Professional isn't binary as you can use other resources to set it up. The other cards aren't necessarily binary either as you can buff your opponents cards to remove them.
Professional isn't binary as you can use other resources to set it up. The other cards aren't necessarily binary either as you can buff your opponents cards to remove them.
Not sure about the ability to see the oponent’s deck list but the ban makes perfect sense. You are spot on about the vicious circle. I’d love to see a change to the ranking system that would require players (at least at higher ranks, e.g. 10 and less) to play more than one faction in order to progress.
One of the changes I liked since homecoming (they are few and far between but they do exist,) is the ability to look at your own deck. In a tournament, you can take a second to look at your opponents deck list (not their hand, but their deck list,) to plan your startegy. For example you see a chrionx, do you kill it or not, check the decklist for a unicorn. Or your going up against Eredin, you have a 12 point lead in round 1. Do you pass, or does the opponent have speartip? If the tournaments are supposed to be the preferred method of competitive Gwent, then why not introduce these features in ranked Gwent. All you would need to do is click on your opponents deck and see all 25 cards, with no order or hand information provided.
Their effect is binary, it's unlimited removal, a unit lives or dies, 1 or 0, there's nothing in between. Professional is indeed in lesser extend binary as he does at a minimum 3 damage, but any multitude of 3 and it's the same binary effect.
I don't see how making these cards weak solves anything. Maybe scorch shouldn't work passed 10 points?
In its current iteration, Scorch MUST do what it does. However, in a game with such a massive amount of low point units, it seems much more ridiculous that a deck like Big Monsters can throw down Speartip, Caldwell, Golyat, Speartip Asleep with next to no risk because ghouls.
It would make considerably more sense to have cards like Geralt Professional with 9 power, 3 damage but only to MO decks. Get the hyper-removal numbers down, nothing should do MASSIVE damage. Play card, remove, play card remove, play card, remove - it's awful.
In addition, Witchers should in no way, shape or form be part of a Monster deck. They need to vastly expand the card repertoire but keep a close eye on lore and introduce card bans. So Witchers in all other decks, fine, but not Monsters.
There's a lot of simple stuff CDPR get repeatedly wrong. Increase the first hand back to 13, remove upper limit, bring back blacklisting, bring in silvers. Still to this day cannot understand what was wrong with Gwent Beta in this regard.
The solution is every card should have multiple effects. I.e destroy a unit if played on melee, or summon/destroy artifact if placed on ranged. Sieze artifacts should also be a thing. Weather would be accomplished quite nicely if certain cards could bring or calm the weather (give mages a lot more to do.) This game makes 3 crucial mistakes.
1. Focuses too much on damage cards.
2. Individual cards lack identity. For example slave driver damages by 2 increase by 1 for each locked unit. Every faction has a variation of this card. Drowner, elven sword master (I think that's her name,) SK has the 4 random damage guy and the 3 with 3 damage if bloodlust 2, and NR has the arbilist. This is just one example, there are plenty more.
3. Neutrals are often better finishers than faction specific cards. There are exceptions (NR has a few that come to mind,) but for the most part, neutrals should be useful, but not dominant.
Binary is an issue don't get me wrong, but the bigger issue is Gwent is a rock paper scissors right now. Every competitive deck has weaknesses that almost guarantee losses against specific factions. This means that who you play when you play is far more important than skill. This is the kiss of death for any game claiming to be a skill based strategy competition.
You think that a 3 point Geralt that does 8 damage is weak? Seriously?
Why are you talking about Scorch and thereby muddying the waters? I have no issues with Scorch, it's a cool and strategic card as I mentioned before. Units that do unlimited damage and therefore binary removal are not cool.
Hmm.... That's actually rather funny
. Not disagreeing with you but it's funny, nonetheless. "Also, rows in the front and back would always grant a different buff when a unit is placed there."
Wonder where that quote is from....
Another binary example: A 7 provision Champion's Charge that destroys a unit with 3 Bloodlust. Now with free 3 instant and uncounterable Bloodlust from Arnjolf, who summons a bunch of damaged Sirens to fight with you against him (eh, what?). As Bloodlust is so difficult to set up (not), let's make it instant (binary) Bloodlust 3 and enable all Bloodlust units. I find this really poorly designed and uncreative, because the goal is so blatantly obvious. Let Arnjolf do some damage to existing enemy units. Then it at least makes sense and is more of a challenge, especially when the opponent is boosting.
