Things that must change in 2023 to save the game in the long run: part 1: immunity have to go.

+
Hi gwent community, I've decided to share my thoughts about gwent, it's future and things that must have been done to significantly increase probability of gwent's existence afer current year. Of course even if all that changes would be implemented, it won't guarantee that gwent will be live happily ever after. So many mistakes was made in the past 5 years, that gwent's demise can be unfortunatelly irreversable at that point, and on top of that we all know how strong is resistance in devs team to any community ideas and suggestions. But still it's worth to try, because if my suggestions even won't save gwent, at least I will feel better that I done what was in my power to help.
And here we approach theme of first of my threads, in particular regarding to immunity mechanics: that is binary, irritating, unnecessary, and by any means should be removed from the game as soon as possible.
I am playing gwent since 2017 and as far as I remember immunity was [...] mechanic. The oldest memory about immunity that I recall was neutral Avallach that could geave immunity to any unit , and immune MO werewolf. Unanswered avallach making engine like vysogota immune was almost certain win. Immune Werewolf, on the order hand, was used in monsters deck as boosted in hand to 12 points finisher that could not been answered with anything except scorch - he was something like older version of present Sove. Both of that mentioned above cards was very irritating and unnecessary. And there was also immune dragon seasenthessis in SC, used along immune werewolf in toxic 20 special cards no unit decks, what for long long time was the most frustrating part of the game.
Adressing that issues took a long time for devs, and even when they somewhat eventually did that, any lessons wasn't learned, and next cards with immunity was released to irritate players playing against that cards. Paraphrasing old saying: if my opponent plays immune unit and I have no tech answer - its not fun. But when I play immune unit and opponent do not have tech answer - its perfectly fine.
And here we are now in the state of the game, where immunity units are still mainly or binary abusive cards, or are not played at all. The best illustration of that is Tibor-15 points immune engine, that in assumption should be statuses decks support. But what He is in practice? Core of degenerative multiple tibors archetype, when even 4 played on table immune tibors are able to generate enough points to beat almost any other deck, even after opponents 6 cards advantage. And - of course - in statuses intended decks tibor is not played at all. Now lets hipotetise what would happend if tibor looses it's immunity? What would change? For sure he still wouldnt be played in statuses deck still, so anything wouldnt changed in that matter. Yet - and here we approach to the most important fact - as target subjected for regular removals, he wont be played at all-or-nothing spams, and that unhealthly archetype would probably never have been created. So as clearly visible on that example, that it is immunity of tibor is a problem, not his design nor even practitioneers that are able to create multiple tibors, because even multiple tibors would just have been killed, locked or counterd in any other way - like in normal healthly game state should be.
So as its clearly visible, immunity in that case is tottaly unnecessary and harmful.
Another example is Saskia Commander - without specific counter she can win the round on her own, its definitively way too OP. But what would happen if that card didn't have its immunity? It would be just very strong engine, that have ability to put two engines on the board at the same time, but not tech-remove or loose card. Emhyr is very good example to illustrate that point: he is also 13prov card as saskia Commander, he also have ability to play two engines on board in the same time, he is strong card autoincluded in all statuses decks, but he is not tremendously overpowered like immune saskia.
Another examples are some immune cards like erland, sove, cat - every one of that cards could be just very strong card without immunity, but not abusive as they are right now. i recently played against bet-all-in-one-card 24 points immune sove on board in pirates deck - i lost only because sove was immune and I couldnt do anything to it due to loyality in my deck, opponent didnt have anything ealse on the board - I dont consider is as a fair lost. Sove without immunity would be strong 11prov, 20+ points pointslam, but counterable. Very normal thing - iimmunity for him makes him unnecessarly abusive.
That said, I don't see any reason to keep immunity mechanics in gwent at all - current strong immune cards will be still strong without immunity, weak immune cards will be still weak without it - nothing will change here. But what will dissapear in package with immunity, is frustration of players playing against immune cards and having no tech-counters for them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
current strong immune cards will be still strong without immunity
From my own Rank 7 perspective, it's not so much in case of Nature's Gift / Eithné: Wrath of Brokilon - it would cripple the archetype, even though it's not even Tier 1.
I have the impression the devs handle Immunity responsibly most of the time (maybe except Saskia? - although I've never played her). With so much blocking and control abilities like double poison, lock and destroy, 8 damage, Heatwave, Enslave and so on - a counter ability is needed.

Seems to me removing Immunity would buff Nielfgard and Syndicate and Skellige even further, and would require to include as much purify as possible in every deck - making the game less interesting, and even that wouldn't be enough.
 
