Suggestion Usurper

+
Finally, there is the role of the meta-buster a.k.a. the anti-meta hero. Cards, combos and mechanics can be individually balanced, but it's far more interesting to let the meta balance itself, as long as no deck or combo is unbeatable. There will also be popular decks and some have a very strong game plan.

Unfortunately Usurper doesent only counter the meta, but also counters other meta-countering decks. As result we see less variety, and more complaints about the balance given how popular Usurper has become.
 
You missed the point. Fortunately, someone else explained it well (after making the same mistake):


---



Usurper has a very interesting design precisely because he is unconventional. There are two important aspects to him. First of all is the role of reversal. Playing him is actually not what requires the most strategy, it's playing against him and making your deck work without its leader. This could be perceived by some as an interesting challenge and a break from the usual auto-pilot gameplay rather than something to be annoyed about.

Finally, there is the role of the meta-buster a.k.a. the anti-meta hero. Cards, combos and mechanics can be individually balanced, but it's far more interesting to let the meta balance itself, as long as no deck or combo is unbeatable. There will also be popular decks and some have a very strong game plan. So, counter decks* will be created to combat this. And when these decks become too popular, they themselves will be countered by yet another deck. For this to happen, the game needs the tools to counter anything (but not everything**). Well, some leaders are very threatening, especially when they can decide the flow of the game. And so, Usurper is born to answer the call. It's not even about him being popular, but rather about the fear of facing him and making sure your deck has alternative ways to win. A competitive deck is rarely a one-trick-pony.

* To clarify, with counters, I don't just mean "aggressive" counters, like locks and removal, but also natural counters, like playing point slam against removal or engines against point slam.

** No deck should be able to counter everything, but they should at least have the means to counter anything they perceive as a threat. Because of this, some players will run artifact removal, while others rather take a(n extra) lock, for example. This also depends on the meta.
You can debate on it's role all day and the semantics of it.

The real question it's still the same, is he fun to use or to play against?

Absolutely not.

He was more fun and unconventional in beta, where you had to work with the enemie's leader's ability.
 
The real question it's still the same, is he fun to use or to play against?

Absolutely not.

As I have said, that depends on the player. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean everyone shares the same opinion.

Playing him is actually not what requires the most strategy, it's playing against him and making your deck work without its leader. This could be perceived by some as an interesting challenge and a break from the usual auto-pilot gameplay rather than something to be annoyed about.
 
As I have said, that depends on the player. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean everyone shares the same opinion.
You are a moderator here, I can say you know I am not the only one.

We have threads about him, Reddit has weekly posts about him and I tried to go back a couple of seasons and he is the only constantly complained about no matter what the meta.

And again that quote does not mean anything, I used a leader dependant deck a week ago and now I am not anymore and I am laughing every time Usurper is against me, because I know he has a shit deck with basically non-existent combo. I moved from a 50-50 to a 80% winning rate against him, is that fun? Is it fun for you to have the match decided before it even starts in the offchance to have a fun deck that can work with and without leader just to use your wits and try to win?
 
You can debate on it's role all day and the semantics of it.

The real question it's still the same, is he fun to use or to play against?

Absolutely not.

He was more fun and unconventional in beta, where you had to work with the enemie's leader's ability.


Is it fun to play against a no unit deck with basically only artifacts and immune units to 'play' against?
Absolutely not

A lot was better in beta. Only the balance was always way off.

Playing with the enemies leader ability would not make sense anymore against some leaders. There is no synergy with Arachas Drones or Gernichora's fruit for example and you have little use for the Coins from Syndicate leaders.

If all cards would be like always X points for X provisions the game would become boring as well but there should be some downside for all greedy card combos.
 
Is it fun to play against a no unit deck with basically only artifacts and immune units to 'play' against?
Absolutely not


If all cards would be like always X points for X provisions the game would become boring as well but there should be some downside for all greedy card combos.

I didnt know that no-unit was still a thing, seems legit.

