Strategems need a buff

[mazeebra]

I'm not going to contest if the SC stratagem is underpowered

It's not underpowered, that's BS. It works well with both Elves, scenario and Harmony as I've seen. People even bring Redeyah for the purpose.

It creates two worthless units that virtually can't be attacked. it's actually one of the better strategems.

 

[DRK3]

I agree, with Scenario and Deadeye Ambush leader (who spawns three DEA), Elf Swarm + Bone Talisman sounds reasonable. But I disagree that Oak is not needed. Oak is the single most powerful card ST has and given how every single freaking ST archetype depends on stacking units on a single row, there is no reason not to have Oak in any deck. It is NOT because of some streamers, but because it is genuinely the most powerful card ST has (even after the nerf). I add Oak in my elf, dwarf, and even in movement decks as it is a very good card and gives a good removal option. Just assuming that people add Oak because they can't think for themselves is a far-fetched opinion IMHO.

True, Oak is really powerful obviously, for 13 provisions, and can quite easily obtain that in point value. And the versatility in getting boosts/damage is great with removal obviously being better.

But from purely a point/provision perspective, Dennis Cranmer and Yaevinn are superior, and they work on a very similar fashion to Oak, giving 1 pt for every unit on the row (Yaevinn ofc has the limitation that only elves on the row count, which is not a problem on full elves deck).

I have NEVER used Oak on my decks. On my last Elf Decks i used Dennis Cranmer to reliably give me 12points, and used the spare provisions from not using Oak on something else like a Geralt or Triss TK, and not once did i feel like i would've been better with Oak (ofc i didnt have Harmony to worry, on Harmony decks i admit his use is more justified if there arent other Treants)

 

[Tyr117]

True, Oak is really powerful obviously, for 13 provisions, and can quite easily obtain that in point value. And the versatility in getting boosts/damage is great with removal obviously being better.

But from purely a point/provision perspective, Dennis Cranmer and Yaevinn are superior, and they work on a very similar fashion to Oak, giving 1 pt for every unit on the row (Yaevinn ofc has the limitation that only elves on the row count, which is not a problem on full elves deck).

I have NEVER used Oak on my decks. On my last Elf Decks i used Dennis Cranmer to reliably give me 12points, and used the spare provisions from not using Oak on something else like a Geralt or Triss TK, and not once did i feel like i would've been better with Oak (ofc i didnt have Harmony to worry, on Harmony decks i admit his use is more justified if there arent other Treants)

It is true that some auto include cards are just a matter of Popularity, than those cards power, also, there are somethings in Gwent that are not considered by the players for some reason, and that is the Condition that a Certain card will give you Value, for example, in order to play Oak, you have to Row Stack, if you do that, yes the Oak will give you Extra Value, but it had a price, and that can end up for you loosing the game, You are vurnable to Row Damage, and you are going to be Heavily punished for that, while on the other hand if you have used that 13 Prov on something else, you might've Won that game you lost because of enemy's row punishment, or another example is Old Speartip, I was looking at this card, and one thing I realized, is that it gives you all that point with no Condition, ppl just look up at the Raw value a card can give you, but they don't realise that those special conditions that those cards require to Give the extra value, might end up being the reason you lost the game and exposed you to some sort of punishment.

 

[rrc]

True, Oak is really powerful obviously, for 13 provisions, and can quite easily obtain that in point value. And the versatility in getting boosts/damage is great with removal obviously being better.

But from purely a point/provision perspective, Dennis Cranmer and Yaevinn are superior, and they work on a very similar fashion to Oak, giving 1 pt for every unit on the row (Yaevinn ofc has the limitation that only elves on the row count, which is not a problem on full elves deck).

