at east 4 provision. this basically means you have an automatic -100 provisions in your deck, no matter what. realistically this leaves you with 62-67 provisions to upgrade some of your cards.
how you can compare a card like ele'yas which costs you 5 extra provisions with blightmaker and mage assassin, which together cost you one extra provision and are two cards in your deck on top of that, is beyond me. implying that a 4p card has any deckbuilding cost is completely wrong. 4ps will be in your deck no matter what, there is no choice beyond upgrading them.

so correct me if I'm totally wrong here since I'm not a mathematician but in my book blightmaker and MA have a deck building cost of 1. you lose exactly 1 provision you could have used somewhere else, not 5 and not 9.

also imo it's not truly a "combo". it's not like you actually play 2 cards that synergize together, you just play both cards as one, which is way better for a number of reasons.

 

[quintivarium]

the whole x for x debate is kind of misleading imo.
it's a matter of fact that you need to have 25 cards in your deck and each card costs at east 4 provision. this basically means you have an automatic -100 provisions in your deck, no matter what. realistically this leaves you with 62-67 provisions to upgrade some of your cards.
how you can compare a card like ele'yas which costs you 5 extra provisions with blightmaker and mage assassin, which together cost you one extra provision and are two cards in your deck on top of that, is beyond me. implying that a 4p card has any deckbuilding cost is completely wrong. 4ps will be in your deck no matter what, there is no choice beyond upgrading them.

so correct me if I'm totally wrong here since I'm not a mathematician but in my book blightmaker and MA have a deck building cost of 1. you lose exactly 1 provision you could have used somewhere else, not 5 and not 9.

also imo it's not truly a "combo". it's not like you actually play 2 cards that synergize together, you just play both cards as one, which is way better for a number of reasons.

I have no problem with an analysis involving computations with the 62 to 67 manipulable provisions and the cost beyond four — I think that makes sense to show just how little stress the blightmaker/assassin combination places on deck building. It is harder to place a point value on the combination. For example, if we count blightmaker/assassin as one deckbuilding point generating 11 value, that sounds really bad compared to two bear witcher adepts which use 0 deckbuilding points to generate 14 value —something plainly not in accordance with reality. I still think a second measure like points per turn makes sense for this combo, but that idea hasn’t caught on.

I do disagree about not calling this a combo. It is unfair to ascribe the 11 points to either card individually as neither plays for anywhere near that without the other. I think clarity requires mentioning 11 points from a combination of two low provision cards in a single play.

 

[Celadyl]

For example, if we count blightmaker/assassin as one deckbuilding point generating 11 value, that sounds really bad compared to two bear witcher adepts which use 0 deckbuilding points to generate 14 value —something plainly not in accordance with reality.

thats not true at all. bear witcher adepts do in fact generate up to 14 points (by themselves) for 0 deckbuilding cost but they do so as 2 plays instead of 1 and they also need (I think) 4 turns each to reach that value. as you can play a maximum of 16 of your 25 cards (more with matta/stregobor I guess), playing another 4p card is actually a huge commitment, which is why people tend to only play it in conjunction with portal, even though that makes the combo cost 20 provision or "8 bonus provision" (which is vastly more than the blightmaker "combo").
14 points in 2 turns is decent, 11 points in 1 turn is very good especially when generated by low commitment bronzes.

and sure technically BM/MA are a combo, and I dont ascribe 11 points to either card alone but its not a combo like drachar and svalblod priest. you can barely disrupt it, it plays in a single turn and slams points and thins. there is 0 risk involved, which is usually the biggest drawback of combos. its as much of a combo as playing a wild hunt rider and pulling out the second one.

 

[quintivarium]

thats not true at all. bear witcher adepts do in fact generate up to 14 points (by themselves) for 0 deckbuilding cost but they do so as 2 plays instead of 1 and they also need (I think) 4 turns each to reach that value. as you can play a maximum of 16 of your 25 cards (more with matta/stregobor I guess), playing another 4p card is actually a huge commitment, which is why people tend to only play it in conjunction with portal, even though that makes the combo cost 20 provision or "8 bonus provision" (which is vastly more than the blightmaker "combo").
14 points in 2 turns is decent, 11 points in 1 turn is very good especially when generated by low commitment bronzes.

This is exactly what I was saying. Counting points without counting plays (not to mention other factors) is not accurate.

Post automatically merged: Jun 20, 2021

and sure technically BM/MA are a combo, and I dont ascribe 11 points to either card alone but its not a combo like drachar and svalblod priest. you can barely disrupt it, it plays in a single turn and slams points and thins. there is 0 risk involved, which is usually the biggest drawback of combos. its as much of a combo as playing a wild hunt rider and pulling out the second one.