If I got bored of playing a deck that always gave X points for X provisions, I would probably change to another deck that gave X points for X provisions. Oh wait, I cant do this, because of Usuper that makes many other leader dependent decks unplayable. And since he is quite popular, I dont think that anyone would have any incentitve to try to build a deck around a leader that struggles against Usurper.

Downside to greedy card combos ? Hmm I may actually build a deck that counters those, I know, I'll try Eithne.
First match; I will make Nilfgaard great again.
Deck deleted.


You can debate on it's role all day and the semantics of it.
The real question it's still the same, is he fun to use or to play against?

Absolutely not.

He was more fun and unconventional in beta, where you had to work with the enemie's leader's ability.

As I have said, that depends on the player. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean everyone shares the same opinion.
- Come on, No-fun Usurper meme has existed ever since the Launch of Homecoming, please dont tell me that you believe that majority of players think that Usurper is the most exciting leader to play with or against.
Post automatically merged:

Finally, there is the role of the meta-buster a.k.a. the anti-meta hero. Cards, combos and mechanics can be individually balanced, but it's far more interesting to let the meta balance itself, as long as no deck or combo is unbeatable.


I would be very careful with allowing Usurper to balance the meta. The end result is that leaders we in the current meta consider 'OP' will probably not be balanced, as their winrate is reduced due to presence of Usurper, leading the developers to believe that everything is fine (based on statistics).

I'm worried that Usurper will retain a solid position in the meta in the seasons to come. I dont think that this is the game most of us would consider balanced (due to lack of playable varieties) nor enjoyable.
 
Last edited:
You are a moderator here, I can say you know I am not the only one.

We have threads about him, Reddit has weekly posts about him and I tried to go back a couple of seasons and he is the only constantly complained about no matter what the meta.

Not the only one? Yes. The majority? Maybe. Fun remains subjective, though. As for the complains, players will always find something and, as a result, almost every leader has had some kind of complained against him/her. Usurper is special here because of his natural ability to not give a... rat's ass.

Is it fun for you to have the match decided before it even starts in the offchance to have a fun deck that can work with and without leader just to use your wits and try to win?

Rarely is a match decided solely based on the deck players are using. Besides, what you are describing doesn't just apply to Usurper. It's just that Usurper is an obvious target for hatred because he doesn't have any natural nemeses. He can win against every deck almost as often as he can lose.

- Come on, No-fun Usurper meme has existed ever since the Launch of Homecoming, please dont tell me that you believe that majority of players think that Usurper is the most exciting leader to play with or against.

I've said nothing about the majority of players nor about the most exciting leader. I've just said that one shouldn't automatically assume that because (s)he feels that way, everyone shares the same opinion. Personally, I don't dislike playing (against) Usurper, but I can understand why some players do hate it.

I would be very careful with allowing Usurper to balance the meta. The end result is that leaders we in the current meta consider 'OP' will probably not be balanced, as their winrate is reduced due to presence of Usurper, leading the developers to believe that everything is fine (based on statistics).

First of all, Usurper doesn't balance the meta on its own. It's a team effort. For example, if tall units become the norm, then tall removal will also see a rise in popularity. Something similar happened when a lot of players started including Bomb to banish the SY ship, during the first few weeks after SY's release. Usurper is just part of the whole package, here.

Secondly, there are always favorable match-ups and the devs are aware of this. Usurper is no exception here. The devs will look at the win rate versus every faction and leader; not just the overall win rate. However, this does potentially present an interesting dilemma. Hypothetically speaking, if leader A defeats leader B 90% of the time and B defeats C 90% of the time and C defeats A 90% of the time, then the game is technically balanced. However, this is not a desirable situation. The win rates should be closer to 50%. Then again, if all leaders have around 50% win rate, there won't be a meta revolution. So, a little win rate variance is still needed.
 
