Suggestion: Usurper's unfixable unbalance. Please change or remove him.

+
Two important points:
- Usurper automatically disables any opponent leaders’ abilities.
- Leaders’ abilities are balanced through leaders' provisions.

Issues:
* When opponent leaders’ abilities are disabled by Usurper, Usurper is basically removing provisions from that leader, represented by the leader's provisions. Depending on the leader, Usurper removes less or more provisions. Therefore he cannot be properly balanced through his own provisions.
* Usurper decks are built around not having leader interactions and never have to worry about any influence of the opponent’s leader. There is no counter to Usurper. Also playing Usurper (the worst answer) is not a counter, because it does the same.

Next to that, in my opinion, the game should have some ground rules, values and vision regarding abilities and interactions. Usurper’s ability should be recognized as something that does not fit in the game. It removes the fundamentals of decks that people have built with a specific leader, directly and negatively impacting these people’s fun factor. I’m convinced that there are very few people who find it fun to play against Usurper. As a counter for everything, playing Usurper cannot be called strategic either as there is nothing strategic about an automatic disable of any opponent leader. In general, battle-wise, Usurper's ability makes no sense either.

For the above reasons, the suggestion is to change Usurper’s abilities or remove him from the game. It’s not a leader to relate to anyway.
 
Personally, I do not mind usurper. I usually play combo decks, working around leader ability, however if both of us have useless leader, I do not find it as disadvantage since his deck is in general weak.
At least there is some variability in the games and sometimes you have to improvise and not play solitaire - following the same game plan, because there are no limitations...
 
Well Nilfgaard's "thing" is to mess with your opponent's deck... hand...units and leader. I kinda would like to see something funner for his ability but at the same time, I kinda like his ability as well.
 
Personally, I do not mind usurper. I usually play combo decks, working around leader ability, however if both of us have useless leader, I do not find it as disadvantage since his deck is in general weak.
At least there is some variability in the games and sometimes you have to improvise and not play solitaire - following the same game plan, because there are no limitations...
Well Nilfgaard's "thing" is to mess with your opponent's deck... hand...units and leader. I kinda would like to see something funner for his ability but at the same time, I kinda like his ability as well.

I think you're missing the points that I'm making.

Messing with an opponent's deck, leader and hand should not happen. Nilfgaard should do nasty stuff on the board/battlefield. Those are part of the ground rules and vision I'm talking about.
 
Messing with an opponent's deck, leader and hand should not happen

Why do you think that? Messing with those elements is quite prevalent in card games. Even the infamous kambi is in my opinion amazing card. However, gwent is much depending on the current hand size, (in comparison to other tcg/ccg), therefore we cannot have real discard, but it is still cool card with bilateral effect.
I really like this concept and it is making several games completely different from others. You have to think more about following turns and that is the challange. Not only following your prepared game plan.
And still... usurper is weak and useless anyway.

Nevertheless, you are correct that his ability is lazy lazy concept. But it is the most optimal in regards to having leaders with so much diverse powers. I can imagine that, if each leader has power with cooldown, like Crach or Demavend, usurper could increase that cooldown by one turn. Or if every leader has ability which can be used only once per round, it could be limited to once per game. Or reduce the charges of ability by 2 (if all leaders would be like Foltest). Unfortunately this is not a case and therefore, the only "fair" and "equal" option is to completely disable them...
 
Last edited:
Well said.

Why do you think that? Messing with those elements is quite prevalent in card games.

Gwent isn't other card games :).

I really like this concept and it is making several games completely different from others. You have to think more about following turns and that is the challange. Not only following your prepared game plan.

This is at the crux of the disagreement. A faction, deck, build, etc. forcing the opponent to think more is healthy for the game, no doubt. It stops being so when the player forcing this does not have to do anything to get it. Switch your leader to Usurper and you immediately force this upon the opponent. No action or proper decision making is needed. If a player wishes to "control" the opponent deck they should have to earn it by playing the correct cards at the correct time. Not by running a specific leader.
 
Why do you think that? Messing with those elements is quite prevalent in card games. Even the infamous kambi is in my opinion amazing card. However, gwent is much depending on the current hand size, (in comparison to other tcg/ccg), therefore we cannot have real discard, but it is still cool card with bilateral effect.
I really like this concept and it is making several games completely different from others. You have to think more about following turns and that is the challange. Not only following your prepared game plan.
And still... usurper is weak and useless anyway.

Weak, useless, unfun and unbalanced... no problem to remove Usurper then.

Copying stuff from other card games is not a good option if you're trying to create your own identity, having your own vision and ground rules is. Following proposed ground rules that there is no messing with opponent's deck or hand, I find Kambi one of the worst designed cards, not only because of its ability but also as it is completely RNG-based.
 
Gwent isn't other card games :).

Indeed, gwent is unique (more or less nowadays). I was just tackling the idea why "it should not happen". Is there any ground rule regarding that? Or is it uncommon?