Hmm.... That's actually rather funny
"Also, rows in the front and back would always grant a different buff when a unit is placed there."
Wonder where that quote is from....
Take it one step further. have multiple abilities on both rows. This way each card can carry out 4 functions. Makes games more fresh
Post automatically merged:
I disagree with this example, (not the whole argument, just the example.) The value of the instant 3 bloodlust is one card can be played for max bonus. A enemy hand that runs counters, spears, healers, etc..., will be able to limit it to one use. Also in the grand scheme of things, as leader abilities go, that isn't so overpowered. It always has a net value of 6. With a 9 point leader card ripe for the big killers or G professional. MO has Eredin's wrath, NG has the guy who kills locked units, ST has a guy who does his own power as damage, and NR has a dualist. Every deck needs one clear the big cards that require a little setup, but not to much.
Last edited:
But that's the whole point. The 3 Bloodlust doesn't require a little setup, it requires no setup. You can go from 0 to 3 and then play a card with Bloodlust. It's instant and therefore binary, enabling all Bloodlust cards, including the binary Champion's Charge. SK has enough units and artifacts to set up Bloodlust when properly played, so therefore I find Arnjolf just lame design. Lazy Bloodlust I will call it.
Edit, add: Btw, you're promoting some binary stuff: killing Arnjolf with "big killers or G professional". No please. Seems you got acclimitized to it
Last edited:
But that's the whole point. The 3 Bloodlust doesn't require a little setup, it requires no setup. You can go from 0 to 3 and then play a card with Bloodlust. It's instant and therefore binary, enabling all Bloodlust cards, including the binary Champion's Charge. SK has enough units and artifacts to set up Bloodlust when properly played, so therefore I find Arnjolf just lame design. Lazy Bloodlust I will call it.
Edit, add: Btw, you're promoting some binary stuff: killing Arnjolf with "big killers or G professional". No please. Seems you got acclimitized to it
Lol, let me be a bit more clear. You can heal or kill the minions that spawn. It is true that you get champion's challenge for free. It is also true that there are a number of high value cards that require bloodlust 2 or 3 including an 11 point play (I forgot his name.) You can cheese it, but only once. Also, leader synergy must count for something with the deck. Look at Maeve, Emher, Eredin, etc... It is a one time one round bonus. I don't mind it so much within the context of a single round.
As for promoting binary, I was explaining it in the current meta, if you want to create a new meta for me I would be cool with that too
Well it would be objectively weaker and not as interesting. I also think professional is a cool and strategic card and scorch fits your criteria for "unlimited damage". Doesn't make sense to pick and choose.
Yes, it would be weaker, that's the whole idea. It wouldn't be "weak" like you stated; 8 damage from a unit is still very strong. The first post says "Cards like Villentretenmerth and Scorch stay the same of course." Scorch is more expensive and can backfire/brick when you have the highest unit. It requires strategic setup. So it does make sense to pick and choose; you got to look at the card's abilities and cost in detail and not just use "unlimited damage" as sole criteria.
I don't think professional is too strong so I don't see the issue. You could only get 6 points from him and he does have a requirement so he is a more strategic card than many other cards we can name which is just drop for instant points at any moment. Everything you are saying about scorch is true for professional. It could brick and it can require set up. Both cards could also hit without any type of set up. All depends on the match.
Nope, any multitude of three works.
Nope. You know the cards right? Geralt Professional is at least 3 points or 6 points when doing the minimum 3 damage. When you have the highest unit, you cannot play Scorch. Quite different.
While true it's only usable in a single round. CC pairs well with Arnjolf but bear in mind it throws zero points on the board. It's a 7p card but even if it kills, say, an 8 it's 8 value for 7p. A Geralt or Leo would net 11 value for 10p there because they put a 3 body on the board. Anything above an 8 fits the same theme because something like Geralt would kill that too. Basically, CC is overrated. It could conceivably work better compared to G: Pro because there is no multiple of 3 requirement. The real advantage of CC is the cost of 7p. It fills a tall unit removal option at a relatively low cost. So the rest of the deck can be better for slightly less of a swing on big boy removal.