So if you can't win or have fun when your leader's ability is deactivated, maybe the problem is the way leaders are designed, not the cards that block them? As far as Gwent's leaders go, Usurper is the only one that has virtually no impact on the design space for gold and bronze cards. Seriously, you can design cards as strong or crazy as you like and not have to worry about Usurper combining with them to make some insane 90%win-10% loss deck that sucks all the fun out of the meta. Can't say that for any of the other leaders. Heck, just look at the one card designed to specifically counter Usurper, Damien de la Tour. Tech with a body that actually gains utility in any other match up outside Usurper. And because Usurper has no need for Damien in his decks, that additional utility isn't unbalancing when considering how it impacts Usurper.


Instead of whining to nerf the one balanced, least problematic of Gwent's leaders, look at where the problem really lies. Leaders need a rework, and preferably one that moves away from one ability that creates leader synergy decks where the game plan is to activate the leader's ability as last say in R3.
 
Instead of whining to nerf the one balanced, least problematic of Gwent's leaders, look at where the problem really lies. Leaders need a rework, and preferably one that moves away from one ability that creates leader synergy decks where the game plan is to activate the leader's ability as last say in R3.

They dont need rework, as provisions of problematic leaders can be reduced. Achieving what the comunity truly ask for, which is balance, with minimum efford, while keeping it exciting for the community by giving them the option to build a deck around any leader they like.
However, the balanced leaders wont be playable since these leaders will struggle most against Usurper (if their provision is reduced on par with Usurpers), and the meta will deviate towards Usurper as the most frequent played leader, in presence of the balanced leader dependent decks. This is why he needs a rework. Because we cannot trully have a balanced game, in presence of Usurper.

We had the same problem with Gimpy Gerwin. There were practically no swam decks, and on paper wouldn't be, given how easy it was to tech-up against them with a single card, that also provided utility in terms of removal.
 
They dont need rework, as provisions of problematic leaders can be reduced. Achieving what the comunity truly ask for, which is balance, with minimum efford, while keeping it exciting for the community by giving them the option to build a deck around any leader they like.
Provisions don't really work that well for leaders. Too low, and the problem gets worse, too high and they become unplayable. It also doesn't address the fact that nearly all of Gwent's leaders have synergy that broadly falls into either point slam or card advantage. Many of them also require reactive plays to gain full benefit of their ability. Outside a few outlier scenarios involving Filavandral, there is little to be gained from proactively playing a leader ability early in the game. Combined with powercreep, particularly within removal and denial tech, and all Gwent's leaders do for the game is encourage linear strategy geared toward having the final say in the last round of the match.

However, the balanced leaders wont be playable since these leaders will struggle most against Usurper (if their provision is reduced on par with Usurpers), and the meta will deviate towards Usurper as the most frequent played leader, in presence of the balanced leader dependent decks. This is why he needs a rework. Because we cannot trully have a balanced game, in presence of Usurper.
In the past, when the meta has been more balanced compared to the current one, Usurper hasn't seen a massive spike in popularity. People like to build and play interesting decks and combos. It makes sense then, that when one's deck experiences a good distribution of wins and losses in a diverse meta, people don't feel the need to build decks that effectively hard counter one or two T1 decks. Again, look at where the problem lies in the current meta. It is not Usurper being able to block a leader's ability. If it were, then Usurper would have been the most played leader throughout HC.

The only reason Usurper's ability could really be considered for a rework is that it isn't a particularly strong ability for the decks he is in. Other leaders generate value and gain advantage for their decks. Usurper does none of that, leaving the heavy work of dismantling the opponent's strategy to the rest of the cards in his deck. Usurper doesn't affect the other cards in his opponent's deck, so if built for full control and removal, often Usurper will have insufficient points on bodies to win the final round.

However, if we consider that mono-ability leaders create more problems for Gwent than interesting play, then reworking leaders should be to give them extra abilities. For instance each leader could have a strong activated, but counterable ability and a minor, uncounterable passive ability. They would need to be flexible enough that playing them at any point in the game provides maximum efficiency. Cards like Usurper become less fun for fans of leader-synergy decks because they have more build options available to them. Even Usurper could benefit from havinga second ability. But, these abilities shouldn't be game-winning on their own.
 