I understand that there is only small disadvantage for the player of usurper. But still, he lost a lot of provisions and also any kind of synergy with his leader.
I was toying with the idea "what if, he copy ability of the opponent leader" like he is really taking his position, hence usurper. That way, you are supposed to have quite variant deck with a lot of options. Almost like shupe deck, but from slightly different point of view.
 
Last edited:
I understand that there is only small disadvantage for the player of usurper. But still, he lost a lot of provisions and also any kind of synergy from his leader.
The Usurper player did not lose anything as he/she actively chose to play Usurper and built a specific deck for it. It's the Usurper's opponent who loses provisions in the form of leader ability and synergies and who has no counter for this.
 
I understand that there is only small disadvantage for the player of usurper. But still, he lost a lot of provisions and also any kind of synergy with his leader.

This is certainly true. Being at 160 is quite rough. However, NG does have quite a number of cards capable of decent value with a cheap price tag. Many of which aren't very conditional. So while having a lower provision count hurts it could be argued it doesn't hurt as much as losing a leader for certain builds.

I was toying with the idea "what if, he copy ability of the opponent leader" like he is really taking his position, hence usurper. That way, you are supposed to have quite variant deck with a lot of options. Almost like shupe deck, but from slightly different point of view.

That actually sounds like a good idea :).
 
Increase his provisions, and let him deactivate the opponents ability just for the rest of a round. This gives some tactical room and wouldnt be that imbalanced. Players would be forced to use their leader while they are able to, bc most ppl would save the block for the last round. So leader based big finishers like emhyr or francesca have to rethink their strategies.

If this proves too weak, there would be still room to improve usurper, like blocking the enemies leader ability for a certain amount of turns, which carry to the next round like 15 turns. Or give it charges for each turn blocking the enemy. But this stupid total block is just killing the fun.
 
How does the opponent lose any provision when usurper has the least points in the whole game.

This leader is absolutely acceptable because no game or strategy should be based on leader abilities which CAN NOT be countered in any other way
 
How does the opponent lose any provision when usurper has the least points in the whole game.

This leader is absolutely acceptable because no game or strategy should be based on leader abilities which CAN NOT be countered in any other way

The developers actively encouraged building around your leader. Making the game like that and then creating Usurper is counter intuitive.
 
How does the opponent lose any provision when usurper has the least points in the whole game.
The opponent's leader ability is worth provisions. That's how the game is balanced, everything is expressed in provisions. The stronger the leader ability, the less provisions this leader has. (An interesting question would be how many provisions a leader without ability would have.) Usurper removes these provisions (leader ability) from the leader. As each leader has different provisions but Usurper is removing them all down automatically, Usurper's value is different for different opponent leaders and that is why he cannot be properly balanced.

This leader is absolutely acceptable because no game or strategy should be based on leader abilities which CAN NOT be countered in any other way
Then tell me, following your own statement, how do you counter Usurper? And what StrykerxS77x says.

Again, a set of ground rules and a clear vision is needed, otherwise we have no guidance for discussions. The way I see it, part of these ground rules should be that leader ability, deck and hand cannot be messed with. The battle is on the board/battlefield and graveyard. With ground rules, the discussion on Usurper and cards like former Letho, Viper Witchers, Traheaern etc. will be a lot easier.
 
The opponent's leader ability is worth provisions. That's how the game is balanced, everything is expressed in provisions. The stronger the leader ability, the less provisions this leader has. (An interesting question would be how many provisions a leader without ability would have.) Usurper removes these provisions (leader ability) from the leader. As each leader has different provisions but Usurper is removing them all down automatically, Usurper's value is different for different opponent leaders and that is why he cannot be properly balanced.


Then tell me, following your own statement, how do you counter Usurper? And what StrykerxS77x says.

Again, a set of ground rules and a clear vision is needed, otherwise we have no guidance for discussions. The way I see it, part of these ground rules should be that leader ability, deck and hand cannot be messed with. The battle is on the board/battlefield and graveyard. With ground rules, the discussion on Usurper and cards like former Letho, Viper Witchers, Traheaern etc. will be a lot easier.

Funny way to argue:
1. We need rules (Do we?)
2. I m setting the rules which excluding the cards I don t like

And to get this straight:
Your provision + your leaders provision >= provision + usurper Oo

The difference might be different depending on your leaders provision but you are always in the advantage. Your point being that this means this card is hard to balance is caused by the questionable connection of the provision systems with the leader system...
 
Usurper is a strange case.
As I said before, I don't love nor I hate the leader but I think he serves a purpose in this game.
To be fair, I personally enjoy playing against him but it's probably because I'm an MTG player in the first place and I love the idea of "prison" strategy in card games, which is exactly what Usurper is designed for.
What I like is the fact that you have to rethink a strategy you've been playing since assumably many games and kinda give the feeling of playing a different game. In fact there is some tricks and tactics you can only use against Usurper.