Arnjolf may instantly activate stuff like Pirate Captain, Donar, or Regis, true. The first two can be activated in other ways and, again, it's one round. The last has play around ability (buff the 2's since you cannot stop the 1's, maybe carry and save a reset/tall removal because Regis in that scenario screams Greatswords/Dagur). You can always bleed to force all of that power out as well. Regis ain't doing much in a short R3.
I suspect the philosophy behind Arnjolf is similar to a lot of leaders. R2 dry-passing was common in a lot of games. So we end up with a lot of leaders you want to bleed to force the leader out, depending on match-up. Thus, R2 sees play. It's likely the same deal with stuff like Eredin Slyzard. Make up a problem (R2 dry-passing), devise an ass backwards solution (overpowered single round stuff), and inevitably create another problem (forced to bleed) to solve it. Of course, this is unquestionably tin foil hat land, Eredin has had immune on it and Slyzard has existed for a while.
This philosophy is probably why we have bleed happy leaders/concepts like Gernichora too. The, "I can put 25-30 points on the board in 2 cards so I'm going to play cards until R3 is a 4ish card round", deck build. Best case I overpower you because barring MS, most decks cannot put 25-30 pts on a board in 2 cards in a short round. Other best case I blindly throw my 13 pt Speartip on the board, you don't draw your tall counter, and I get free CA headed to R3.
I'm not saying the tall counters aren't semi-binary in nature. Kill big thing or translate to garbage value for high cost. The big units, DD + Nivellen, Artifacts and half the game is also binary. If one is getting adjusted the others must be too. Adjusted doesn't mean nerfed into oblivion either (Sihil + impending Spearpocalypse).
I'd prefer if the game was more dynamic. To toss out an example, consider Yoana. This card almost never sees play. Fun fact about Yoana, "adjacent" doesn't only mean on either side of her. It also means in front or behind her. Yes, if you put a unit on the other row behind or in front of Yaona and it gets damaged she gets a charge. There is a great example of where not only does card sequence/combos matter but so does placement. #gooddesign. Unfortunately, Yoana always gets murdered because, "boost by 2 when adjacent units take damage", is trouble when unanswered. So poor Yoana sits in the deck builder.
G: Pro can pseudo brick too. It's 11p because it still gets value when it does brick. Geralt is 10, Leo is 10. Both get 3 value vs 6 when they brick. Granted, Leo is typically like G: Pro where it can bomb a Witcher for 6 in MU's where it's probably not nabbing something above an 8. Possibly 8-10 with Knights. Usually it's at least hitting for 8 in NG mirrors no matter what (Serrit, Auckes).
Scorch is... good when it works and garbage when it doesn't. 14p is insane. 14p is more insane when you need to kill 1-2 big boys, quite a bit of medium sized units or a metric ton of little guys to get value. At least Scorch is viable in some decks, however. It's not in Geralt: Igni territory
.I was saying you could only get 3 points of damage from him which is a total of only 6 points.
It's not that different. My point was both cards can not find their preferred target and both cards can find their target with no set up. If you build your deck for it you aren't going to have a big enough unit on your side to block scorch. Your complaint about an unlimited ceiling is true on both cards but for some reason you only care about nerfing professional because you find scorch to be more interesting which is subjective.
Not sure what you mean about artifacts, but personally I disagree with everything else. Falibor is underwhelming already. A special needs card indeed. Why would I ever bring him? And then you want to reduce the damage to make him even more useless? I like the change they did to him with this update, basically just lowering the provision cost.
Geralt is good as it is, he is a giant killer and should be. Being able to destroy ridiculously boosted card is needed. The cost of bringing him is not exactly low, and his point value not high, so it's a well balanced card. Both of them. But perhaps you use a monster deck and just want nobody to be able to kill high point units? Keep boosting them forever?
Why would Geralt care about some random soldier? Geralt is a monster killer, not a soldier. Ofcourse any "army" would send him (Geralt), their very strongest man against the very strongest opponent! It makes perfect sense.