Rarely is a match decided solely based on the deck players are using. Besides, what you are describing doesn't just apply to Usurper. It's just that Usurper is an obvious target for hatred because he doesn't have any natural nemeses. He can win against every deck almost as often as he can lose.
It DOES apply only to Usurper. No other leader is capable of completly shutting down a deck. Arachas - Usurper matchup is nearly impossible to win. And in this season it hurts all the more, since Consume is the only Monster deck that can consistently put up a fight agains DJ and Foltest, the rest of the entire faction is just not good enough to beat them.
So all it takes to make an entire faction border line unplayable is simply 2 leaders that are just litle bit too good and 1 dumb annoying Usurper.
 
It DOES apply only to Usurper. No other leader is capable of completly shutting down a deck. Arachas - Usurper matchup is nearly impossible to win.

And Ardal against AQ is almost just as unfavorable. Usurper doesn't completely shut down the deck, it's the control/removal package that's being played. Usurper is the icing on top, not the core of the problem. Also, AQ is a one-trick-pony and those kind of decks are generally easy to shut down, regardless of Usurper. SY will usually make short work of AQ too. And if SY is faced against Usurper, SY might lose a combo piece, but they still have enough tools to compensate and go for a different win con.

TL;DR: don't blame Usurper for the inherent weakness of AQ. The former doesn't need a nerf, but the latter could use a buff.

PS. It's actually very doable to win against Usurper as AQ, if you can win the first round and bait out the control package. I still have a positive win-rate against Usurper with AQ. I just use Glusty with Tainted Ale in the 2nd round and save Kayran for the final round. The issue here is the RNG of the draw and of going first. Thinking about it, Usurper increases the variance because the RNG matters more.
 
And Ardal against AQ is almost just as unfavorable. Usurper doesn't completely shut down the deck, it's the control/removal package that's being played. Usurper is the icing on top, not the core of the problem. Also, AQ is a one-trick-pony and those kind of decks are generally easy to shut down, regardless of Usurper. SY will usually make short work of AQ too. And if SY is faced against Usurper, SY might lose a combo piece, but they still have enough tools to compensate and go for a different win con.

TL;DR: don't blame Usurper for the inherent weakness of AQ. The former doesn't need a nerf, but the latter could use a buff.

PS. It's actually very doable to win against Usurper as AQ, if you can win the first round and bait out the control package. I still have a positive win-rate against Usurper with AQ. I just use Glusty with Tainted Ale in the 2nd round and save Kayran for the final round. The issue here is the RNG of the draw and of going first. Thinking about it, Usurper increases the variance because the RNG matters more.
Nonsense!!! All of it!!!

Ardal, compared to Usurper, is not difficult at all. Control is no big deal as long as you can play around tall removal or succesfully pull of Vran+Yen combo. AQ is NOT a one-trick-pony, this deck can adapt as good as DJ Townsfolk. SY can't completly shut down AQ, this match up is winable, unlike Usurper.

AQ's weaknes IS Usurper, every other match up is perfectly fine.

How the hell am i supposed to win R1 while saving the good cards for R3????? Glusty gives you no more than 6 points. Even if you manage to push through Arachas nest, it's just not enough. If specific leader match up creates situation where you can't win without flawless draws, THAT IS WRONG!!!!!!!!!
 
Nonsense!!! All of it!!!

The problem is only Usurper, *sure*. Let's forget the whole control package that shuts down every engine because it's irrelevant. Tell me, what good is the AQ leader when you cannot consume units? You actually think that switching Usurper for Ardal is going to make the match easier? Because you're still just as likely to lose as AQ.

There are many AQ variations, ranging from greedy ones with Renew to swarm ones with Talisman. The former one is most susceptible to control, but even the latter will still struggle. Going first against any control/removal deck is unfavorable. Usurper is only part of the problem here, not the problem.

Anyhow, we're done. If you are not willing to listen to reason, I am only wasting my time.
 