I have NEVER used Oak on my decks. On my last Elf Decks i used Dennis Cranmer to reliably give me 12points, and used the spare provisions from not using Oak on something else like a Geralt or Triss TK, and not once did i feel like i would've been better with Oak (ofc i didnt have Harmony to worry, on Harmony decks i admit his use is more justified if there arent other Treants)

I had tried to create decks without Oak, but I had always missed it when I don't add it. While Dennis requires only 4 cards on a row to break even, Oak needs 6 cards. But the removal Oak gives in invaluable and the fact that you can use right amount of removal and use the rest for boost is very good. IMHO, no other card can replace Oak for any ST deck (unless we are talking about low-unit-Gord decks). Dennis has an edge in which, in a short round he can breakeven (on Melee row) which Oak can't do. I would still add Oak over Dennis (even in my MF decks). Anyhow, this thread is not about ST cards, but about buffing Strategems and the horrible feeling of going first (Blue coin).

 

[omarlg]

Actually, Stratagems arent interactive. They are not considered artefacts, they are their own card type and cant be destroyed in any way.

A small correction, I think they are not even cards. Or at least count as a card, I used once The Great Oak to kill an enemy, a stratagem was in the row ... and lol & behold, it did one less damage!!

 

[Guest 4368268]

Just had an interesting match-up twice in a row. I was Monsters on blue coin against Syndicate twice and I lost both.
In my opinion it were good examples of games were coinflip matters the most and it pointed out the two greatest flaws I think Gwent has: the coinflip and the poison mechanic.

As Monsters you want a short round 3 (so long rounds 1 and 2) and as Syndicate the opposite. I'm expending good, valuable cards so as to not lose on even cards and my opponent can pretty much threaten to reach my score in a single turn just because poison exists. These two issues now go hand in hand and nourish each other. So while I think strategems need a buff it also ought to be said in this thread that poison really has to either go or be stamped exclusively on expensive cards.

 

[DRK3]

A small correction, I think they are not even cards. Or at least count as a card, I used once The Great Oak to kill an enemy, a stratagem was in the row ... and lol & behold, it did one less damage!!

Well, i called stratagem card types because when you go to deck builder and the filters, one of the allows you to choose between units, specials, artefacts and stratagems.

But you're right, stratagem dont "count". Another example is you can put NG's Magne Division on a row with stratagem and it will still boost every turn (unless that stratagem is a magic lamp and is activated, obviously)

 

[quintivarium]

If I might chime in as a relative novice, and one who still has a very limited card collection, I find the opposite to be true. Perhaps top level decks rich in legendary cards quickly overcome a Strategem; this is not true at low level. The game needs to be aware of all playing levels.

And if I might be so bold, there are circumstances where going first is advantageous. I have lost games because an opponent played an An Craite Longship at the outset. For every unit I played in the next four rounds, my opponent had just enough damage (with the help from the longship) to to destroy it. In another match, my opponent and I were both playing virtually identical, movement based decks. But my opponent, because of first move, established a treant boar before I established mine, and was able to shut down enough of my firepower using it that I, with every play, fell further and further behind, eventually losing by a wide margin. As a third example, I won a round with my monster starter deck because, by virtue of going first in the third round, I was able to consume my opponent’s graveyard Yghern with my Ozzrel before he could get to it. Scoia’tael traps also benefit from first play.

While I agree there are strong strategic advantages to going second because the second player knows what is necessary to lead the first round, while the first player has to guess. But I think the current Strategems are able to balance that — especially if more cards and archetypes are developed that provide tempo value to the first player.

I come to Gwent from Spellcraft: Descent into Chaos. In that game, entire deck design revolved around the asymmetrical first turn. That game is very well balanced with probably over 50 competitive decks. I submit that it would be good for Gwent if deck design had to account for the possibility of either coin flip result; if last say and even card advantage were not the end-all of the game.

 

[Payus]

And if I might be so bold, there are circumstances where going first is advantageous.

The thing is that you are risking to lose a card(card advantage) when going first, much more than the red coin player. Also it's easier to play reactively and you have more information going second. And reactive decks LOVE going second.

In that first example you said, the longship would have instantly died, maybe the oponent plays another? Locked, killed, stolen, poisoned...

Sometimes you are on blue coin and have only 2-3 proactive plays, all bad vs the matchup your playing against.

So, blue coin is overall much worse.