Of course. Not all combos work the same. But it is still important to identify the involvement of multiple cards. Especially in this case, either card separately is fairly weak — only working together do the become arguably too strong.

 

[Slizzl]

Thinning plays have always been top tier. Big cheap thinning plays even better. I don't understand the point of adding an objectively stronger Hunting Pack/Impera Brigade when these were already popular cards. Wild Hunt Rider, Sewer Raider, Skald/Skirmisher, all of these thinning cards are still being used. Blightmaker is just way better. It is absurd.
I don't believe CDPR earns much by powercreeping bronze cards either so I just don't get it.
We are now back to the dark beta days where every deck is just full of thinning and tutors and there is no sign of it stopping anytime soon.

 

[ya1]

I am not calling Blightmaker + Mage Assassin an 11 for 9, it is an 11 for 5 that also has to mill a specific 4p card from your deck.
(...)
What I am saying is that Blightmaker + Mage Assassin is practically even more impactful than a simple "11 for 5" would be.

Sorry, my bad. I'm seeing them 11 for 9 people everywhere now... We are in agreement, then. That's what I said in my first post: 9-11 for 5 plus thinning of one 4p card otherwise a 2-4 point brick.

If you really care about convincing me, don’t keep repeating what I have argued is an inaccurate statement — refute my reasoning.

But I did. You just elected not to read it.

1. To present an opinion as fact is dishonest.

It's neither a fact nor an opinion. It's a custom. This is how card evaluation is customarily done. But ultimately it makes no difference whether you say "11 for 5 with thinning of a 4p" or "11 for 9 with thinning of a 4p with that 4p already included in that 9."

2. Points per provision suggests a mathematically based formulation of fact, not an arbitrary, subjective assessment.

This only suggests you don't understand what provision cost is in Gwent. Gwent is a game where a 25 card slots have to be filled. So a "mathematically based formulation of a fact" (btw that's a pretty fancy way to describe 5+4=9) does not apply here. It would only apply if the number of slots was freely variable, and including every additional 4p card really carried a cost of 4 provisions to be spent elsewhere if chosen not to include it. Here, I did it again. I refuted your reasoning.

3. The calculation of the value of a combination by giving the ratio of the points generated to the cost of the triggering card without mention of other factors is in no context a meaningful mathematical formula because it would evaluates a five provision card onto a four provision card at exactly the same value as a five provision card onto a fourteen provision card.

If you read what you argue against you would probably not have missed this:

Correct evaluation of the Blightmaker into Mage Assassin play is 9-11 for 5 plus thinning of one 4p card otherwise a 2-4 point brick (...) (Albrich into Affan is different. Affan is 8p so it does carry an additional cost - it's four provisions over a 4p that could be slotted there. So the cost of Albrich into Affan is actually 7+4 = 11 provisions from a deckbuilding perspective.)

 

[quintivarium]

@ ya1
We have both focused on different aspects of an argument. I fully agree that the best way to evaluate the impact on deck building of a combo like blightmaker/assassin is to examine the the total cost over four provisions for each the cards involved. What I would consider dishonest math would be to totally neglect the value of the second card in the combo. To say the combo plays for 11 at the cost of one distributable provision is not only fine (you are accounting for the value of the second card — it is just that the value is 0) it makes sense to calculate it this way. And, in that sense, since a single 5 provision card that played for 11 points would have the same evaluation (11 for 1 distributable provision), I would even consider it fair to say blightmaker/assassin plays LIKE an 11 for 5 card. My objection is in saying blightmaker IS an 11 for 5 card (without further elaboration — which I already acknowledged you were not guilty of). Saying it is 5 for 11 implies a different sort of mathematical calculation and suppresses that it is a combination. My objection has never been to assessing the combination as very powerful — I agree that it is. My objection has always been to careless or imprecise phrases laden with unjustified connotations.

Post automatically merged: Jun 21, 2021

I admit the difference between “Blightmaker is 11 for 5.” and “Blightmaker/assassin plays like an 11 for 5 card.” seems nit picky, but let me give an illustration as to why I think it is significant. Suppose Assassin were a 7 provision card and the combo played for 15. Using a calculation based on distributable provisions, this is 15 points for four distributable provisions, which as the same distributable provision cost as one eight point card. You could fairly say the combo plays for value like a single 15 for 8 card. But to say the combo is 15 for 8 suggests (since the common calculation would add provisions of cards) that two four provision cards generated this value, which would be inaccurate. With the actual provision costs of blightmaker and assassin, since two cards chosen for a deck cannot have total cost 5 provisions, this either causes confusion or leads one to think that blightmaker alone played for 11.