The problem is only Usurper, *sure*. Let's forget the whole control package that shuts down every engine because it's irrelevant. Tell me, what good is the AQ leader when you cannot consume units? You actually think that switching Usurper for Ardal is going to make the match easier? Because you're still just as likely to lose.

There are many AQ variations, ranging from greedy ones with Renew to swarm ones with Talisman. The former one is most susceptible to control, but even the latter will still struggle. Going first against any control/removal deck is unfavorable. Usurper is only part of the problem here, not the problem.

Anyhow, we're done. If you are not willing to listen to reason, I am only wasting my time.

WTF? What engines?? Why bother with engines that get remover instantly, when you can play so many better cards?? I normaly don't use any engines except for Vrans and She-troll. Crones, Cyclops, Kayran, Yen, Hillock, Predatory dive and Harpy - you don't need engines at all. Engine cards like Kikimore or Slyzard are worth including only as "just in case" options.


BTW consume engines can't generate any points against Usurper, you would have to eat only deatwish units get something from it.
 
Last edited:
Holy snap, this thread went a bit wild their... Lets try and pump the brakes a bit and remember 4RM3D and the rest of the mod team are good people doing there best and getting mad at them isn't helpful. Everyone is very passionate about the game and that's wonderful, but that doesn't mean we can't be civil.

Now on the subject of Usurper it seems like everyone's core issue is that you really can't do anything about him, right? Weather or not you think he is OP or just annoying to play against, the real problem is that from the word go, if you cue into Usurper his ability cannot be interacted with, right? Well, maybe rather then trying to argue about him being removed from the game or fundamentally changed to be a whole new leader we should instead be thinking about HOW he could be made more intractable, right? That way he still can serve his role in the meta of stopping over tuned leaders running wild, while still being fun to play against for allot of people who currently find him... Not.

Let me throw two ideas at you all and see if either of these might be something that could serve as the basic idea for getting around the problem with Usurper.

1. Make Damien de la Tour's ability a neutral one.

As a reminder Damien's ability is "Order: Refresh your Leader's ability. If it's disabled, enable it instead."

Right now he is an NG card and I don't want to just give away one of their unique abilities all willy nilly, but lets be honest, its not really that uniquely NG, is it? Given he is a servant of Anna Henrietta, reworking him to help Assimilate would allow you to move his ability to be a new neutral card without robbing NG of a playable gold and would let any faction have a card that unlocks a Usurper lock, but while also requiring a turn of set up that would keep it from just being a, "Include to make Usurper terrible" card.

Obviously their are some risks to just letting ANY leader power be refreshed, but if priced highly and given a weak body that order ability could be a tactical choice for decks willing to lose out on some provisions to insure they have a leader ability/get a chance to double down on it. Still, I get why people might be nervous about that, obviously its a pretty big ability to be made neutral and could lead to limited design space later down the line, so let me throw a second direction we could take this at you!

2. Make Usurpers leader ability: Order lock the opponents leader ability for the rest of the round. (Charge 1)

This would CERTAINLY require Usurper getting a provision boost, but think about it, Usurpers leader power, but limited to a single round, requiring the Usurper player to decide on weather they want to deny round 3 finishers OR bleed a hard round 2 while denying the opponent the use of their strongest ability! We still get the option to hard counter DJ or Foltest round 3 or to keep AQ down if she ever gets to powerful... But while making it more tactical and giving the other player a chance to maybe use their leader power in an inopportune moment just to insure they do still get it off.

Plus my boy Damien suddenly gets a use IN Usurper decks since right now he's an NG card who's least useful leader is in his own faction which is... Weird. Like if nothing else Usurper should get like a targeted lock or something if you use Damien since otherwise its just weird that he's in the only faction with a leader he cannot refresh... Sorry off topic.