 

[mazeebra]

Of all the faction stratagems I think the SK one is one of the worst and least used. It is not very diverse and seem fitted to a specific deck type. I personally like the MO strategem, but it seems unpopular and unused.

ST strategem is diverse and good.
NR strategem has superb niche use and is diverse too.
NG strategem is a good advantage and changes the way opponent plays.
SY strategem seems decent. It sees some use.
MO strategem seems good, but is generally not used.
SK strategem seems weird and not very popular.

Of the neutral ones, magic lamp seems to be the most popular, while many also stick with the traditional one (tactical advantage). Other than that it seems the other ones are more niche. Among them crystal skull seems most useful, and I've seen it used in various ways, so I think it's good enough. Cursed Scroll seems fine, and I've seen it used too. It's a "super mulligan".

That leaves us with basilisk venom and ceremonial dagger as the ones that seem to need a looking into. Ceremonial dagger is only 3 damage, which can be useful if you add other damage, but is it enough? All the other strategems have 4 or 5 value, while this one has 3.

Basilisk venom, I don't even know how to look at this. Poison a chosen unit would probably be a bit too much, but poison a random one is just bad. Poison seems to be valued at 1-2p by CDPR, so this is then the worst strategem by far, since it is also random. Random poison on 1 or 2 cards on the board is ofcourse not random, but doesn't really make up for it. I guess like NG strategem it will make the opponent change their opening plays, but is this overall good value?

So to sum it up..

Strategems that definetely don't need looking into:
ST, NR, NG, lamp, TA

Strategems that probably don't need looking into:
Skull, Scroll, SY

Strategems that may need reconsideration (due to low use):
MO

Strategems that need looking into:
basilisk, dagger, SK

 

[Tyr117]

Of all the faction stratagems I think the SK one is one of the worst and least used. It is not very diverse and seem fitted to a specific deck type. I personally like the MO strategem, but it seems unpopular and unused.

ST strategem is diverse and good.
NR strategem has superb niche use and is diverse too.
NG strategem is a good advantage and changes the way opponent plays.
SY strategem seems decent. It sees some use.
MO strategem seems good, but is generally not used.
SK strategem seems weird and not very popular.

Of the neutral ones, magic lamp seems to be the most popular, while many also stick with the traditional one (tactical advantage). Other than that it seems the other ones are more niche. Among them crystal skull seems most useful, and I've seen it used in various ways, so I think it's good enough. Cursed Scroll seems fine, and I've seen it used too. It's a "super mulligan".

That leaves us with basilisk venom and ceremonial dagger as the ones that seem to need a looking into. Ceremonial dagger is only 3 damage, which can be useful if you add other damage, but is it enough? All the other strategems have 4 or 5 value, while this one has 3.

Basilisk venom, I don't even know how to look at this. Poison a chosen unit would probably be a bit too much, but poison a random one is just bad. Poison seems to be valued at 1-2p by CDPR, so this is then the worst strategem by far, since it is also random. Random poison on 1 or 2 cards on the board is ofcourse not random, but doesn't really make up for it. I guess like NG strategem it will make the opponent change their opening plays, but is this overall good value?

So to sum it up..

Strategems that definetely don't need looking into:
ST, NR, NG, lamp, TA

Strategems that probably don't need looking into:
Skull, Scroll, SY

Strategems that may need reconsideration (due to low use):
MO

Strategems that need looking into:
basilisk, dagger, SK

You must Consider the amount of value they bring, first of all, Damage worths more than Points on your side, because of the Removal potential, So 3 Damage is fine, if other Strategems are going to play for 5.
Monster one is terrible, it's a worse version of Djinn, most Value you can get from it is 5 Points, by using it on Harpy egg, which is basically a lamp Djinn under a Condition that you might not get, it needs to boost the Card by one atleast, in order to be better than Lamp Djinn in Deathwish decks, but as a whole, I believe Strategems should play for a 4 Prov Card, right now some of them do some of then don't, ST and NG one play for 4 Prov, ST basically plays a decent 4 prov card, and NG one worths 4 prov too, lock with 3 Damage worths 4 Prov if not more, but the others, well they don't play for a 4 Prov card, SK one, is a Skald without a body, yes you Draw the Card then Discard, but it's not a big value really, NR one is good, can protect a good card, it's one of the good ones, just use this on Anna Strenger or something and you have big advantage, SC one is also good, since coin can be used differently, though boosting a unit by one would make it to be a Medium power 4 Prov card value, Neutrals are supposed to be worth less, but I'm not sure if that's good idea in general, specially regarding Strategems.

