Again I will say that I don't know why the devs would put strong leaders in the game to build around just to turn them off. It feels counter intuitive and is generally going to be unfun or even angering to the player that built around that leader.
This is really a strawman argument. A player's emotional investment in their deck and adverse interactions it faces don't automatically invalidate the worth of a card's ability or fitness to be included in the game. I'm sure there are plenty of players who don't find leaders in general add much to the game. Thus, it could be said that all leaders being removed from the game is also a fair and viable solution.
If leaders are too powerful as you brought up the third round point slam strategy then the devs should address that by changing leaders to play differently such as leaders like Meve that provide value the entire match or they could just outright nerf leaders so they aren't as significant.
And yet, despite the flawed designs of leaders, you still keep cycling back to an argument that one leader who shuts down single strategy decks should be reworked so those decks can enjoy their single strategy. Essentially, this really asking that depth and strategy be simplified so that bad builds can perform well. This is problematic, since it takes more than just shutting down a leader to win the game. Remember Usurper doesn't add any extra value to the cards in his deck, they have to do all the work on their own. Really, all he does is provide them limited cover from removal or uncounterable tempo provided by other leaders. He certainly doesn't shut down interactions like Igor+townsfolk+profit.
Everyone wants their deck to be strong. I didn't make an argument about the deck I am asking why the leader needs to be counterable at all when the developers made them this way. I don't play Arachas but I don't see why Arachas players should have their leader turned off. What's the point of deck building Arachas when you just run into Usurper and your synergies are gone? I see no benefits to the game with that. All it does for me personally is make me avoid leaders that I really don't want to be turned off.
Yes, many mentions of AQ, zero mentions of Eldain, for example. Eldain is already a weak deck that built around a weak archetype and has never been overly competitive. Usurper denies this deck its additional tokens too. I don't think it's a coincidence the deck you're claiming is treated unfairly by Usurper is one that has been quite strong in past metas where Usurper hasn't seen much play. Essentially, the issue is more likely that you can't adjust your play and strategy to the meta. It just happens that for once, this is a meta where Consume isn't able to take advantage of being an outlier deck that grows strong in the shadow of more prevelant T1 decks.
I expect something as huge as turning off someones leader to be counterable. Everyone has a leader that they choose to use that is supposed to be balanced by provisions. So there is no big reason why there should be an uncounterable way to turn off another players leader. It makes more sense and is more fair if doing so is a counterable card.
I expect something as huge as having my card moved to my opponents side of the board to be counterable too. Likewise, I should get at least a turn to, if not the ability to take countermeasures when my oppent is looking for a spell to reduce my point total, boost theirs, or play an extra card. After all, I didn't choose the leader that person chose. Really, we could take it to the level of absurdity and say we should get a choice to decline a match against leaders we don'tt like or our decks don't fair well against. Unfortunately that's not the way the game works.
You should stop looking at the situation entirely through the lens of your deck. If you did, you might see that Usurper doesn't really give his deck any extra abilities. It's kind of like when other leaders play each other, it's joker's wild. Usurper just takes the jokers out of the pack for both players. It's then up to the players to make the best use of the cards they're dealt.
I don't know why you are drawing the conclusion that a deck is weaker for choosing to try to disable the opponents leader. If it hits it would be a big play. But if you think it's weaker for using that card then just don't use it. At least the player has the choice here.
you clearly don't run many tech cards. Ever notice that artifact heavy decks, if pushed hard enough and with bad draws, will often concede the game with cards in hand? The reason for that is their spears, flails and potions don't do anything for improving their points total if there is insufficient bodies on their side of board to take advantage of this. Also, the provision cost is quite high for units since they often need to go for higher value bodies. This is how tech in Gwent works. It's not like MTG where you can get a 1 mana cost spell that can kill a massive creature. So if we look at the provision cost for Usurper, then extrapolate this to tech cards that disable leader abilities, it is quite likely that said card/s will be high in provision cost and quite probably bodiless. So yes, decks will be made weaker as cards will need to be removed and replaced with lower cost, less powerful ones to make room for the new tech.
Seems like a lot of hoops to jump through unnecessarily.
NG players don't seem to think so. But I suppose the hoops aren't as bothersome when in any other matchup they get to use their leader twice.
So to stop Usurper which is a big issue in the game the player has to draw this one card by the round that he needs it and play it without being countered and then if you aren't playing Usuper a player like Francesca now has the ability to play a very powerful special card 3 times. Seems a lot easier and better for everyone just to remove Usurper because he isn't needed anyway.
Bit of an own goal there. Francesca playing a powerful spell twice in a match is more fair than her playing it 3 times? So how many times does AQ get to repeat the active part of her ability in a match? Surely old Glusty could benefit from a few extra drones. Again, if leaders are the problem, then no leaders at all, save for a a flavour cosmetic for the deck, is also just as good a solution as banning/nerfing one leader.
Coins is a bit problematic but I have more faith in CDPR balancing them than I do in Usurper not consistently bringing the game down. A big problem with Usurper is he doesn't always simply put players on equal footing. When your leader is key to your deck your options through the game and in the last round become much more limited. While the Usurper players strategies are exactly the same. So it really just becomes a roll of the dice on the match up. The Usurper player could be at a disadvantage from provisions or he could be at a huge advantage having automatically turned off the opponents leader which was key to the deck.
When your leader is the sole key to your strategy you have a single strategy deck. No additional concessions should be made for you to have the ability to have your deck perform the way you want it to in any match, either with or without your leader. Turning the Usurper into a fluffy pink bunny isn't going to make you a better player. If MO is in a bad state at the moment, then play other factions. if you cant make your cards work without a leader. Sorry, but that is the brutal truth
My argument is that all leaders should be usable and not sometimes just turned off. Also with many leaders you can still find ways to counter what they do on the board. With Meve you know she is going to be boosting and using engines so get ready with counter cards. With Adda and similar leaders you know that one of your cards can get instantly one shot so try to play around that. When I play vs. Ardal I will mulligan away a five strength engine in the third round because I know that he will simply take it for huge value. Trying to out play your opponent is part of the game. Usurper just makes the game worse imo. I'm not a blind hater, I have played Usurper as well so I know what both sides is like.
I don't think you really do get what both sides are really like. I think you probably found Usurper a bit boring to play since there is no ultimate for both sides to realize. That's fine. As MTG puts it, some players are Timmy, some Johnny and others are Spike. We all like different aspects of the game. Thus we shouldn't be arguing to remove something from the game because we don't personally enjoy it as it may ruin the enjoyment for somebody else.
I've come to enjoy playing Usurper over the last few updates. Finding synergies and making my cards work together in the absence of a leader ability on tap is far more engaging than trying to figure out which few cards combine with a leader to produce an overpowered last say. My opponents might not find it fun, but barring this meta, within a few matches they're either back to curbstomping lesser decks or complaining about the stronger ones. It's just unfortunate that this meta has been one where more people have had enough of leader abilities that they've gravitated to Usurper. Again, this is not a problem created by Usurper.
Well said.