-

Now to be clear, I am NOT saying these two options are the best solutions to the problem of Usurper being an unpopular leader, obviously the first option would likely require figuring out a new ability for Damien so as not to just punish NG as well as figuring out a good new card to serve as a neutral 'refresh/unlock leader' without braking the game and/or making Usurper unplayable. And the second option would require rebalancing Usurper since locking another leader for 1 round is not worthy of having the lowest provision cap in the game. HOWEVER I do hope you can see my point that trying to argue about weather or not Usurper SHOULD or SHOULD NOT be in the game is not going to get us anywhere since he is here and he's not likely to go anywhere since their are allot of players, believe it or not, who do enjoy playing him and/or think he's important to keep around, but that doesn't mean we can't find a way of making him more intractable!

So rather then endlessly debating if Usurper is good or not... Why don't we all put our heads together and try and figure out something that might make him a bit more engaging? Weather it be by adding a card that can restore your leader ability or making a change to Usurper that will make him less binary WITHOUT just changing what he does all together.

I believe in you Gwent community! Too long have we tolerated weak, sniveling leaders, so now lets show them how we can make Nilfgaard great again! Let his dynasty reign for one thousand years and longer! :cool:
 
Last edited:
Foltest 6x Zeals. Looks balanced. I mean, the game will become even more toxic for people playing ordinary decks.
Sorry, dont pay attention to this comment, it was a loud thought and is meaningless for the discussion of this topic.

Now back on topic. I will try and repeat my argument so that it makes more sence, in context of developers provision-balancing.
Obviously when you include cards that require leader synergy, (griffins, Dragur, Glusty, Scytsmen, etc) means that these cards no longer break even, given their provision cost.

We therefor might end in situtations where the leaders will have relatively lower provisions compared to Usurper, due to some 'dead cards' in their deck.
Thus, in the hypothetical scenario, where developers will be better at balancing, these perfectly balanced leaders, will always have atleast one single bad match-up, which will be Usurper.

As such, there will be a large amount of decks/cards that cannot be played too frequently in the meta, as otherwise, Usurper will be played more often, given how easy he can shut down those decks, due to relatively highier provisions.

In that context Usurper seems to be too restrictive on deck building and playable varieties.
I must also admit that I partially agree with 4RM3D, as Usurper cannot be fully blamed for the current meta. Control has previously been too dominant and as such we saw a lot less Engines deck. E.G less variety that wasn't attributed to Usurper.
 
Last edited:
Holy snap, this thread went a bit wild their... Lets try and pump the brakes a bit and remember 4RM3D and the rest of the mod team are good people doing there best and getting mad at them isn't helpful. Everyone is very passionate about the game and that's wonderful, but that doesn't mean we can't be civil.

Now on the subject of Usurper it seems like everyone's core issue is that you really can't do anything about him, right? Weather or not you think he is OP or just annoying to play against, the real problem is that from the word go, if you cue into Usurper his ability cannot be interacted with, right? Well, maybe rather then trying to argue about him being removed from the game or fundamentally changed to be a whole new leader we should instead be thinking about HOW he could be made more intractable, right? That way he still can serve his role in the meta of stopping over tuned leaders running wild, while still being fun to play against for allot of people who currently find him... Not.

Let me throw two ideas at you all and see if either of these might be something that could serve as the basic idea for getting around the problem with Usurper.

1. Make Damien de la Tour's ability a neutral one.

As a reminder Damien's ability is "Order: Refresh your Leader's ability. If it's disabled, enable it instead."

Right now he is an NG card and I don't want to just give away one of their unique abilities all willy nilly, but lets be honest, its not really that uniquely NG, is it? Given he is a servant of Anna Henrietta, reworking him to help Assimilate would allow you to move his ability to be a new neutral card without robbing NG of a playable gold and would let any faction have a card that unlocks a Usurper lock, but while also requiring a turn of set up that would keep it from just being a, "Include to make Usurper terrible" card.

Obviously their are some risks to just letting ANY leader power be refreshed, but if priced highly and given a weak body that order ability could be a tactical choice for decks willing to lose out on some provisions to insure they have a leader ability/get a chance to double down on it. Still, I get why people might be nervous about that, obviously its a pretty big ability to be made neutral and could lead to limited design space later down the line, so let me throw a second direction we could take this at you!

