Suggestion: Gimpy should get a slight nerf

[Archan6el]

I just experienced a "Gimpy loss" with my Draug deck. I can honestly tell you that the feeling you get from losing in such a way is to not play this game anymore. I can't imagine how developers can even design such a high variance archetype-slamming card. But hey, there are also unlimited damage (and unlimited variance) cards like Geralt and Bonhart, so I shouldn't be surprised.

 

[Mr_Toot]

Gimpy is way to good. Pretty consistent 9 value for 8p with removal potential is just very good on its own.
The real problem with this card is that by being run in almost every competitive deck you are strongly discouraged to even try certain cards thus limiting variance and viable strategies.
Gimpy is good against: Dettlaff, Henselt, Wild Hunt RIders, Impera Brigade, Scoia'tael Nephyte. Mahakam Volnuteers, Drummond Shieldmaiden, Reinforcement
Gimpy is great against: Arachas Queen, Nekkers, Slave Infantry, Blue Stripes Commando, Cintrian Royal Guard, Water of Brokilon
Gimpy is absolutely insane against: Draug, Arachas Behemoth, Kaedweni Revenant, Drummond Queensguard.
I would like it to be changed to either be more of a techcard (something like 1power same ability) or only damage 2 copies.

 

[Pounc3e]

Solution:
Gimpy as Neutral.

Ability Rework: 3 Strength, 8 Provision.
Deploy (Melee): Damage an enemy and all copies of it by 1.
Deathblow: Boost self by 3, (and gain resilience).

Ability Rework: 3 Strength, 8 Provision.
Deploy (Melee): Damage an enemy and a copy of it by 3.

 

[BrokeCiri]

Although, his appearance and size does seem familiar to the other Dwarves if you examine the art within the card unless he is an enemy to the other Dwarves

Gimpy is as tall as Meve. The card art for Gimpy is in a worms-eye perspective that's why he kinda looks short and Gimpy has no known association with Scoia'tael or non-humans so the idea of making him ST is not viable (unless you have data that proves his association with Dwarves?)

 

[MysticJoey]

Just limit him to attacking 2 units so he doesn't completely destroy some archetypes

 

[Pounc3e]

Gimpy is as tall as Meve. The card art for Gimpy is in a worms-eye perspective that's why he kinda looks short and Gimpy has no known association with Scoia'tael or non-humans so the idea of making him ST is not viable (unless you have data that proves his association with Dwarves?)

Solution:
Gimpy as Neutral.

Ability Rework: 3 Strength, 8 Provision.
Deploy (Melee): Damage an enemy and all copies of it by 1.
Deathblow: Boost self by 3, (and gain resilience).

Ability Rework: 3 Strength, 8 Provision.
Deploy (Melee): Damage an enemy and a copy of it by 3.

 

[BrokeCiri]

Solution:
Gimpy as Neutral.

Ability Rework: 3 Strength, 8 Provision.
Deploy (Melee): Damage an enemy and all copies of it by 1.
Deathblow: Boost self by 3, (and gain resilience).

Calculation:
3 + 1 Damage = 5 + 3 Boost self = 8
Gimpy will have a value of 8 for 8 Provision. Dealing damage to 2 copies of the enemy, could be more if extra of the same enemy unit.

ummm okay but why are you quoting me? and you haven't answered my question

but if you want me to comment okay then. Without deathblow or copied units target he is only at 4:8 and that's a lot of value shortage. Deathblow is also not guaranteed and in addition to that, how does deathblow interact with multiple kills? This mechanic is not yet present in the game. Will it be +3 only or +3 for every unit killed? Your calculation is only if all conditions are met.

Just make him "damage an enemy and a copy of it by 3". 6:8 and becomes 9:8 if there's a copy. "All copies" is too much especially for AQ and Draug decks.

 

[Pounc3e]

ummm okay but why are you quoting me? and you haven't answered my question

but if you want me to comment okay then. Without deathblow or copied units target he is only at 4:8 and that's a lot of value shortage. Deathblow is also not guaranteed and in addition to that, how does deathblow interact with multiple kills? This mechanic is not yet present in the game. Will it be +3 only or +3 for every unit killed? Your calculation is only if all conditions are met.

Just make him "damage an enemy and a copy of it by 3". 6:8 and becomes 9:8 if there's a copy. "All copies" is too much especially for AQ and Draug decks.

There you go! Jolly well done sir, you've hit the nail on the head, do make sure to let CDPR know this solution of yours.

 

[Moors-]

Provision nerf is not enough, Gerwin still needs reduced damage and max targets number

 

[rrc]

Provision nerf is not enough, Gerwin still needs reduced damage and max targets number

He is a tech card. Now, if he doesn't have two targets, he has -3 cost deficient which is severe. Capping max targets or reducing damage on top of this will be too much of a nerf. I think he is fine now.

 

[Archan6el]

He is a tech card. Now, if he doesn't have two targets, he has -3 cost deficient which is severe. Capping max targets or reducing damage on top of this will be too much of a nerf. I think he is fine now.

He slams swarm archetypes due to his high variance, so he isn't fine. It's not so difficult to come up with a creative solution to reduce his variance and still keep him interesting. Like: 8 provisions. 4 strength. Damage one enemy by 3. If there are two copies of an enemy, damage an additional copy by 2. If there are more than two copies of an enemy, damage a third copy by 1.

 

[Fillory]

He slams swarm archetypes due to his high variance, so he isn't fine. It's not so difficult to come up with a creative solution to reduce his variance and still keep him interesting. Like: 8 provisions. 4 strength. Damage one enemy by 3. If there are two copies of an enemy, damage an additional copy by 2. If there are more than two copies of an enemy, damage a third copy by 1.

Nerfing a card because it counters a single type of playstyle would be senseless. Who cares if Gimpy counters swarming? You don't nerf something that's fine 99% of the time just because it may serve as a hard-counter to a specific type of deck during that other 1%. That isn't how balance works.

 

[Archan6el]

Nerfing a card because it counters a single type of playstyle would be senseless. Who cares if Gimpy counters swarming? You don't nerf something that's fine 99% of the time just because it may serve as a hard-counter to a specific type of deck during that other 1%. That isn't how balance works.

Do you know what balanced is? Dictionary: "taking everything into account" "in good proportions". The nerf would only limit his ability towards swarming (more than 2-3 copies), so that would be perfectly balanced.

 

[Alexander_Volgin]

Nerfing one hard counter makes room for more interesting deck building archetypes. Swam is definitely something that should have a decent place in Gwent if we think long term. Heck, it already stands at a decent place now, with combos such as Pavetta + bluestripes+Draug. Slave infantry + Vreemde+vrygheff+Ointment+Necromancy etc.

Swam decks can never become meta, just because of this card. It is very frustrating to play a deck, that may or may not be countred with a single card.

 

[mzeebra]

I think this card would be solved if it does not do any damage to a single card, but ONLY if there are duplicates. It would definitely no longer be auto-include, and the generic aspect of it would vanish.

3 power and 3 damage for 8 provisions (previously) was pretty decent value when the card "bricked". 3 power and 3 damage for 9 provisions is still decent when the card bricks. Let's say someone plays 2 bronze cards that are the same, it will be 9 points for 9 provisions.

In that case gimpy only gives more value in special situations like Blue Stripes, Slave Infantry, Draug and probably some others I can't think of atm.