[Suggestion] gold untis shouldn't stay on the battlefield with the Monster ability

[ChargeEquity]

[Suggestion] gold untis shouldn't stay on the battlefield with the Monster ability

So its pretty simple. Today I came across a guy who just placed Gerald in the first turn and passed, the Monster ability and got triggered and gerald stayed on the battlefield. This seems somewhat unfair since gold cards can't be affected by cards so they shouldn't be affected by abilities.

 

[Toyen]

Exactly. This makes the monster ability OP. Gold Units should be excluded from it.

 

[Vellax]

This has been suggested and discussed in multiple threads in the last few days, such as here, here, here and here, amongst others. Adding your input to one of the existing threads would probably be better.

 

[BlackWolf500.298]

I disagree. I had a lot of matches were my STR 12 or 10 gold unit stayed on the battlefield and I still lost.
It doesn't make it necessarily OP. ~ 10 STR can easily be balanced out by other cards, it's not different than a Manticore staying on the battlefield, except for the fact that you can not scorch it, but the scorchability is highly situational anyway (since it is not guaranteed you pick up a scorch card).

 

[Nyanko73]

Personally I think it should stay as it is. There are some neutral cards such as Triss and Yennefer which can damage golds and the NR deck can even be built exclusively for the complete destruction of golds. So it is not an issue in my opinion.

What they should do is not giving Eredin as the first leader for monsters. Cause his ability combined with the faction skill is just too steep for starter deck opponents.

 

[Blackshatan]

Get better deck and that ability is not a problem anymore.

 

[Maerd]

I can also confirm that as soon as you stuff your deck with certain gold and silver cards monster power is beatable. When you just beginning and don't have much of a variety then yes, with proper selection of cheap cards playing monsters are almost unbeatable. Nowadays everybody seem like stuffed with unique golden cards which cost 800 to craft, but when they were rare and in between I had a miraculous streak of wins in a row with my monster deck.

 

[Gersen]

Personally I play a monster deck most of the time currently and I don't really see this ability being really OP(i.e. to keep a gold card with the ability), in most of the match I did, it either kept a Foglet or the cow rather than keeping the gold card or a strong card in general.

 

[YeOldeMurloc]

I disagree. There are only 4 (5 with Eredin leader card) gold cards you can have in Monster deck. They aren't necessarily stronger than other cards. They can't get buffed so yeah you could get to keep that 12 strength Geralt from first round, but you could also get to keep a monster that is buffed to like 24 strength that is silver or bronze.

Numerous times Monster passive perk has kept a foglet instead of any other monster for me. Removing gold cards would lessen the chance to keep something decent even more and then the Monster perk just becomes dull.

 

[Fillory]

If someone plays one card and passes, you're pretty much guaranteed to win the overall match. If you honestly see the people doing that as a problem, then you're doing something wrong.