2. Make Usurpers leader ability: Order lock the opponents leader ability for the rest of the round. (Charge 1)

This would CERTAINLY require Usurper getting a provision boost, but think about it, Usurpers leader power, but limited to a single round, requiring the Usurper player to decide on weather they want to deny round 3 finishers OR bleed a hard round 2 while denying the opponent the use of their strongest ability! We still get the option to hard counter DJ or Foltest round 3 or to keep AQ down if she ever gets to powerful... But while making it more tactical and giving the other player a chance to maybe use their leader power in an inopportune moment just to insure they do still get it off.

Plus my boy Damien suddenly gets a use IN Usurper decks since right now he's an NG card who's least useful leader is in his own faction which is... Weird. Like if nothing else Usurper should get like a targeted lock or something if you use Damien since otherwise its just weird that he's in the only faction with a leader he cannot refresh... Sorry off topic.

-

Now to be clear, I am NOT saying these two options are the best solutions to the problem of Usurper being an unpopular leader, obviously the first option would likely require figuring out a new ability for Damien so as not to just punish NG as well as figuring out a good new card to serve as a neutral 'refresh/unlock leader' without braking the game and/or making Usurper unplayable. And the second option would require rebalancing Usurper since locking another leader for 1 round is not worthy of having the lowest provision cap in the game. HOWEVER I do hope you can see my point that trying to argue about weather or not Usurper SHOULD or SHOULD NOT be in the game is not going to get us anywhere since he is here and he's not likely to go anywhere since their are allot of players, believe it or not, who do enjoy playing him and/or think he's important to keep around, but that doesn't mean we can't find a way of making him more intractable!

So rather then endlessly debating if Usurper is good or not... Why don't we all put our heads together and try and figure out something that might make him a bit more engaging? Weather it be by adding a card that can restore your leader ability or making a change to Usurper that will make him less binary WITHOUT just changing what he does all together.

I believe in you Gwent community! Too long have we tolerated weak, sniveling leaders, so now lets show them how we can make Nilfgaard great again! Let his dynasty reign for one thousand years and longer! :cool:


Just to clarify, i don't mean to be disrespectful to anyone, everything i say is just my opinion and it might not be correct (except for that AQ thing, i'm not backing down from this one).


1.) You would have to rebalance the entire game to make it work.
2.) This is million times better than current Usurper, but it's still very problematic. Usurper would be brick-able and in some matchups basically irrelevant or too strong if you give him lot of provisions.
I thing he would need some "Plan B" ability to be balanced and playable. Something like: Lock the opponents leader ability for the rest of the round or boost a unit by 5.
 
Zeal should never be possible using a leader, is an anti-design pattern as order cards must wait a turn, giving zeal from a leader breaks the concept of order.

Usurper only can do a great job because NG is full of locks and remove cards but from my experience is very hard with the Usurper to beat net dwarf deck in this meta.

Anyway, this meta was a hard NR so many players used NR that I hardly say Usurper is of any problem, I hope NR gets nerfed because I am tired of seeing only them.
 
Anyway, this meta was a hard NR so many players used NR that I hardly say Usurper is of any problem, I hope NR gets nerfed because I am tired of seeing only them.

Well the idea seems to be that the other four factions will also be reworked to be on the level of NR and SY, though I do agree that a couple of NR's cards a bit too strong even working from the assumption that the other factions will soon be on the same level. Any cards in a faction that are by default auto include are unhealthy after all.


Zeal should never be possible using a leader, is an anti-design pattern as order cards must wait a turn, giving zeal from a leader breaks the concept of order.

Well... Zeal is sort of part of every leaders order ability already. Every leader can use their leader ability first turn, though unless your Crach, Meve or Gernichora chances are your not going to do so since its better to save them till you need them. Unless the idea is you can use your leader ability during the mulligan, before even your opponents first turn which would admittedly be pretty... Out their.
 
Top Bottom