Last edited:
From my own Rank 7 perspective, it's not so much in case of Nature's Gift / Eithné: Wrath of Brokilon - it would cripple the archetype, even though it's not even Tier 1.
I have the impression the devs handle Immunity responsibly most of the time (maybe except Saskia? - although I've never played her). With so much blocking and control abilities like double poison, lock and destroy, 8 damage, Heatwave, Enslave and so on - a counter ability is needed.

Seems to me removing Immunity would buff Nielfgard and Syndicate and Skellige even further, and would require to include as much purify as possible in every deck - making the game more boring.
Symbiosis main problem is not ethienne, its overswarming. If that issue will be solved, ethienne in previous form before rework would be perfectly fine. In current form as immune 10p symbiosis 3 immune brick she is tottaly binary: or counterd by forbidden ritual and deck is indeed crippeld, or not counterd with tremendous points ceeling making insane points
 
I also disagree with the notion that immunity, carefully and infrequently used, is an issue. Rather, I would argue that it is an essential tool to maximize deck variety.

But first, a caveat: interesting tactics requires interactive cards on the board -- if it is possible to render most of the important, point-scoring units immune, the game ceases to be interesting or fun.

But there are certain cards that themselves generate little value, that force a major deck design commitment, and whose absence destroys much of the provision value of the deck. I think Saskia: Commander is an excellent example of a card where immunity is perfectly reasonable -- the demand of 10 different ST tags very much limits a deck -- a deckbuilding restriction that suits the harmony archetype, but is hugely disadvantageous in any other ST deck. And Saskia has enough anti-synergy with harmony that the harmony engines are best used in a different round. And Saskia is no where near as powerful as it is often made out to be. Even if it pulls 3 random bronze cards from a deck -- it rarely plays for more than 18-20 points. This is not enough alone to carry a round against an opponent willing to make an equivalent commitment. Without immunity, it becomes horribly binary -- wasted provisions and horrible deck state if removed, good (but not overwhelming) value if not. I like to compare it to Artis (a very interesting card from a strategic perspective) who is virtually unplayable because his inevitable removal leaves one's deck with an unusable hodgepodge of awkward cards.

Sir Scratch-a-lot in current form (with immunity only when first played) is another reasonable use of immunity. The choice to give up immunity to replay the card at higher value is interesting -- and the ability to continue to generate value from a passive trait (opponent's plays trigger thrive) allows a fair return on provisions in situations where his removal would otherwise be certain. Again, the immunity reduces the RNG of the card without it becoming OP.

There are places where immunity is inappropriate, such as on an engine capable of generating multiple points per turn (I very much dislike the new Milva -- it defeats all checks and balances with no true justification.) And there are other places where it is pointless (alpha werewolf).

I also disagree with the assessment of Tibor -- immunity is irrelevant and removing it would not make an iota of difference where he is abused (although removing it would make single copies utterly unplayable). The problem is entirely with multiple copies that grow superlinearly in power with each extra copy. Imperial practitioners are 100% the problem with their highly binary ability (on good draws) to create multiple copies what would be reasonable/good cards in solo. No reasonably constructed deck other than Nilfgaard has ability to handle more than one or two Tibors even without immunity -- and allowing more than one to stick is a virtual certain loss as the total damage starts to exceed what one is able to play on a given turn.
 
I think Saskia: Commander is an excellent example of a card where immunity is perfectly reasonable -- the demand of 10 different ST tags very much limits a deck -- a deckbuilding restriction that suits the harmony archetype, but is hugely disadvantageous in any other ST deck. And Saskia has enough anti-synergy with harmony that the harmony engines are best used in a different round. And Saskia is no where near as powerful as it is often made out to be.
Strongly disagree. Just because there are deck building restrictions doesn't justify anything, because in that case let's revert the Renfri nerfs and give Aerondight back to Kekker decks, because after all these archetypes are even more restrictive so it's only reasonable by that logic.

She is an engine that is putting other engines on the board, she helps you red coin abuse or make sure it doesn't happen to you, while thinning your deck from bronzes. People will often take the pass with a huge sigh or relief if it is offered essentially forfeiting R1 when up against this card because to contest it you need to commit A LOT in most cases.

I am fine with all of this, if it wasn't for the fact she is immune, non-interactive. It isn't good game design to have insane cards that the opponent isn't even allowed to answer. I often make the comparison to Saesenthessis which on paper is only an 8 for 9 but was despite this used in specific unitless archetypes precisely because the immunity provided so much value in these. I am speaking in past tense because the power creep as we all know is so insane these decks and this card of course no longer sees play on higher MMR, but the point still stands.

From the day she was added to the game to this very day she has been and always will be my most hated card until the immunity is gone. She and Sove should get married, and then burn in hell together=)
 
Top Bottom