 

[Kessman]

so correct me if I'm totally wrong here since I'm not a mathematician but in my book blightmaker and MA have a deck building cost of 1. you lose exactly 1 provision you could have used somewhere else, not 5 and not 9.

Yes, but on the other hand, you lose a card slot for something more valuable. Even some 4p bronzes can impact the game.
Your BM in the deck and MA in hand, then you can't pull your BM like other thinning packages.

I bet, once BM+MA will get nerfed to casual thinning package value, no one will play them. So please, don't kill the cards.

 

[quintivarium]

Yes, but on the other hand, you lose a card slot for something more valuable. Even some 4p bronzes can impact the game.
Your BM in the deck and MA in hand, then you can't pull your BM like other thinning packages.

I bet, once BM+MA will get nerfed to casual thinning package value, no one will play them. So please, don't kill the cards.

I think we need to acknowledge the blightmaker/assassin combo is very strong even given the bricking risk. And it is pretty clearly stronger than most if not all other bronze packages.

But like you, I would argue it should not be nerfed, for the following reasons:
1. The gap between top and bottom provision cards is too much for the general health of the game. The best way is to improve bronze quality, and this has to start somewhere. Simply adhering to some arbitrary formula like five provision cards should play for 8 will destroy the game.
2. Neither Blightmaker nor mage assassin are anywhere near overpowered in isolation. If there is a problem, it is in the combo.
3. At least Blightmaker is an interesting and unique card. CDPR tendency when nerfing cards has also tended to eliminate precisely that which makes the card interesting.
4. There is not data (at least yet) that the combo makes any deck OP. Nor does the combo negate any existing decks/strategies. This becomes the point where something OP really harms the game.

 

[Celadyl]

Yes, but on the other hand, you lose a card slot for something more valuable. Even some 4p bronzes can impact the game.
Your BM in the deck and MA in hand, then you can't pull your BM like other thinning packages.

I bet, once BM+MA will get nerfed to casual thinning package value, no one will play them. So please, don't kill the cards.

imagine you could spend 4 provision for reducing the card limit by 1 (lets say to 22), EVERYONE would play a 22 card deck, because 4p cards are mostly a huge liability because you simply cannot play all the cards in your deck in one game, with exceptions being hyperthin lists. so I really disagree with your first point.

your second point is even more flawed. BM/MA doesnt brick more often than other thinners for the following reason. if you play lets say impera brigade (and ignore the soldier condition for this argument, which already makes it a worse thinner), you have 2 of them in your deck and need to draw one of them, it doesnt matter which copy which is an advantage over BM/MA. on the other hand, if you draw both brigades in an unlucky mulligan, you now have 2 bricks in hand whereas if I have a BM and draw a MA on last mulligan, you can still play it with your second MA and only have 1 brick, and ofc youre still able to thin your deck.

what makes this card-combo truly superior is that it can be played twice instead of once, if you compare it with 2x imperia brigade and 2x hunting pack, which both have an additional condition, you have the exact same situation where you need 2 specific cards and the other 2 will brick your hand (but give you 2 bricks immediately), they play for 1-3 points less and cost 2 provisions more* in total.

 

[WhiteWolf4207]

I won't say much about blightmaker/assassin combo but whoever made this combo didn't knew basic rules of Gwent. Gwent is 1 card per turn game blightmaker/assassin combo breaks that rule. Blightmaker/assassin combo lets you play 3 card in one turn that's why it have to go away or have to be reworked.

 

[saodhar]

Gwent is 1 card per turn game

Devs keep saying this when they remove abilities that play more than 1 card per turn - then just add new abilities and cards that break that ruie. And that's not that bad - there are decently balanced cards that allow you to play two or more cards per turn. There are tons of broken ones serving the same purpose as well, but balanced Gwent is an unachievable utopia (especially with the devs' current course of actions).
The worst thing about blightmaker/assassin combo is that it's another cheap thinning technique for NG. A faction that was once known for field manipulation and using opponents' cards against them is more and more reduced to a set of thin/mill/clog decks almost every lazy netdecker plays. No more Nilfgaardian Empire, more like bands of rogue mages and witchers wearing its colors.