The problem with this card is that, I think I understand why CDPR made him and I can understand where they're going with him.
Obviously I'm not in CDPR developpement team's mind but I think the reason why he exists is to discourage players to establish some sneaky strategy because their leader allows it (for example, playing a card that absolutely requires movement to generate its value and put it in a Broover deck without any movement card to back it up).
I think what traumatized CDPR was the old Broover, which was very commonly picked in Scoiat'ael, even before Cleaver even existed, not because he was synergistic with any strategy the player where trying to establish but because he was able to pull out Yaevin and guarantee his Silver spy play with a reduction on it's body to go with it.

So, of course Broover has changed and Silver spies are no more but I think they wanted to avoid that kind of interraction and encourage players to focus more on their deck and see their leader as a tool and not a way of getting "free value" because he's effectively the only card in the game you're guarranteed to have at any point without having to draw it.

And I suppose it's kind of a ground rule CDPR is trying to establish with him. "You shouldn't make a deck around your leader but instead use it as a tool to support your strategy". In other words, you're playing a deck before playing a leader.

And I can understand this reasoning (provided it's what they had in mind) but it brings a couple issues.
First, the player using Usurper is kinda doing what he tries to prevent, peoples are playing him, not because he fits to any strategy but because he effectively shut down the opponent's leader.
Second, he represents a limitation to deck building which is always a bit sad. It's not huge but everytime you make a deck you have to think "What if my opponent is running Usurper?", which strangely, is a downside but can also be taken as an upside since it's part of the deck building skill to cover all the options and possibilities.

I personally kinda like him at the end but if CDPR think the game would be better without him so be it.
 
Funny way to argue:
1. We need rules (Do we?)
2. I m setting the rules which excluding the cards I don t like

This is a suggestion topic. That's why I write "The way I see it". Of course we need rules. Every game needs rules for balance and fun for all players. I'm talking about ground rules, a vision for how to maximize fun for all players, not just Usurper players who apparently enjoy seeing opponent's decks getting sabotaged without needing to put any effort in it. I don't believe that leaders and cards like Usurper are maximizing fun for all players.

You didn't answer my question about a counter for Usurper, but you don't have to. Of course I know there is no counter.

And to get this straight:
Your provision + your leaders provision >= provision + usurper Oo

The difference might be different depending on your leaders provision but you are always in the advantage. Your point being that this means this card is hard to balance is caused by the questionable connection of the provision systems with the leader system...

The provision system only gives an indication and is a tool for the devs to balance. It's too simple to only point at provisions, but I was trying to explain the inherent value of leader abilities. As StrykerxS77x also mentioned, for most leaders, you build your deck around synergy with leader ability. 1 + 1 = 3. Usurper gives your deck build 0 + 1 = 1, while his deck can be considered 1 + 1 = 2. Silly simple calculations perhaps, but take a match between Arachas Queen and Usurper and I think this makes a lot of sense. 2 vs 1 is not fun (and not balanced).

Edit: And then I forgot to mention that Usurper decks are of course control heavy, with as many disruptive cards in them as possible (Traheaern, Viper Witchers, Tibor, Cantarella), so that any synergy you may still have left in your deck gets shut down as well. I must say, I understand it's the "rebel deck" and it really seems to work. Unfortunately the way it works is so crappy. Ground rules please!
 
Last edited:
I think usurper is meant to do that. His style is disrupting and undermining opponents and their decks. It is true that an usurper running a witcher build for example can be a bit over the top but is by no means unbeatable. Ultimately the Usurper can be his own downfall by simply playing that particular leader. Because he has low provisions and mulligans (although id wager he is helped now by the mulligan rework). If you think about it, none of the leaders have abilities that can turn a game around as much as a card can. And none of them have an ability that cant be worked around of nullified by other cards.

I personally prefer Calveit for the last round so i can play 2 cards, emhyr is good too for spamming a card. And leaders will probably always counter eachother. Adda deals 8 damage to a unit, woodland spirit boosts a unit in hand by 8. A certain skelliger (whose name idk) discards a card, draws another and damages a random unit by 1. Voorhis reveals an enemy card and boosts an allied unit by 2. What im trying to day is Usurper would probably be a good counter for arachas queen but not too disruptive for others, as the cards themselves matter more than the leader.
 
I feel like the only leader that REALLY suffers from Usurper's ability is Arachas Queen. It takes away so many points from your deck it's crazy. While other decks can manage pretty well without their leaders.

I feel like you want every disruptive card in Nilfgaard changed, not just Usurper. I think the only card in NG that absolutely needs a change is Viper Witchers but that's just me. I think Usurper is fine because he counters combos that would otherwise be un-counterable.
 
I do not think that anyone in particular enjoy playing ursurper, but at least he is bringing little bit more variety into the game. Personally, I did not play this leader since homecoming launched, but I enjoyed it in my pony deck in beta. What is better than opening with Crach as tempo NG :D
Nevertheless, the arachas queen did get short end of the stick, since her power is also passive and without it she is weakened much more than other leaders. But I think, that in that case AQ needs slight rework and not Usurper.
 
Top Bottom