 

[mazeebra]

Monster one is terrible, it's a worse version of Djinn, most Value you can get from it is 5 Points, by using it on Harpy egg, which is basically a lamp Djinn under a Condition t.....

Well, the MO strategem is flexible, and it depends on what kind of value you are looking for. It can be used with any bronze deathwish unit and whatever they might do. But anyways, as I've noted it seems that it see almost no use at all, despite my personal feeling/view about it.

I guess an alternative could be a consume token with 0 body that can consume anything and turns into an Ekkimara. But that would probably be OP. It seems consume is more desireable than a deathwish trigger. Some MO decks struggle with consume balance in their decks, and a consume token could be useful.

I dunno. It just seems the current one is not popular. It might be you're right, that it's just not good. I've not played much MO, but when I did, I did find good use for the MO Strategem, but that was probably due to the type of MO deck I was playing, probably not even good (MO novice). In my such experience, I did get good value from the strategem and it was flexible as well. But my deck, well..

Regarding dagger, it doesn't seem popular, and to be more in line with others, perhaps it should be 4 damage instead? NG one does 3 damage and locks, so it's better ofcourse than dagger.

 

[Tyr117]

Well, the MO strategem is flexible, and it depends on what kind of value you are looking for. It can be used with any bronze deathwish unit and whatever they might do. But anyways, as I've noted it seems that it see almost no use at all, despite my personal feeling/view about it.

I guess an alternative could be a consume token with 0 body that can consume anything and turns into an Ekkimara. But that would probably be OP. It seems consume is more desireable than a deathwish trigger. Some MO decks struggle with consume balance in their decks, and a consume token could be useful.

I dunno. It just seems the current one is not popular. It might be you're right, that it's just not good. I've not played much MO, but when I did, I did find good use for the MO Strategem, but that was probably due to the type of MO deck I was playing, probably not even good (MO novice). In my such experience, I did get good value from the strategem and it was flexible as well. But my deck, well..

Regarding dagger, it doesn't seem popular, and to be more in line with others, perhaps it should be 4 damage instead? NG one does 3 damage and locks, so it's better ofcourse than dagger.

I play MO as my Second faction, and the Stratagem is not good I tell you, no reason to use it instead of Lamp Djinn, and it's not Dynamic because there aren't many diverse Bronze Deathwishes, except for Rotfiend, but that is Random Damage, so it's not that good. Dagger doesn't seem bad, but the existence of Collar makes you wonder why should I play this when NG has a much better version of it, but I do believe it can work in a SK Bloodthirst deck, because it can help you with Bloodthirst.

 

[mazeebra]

I play MO as my Second faction, and the Stratagem is not good I tell you, no reason to use it instead of Lamp Djinn, and it's not Dynamic because there aren't many diverse Bronze Deathwishes, except for Rotfiend, but that is Random Damage, so it's not that good. Dagger doesn't seem bad, but the existence of Collar makes you wonder why should I play this when NG has a much better version of it, but I do believe it can work in a SK Bloodthirst deck, because it can help you with Bloodthirst.

As I said, I accept that. It's probably not good, which is why it see so little use..

I don't think dagger should just be useful with a single faction or deck type. My personal view is that 3 damage is not enough, and that 4 damage would make this strategem more or less as good as the other useful ones.

 

[Guest 4368268]

So the buffing of stratagems doesn't seem to be on the agenda but meanwhile some of them have been nerfed.
I think this should be more of a priority and I'm surprised they've not said a word about his. I'm seeing a good share of coinflip abuse style decks again (Monsters with Winter Queen, any deck that runs a stratagem, Imperial formation decks)
I just hope it gets their attention sooner rather than later.