 

[quintivarium]

imagine you could spend 4 provision for reducing the card limit by 1 (lets say to 22), EVERYONE would play a 22 card deck, because 4p cards are mostly a huge liability because you simply cannot play all the cards in your deck in one game, with exceptions being hyperthin lists. so I really disagree with your first point.

4 point cards in a deck are only a huge liability only because every time a decent one is introduced, people immediately start crying about how unfair it is with arguments like this — hence, crappy low provision cards.

Post automatically merged: Jun 21, 2021

your second point is even more flawed. BM/MA doesnt brick more often than other thinners for the following reason. if you play lets say impera brigade (and ignore the soldier condition for this argument, which already makes it a worse thinner), you have 2 of them in your deck and need to draw one of them, it doesnt matter which copy which is an advantage over BM/MA. on the other hand, if you draw both brigades in an unlucky mulligan, you now have 2 bricks in hand whereas if I have a BM and draw a MA on last mulligan, you can still play it with your second MA and only have 1 brick, and ofc youre still able to thin your deck.

Your argument is even more flawed. Playing thinners only makes sense in a deck that is virtually certain to create thinner. If I play two assassins in a deck without blightmaker, I get two bricks — just like a person who plays brigades get bricks if they don’t play soldiers. And a card like Artorius Vigo often thins both copies of either hunting pack or imperia brigade. (If you really wanted, you could design a deck that guarantees this happens.) At best, and with lower probability, Artorius can thin one copy of assassin simultaneously leaving a mismatched copy of blightmaker.

 

[saodhar]

imagine you could spend 4 provision for reducing the card limit by 1 (lets say to 22), EVERYONE would play a 22 card deck, because 4p cards are mostly a huge liability because you simply cannot play all the cards in your deck in one game, with exceptions being hyperthin lists. so I really disagree with your first point.

No. I wouldn't, for example. I like to have (many) different cards in my decks. I can't play them all in one game, but this way I play with different hands every game. Helps me keeping my sanity among tons of repetitive "consistent" decks. So please don't speak for everyone.

But, except for that, I agree. Devs didn't give NG players different flexible cards. They gave them more thinning and thinning-using tools. All hail consistency, autoplay and boredom! At least now thinners run devotion.
I don't even understand why BM works this way. Even his name implies that he should deal in poison (and maybe graveyard manipulation),

 

[Celadyl]

4 point cards in a deck are only a huge liability only because every time a decent one is introduced, people immediately start crying about how unfair it is with arguments like this — hence, crappy low provision cards.

Post automatically merged: Jun 21, 2021

Your argument is even more flawed. Playing thinners only makes sense in a deck that is virtually certain to create thinner. If I play two assassins in a deck without blightmaker, I get two bricks — just like a person who plays brigades get bricks if they don’t play soldiers. And a card like Artorius Vigo often thins both copies of either hunting pack or imperia brigade. (If you really wanted, you could design a deck that guarantees this happens.) At best, and with lower probability, Artorius can thin one copy of assassin simultaneously leaving a mismatched copy of blightmaker.

because it's simply the way gwent is designed, 4ps are supposed to be the bottom tier of cards

Post automatically merged: Jun 21, 2021

No. I wouldn't, for example. I like to have different cards in my decks. I can't play them all in one game, but this way I play with different hands every game. Helps me keeping my sanity among tons of repetitive "consistent" decks. So please don't speak for everyone.

But, except for that, I agree. Devs didn't give NG players different flexible cards. They gave them more thinning and thinning-using tools. All hail consistency, autoplay and boredom! At least now thinners run devotion.
I don't even understand why BM works this way. Even his name implies that he should deal in poison (and maybe graveyard manipulation),

so do you also play decks with more than 25 cards for hand variety? I never see anyone ever do that

 

[saodhar]

so do you also play decks with more than 25 cards for hand variety? I never see anyone ever do that

Yes, I do. Not too often, and mostly unranked - but it keeps the air fresher for me.

 

[quintivarium]

what makes this card-combo truly superior is that it can be played twice instead of once, if you compare it with 2x imperia brigade and 2x hunting pack, which both have an additional condition, you have the exact same situation where you need 2 specific cards and the other 2 will brick your hand (but give you 2 bricks immediately), they play for 1-3 points less and cost 2 provisions more* in total.

I’m not going to argue whether Blightmaker/assassin is stronger than other thinning packages — it certainly is. But I will argue that if you think NG has too much thinning potential, the correct change would be to hunting pack or impera brigade, or even dead man’s tongue — anything but one of the few cards I’ve seen introduced since I started playing that moves Gwent in a beneficial direction.