Tweak to Statuses (Defender, Poison)

+
(NEW) DEFENDER
"Your opponent can't target cards directly adjacent to this unit."

(NEW) POISON
"When the round ends, damage this unit by half its current power, rounded up and ignoring armor. This also triggers when another instance of Poison is applied to an already poisoned unit."

Defender and poison are too "extreme" at the moment, especially defender. These changes should lower the problems caused by them.

Defender right now is outright disgusting rather than being the counter for removals. It's just too preventive at many times.

For poison, the change also means that 1 instance of poison is no longer a "brick". But in the contrary, it can no longer kills anything for high value. This also somehow fits with some NG shenanigans that buff opponent units, with NG being the home for poison.
 
Last edited:
Defenders have been receiving criticism ever since they were added (which apparently was in October 2019), but despite that they've never been changed.

I've always found there are enough ways to deal with them (move, Purify, kill). No need to nerf them as far as I'm concerned.


Poison, likewise, has always had its opposers yet it, too, has remained unchanged since 2019. Your suggested change would make it trash.
Plus, SY also has a lot of poison, and while ST's isn't exactly viable it does exist.
 
My view of balance is not what we're having right now. These changes aren't supposed to be standalone fixes to the current game, it just helps the game to move towards a better state.

I believe I've stated my reasons for the changes, and I'm sure I'm not posting this on some meta-discussion forum. If I do, however, I agree with what you said. Yes, the current cards we have can easily counter defenders. And nerfing poison that aren't even great is pointless.

But my reasoning for the changes are not based on the current Gwent that we have, which gets less and less enjoyable as time passes. I base them on the Gwent that we should have, where things are less extreme and we don't have to be metafreaks to enjoy the game to its fullest. Though people's views on this balance vary greatly.

It's nice to know that the devs are not eager for changes. Thank you for the info.

On an irrelevant matter, I'm still curious to why changes are hard to accept. I'm guessing for most it's about pride, consciously or not. I know how pride has hindered me, but for me it's mostly another matter.
 
Defenders have been receiving criticism ever since they were added (which apparently was in October 2019), but despite that they've never been changed.

I've always found there are enough ways to deal with them (move, Purify, kill). No need to nerf them as far as I'm concerned.


Poison, likewise, has always had its opposers yet it, too, has remained unchanged since 2019. Your suggested change would make it trash.
Plus, SY also has a lot of poison, and while ST's isn't exactly viable it does exist.
The latter part is factually untrue.

Poison IS a massive issue, and steps have been taken to counter it. First of all, Veil mechanic was introduced back when Masquerade Ball was all rage, which is no coincidence. For the record, I think this solution doesn't solve anything outside of rare unlikely scenarios, but it was intended to at least.

Secondly, poison IS an issue of the same caliber as Heatwave, because it passively invalidates a bunch of archetypes and strategies. Going super-tall, for example, has been out of question for a while, and for many reasons, but while most of these reasons are somewhat expensive and non-synergetic, poison is cheap, spammable, AND has synergies.
 
No, it isn't.

I also said literally none of what you're trying to counter. Seems familiar, too.
Really? Was I supposed to read "remained unchanged" in any other way than "poison is fine"?

If it was anything else, please, by all means, elaborate.
 
Was I supposed to read "remained unchanged" in any other way than "poison is fine"?
Has remained unchanged = has not been changed = is the exact same as when it was added to the game = Poison keyword in 2019 == Poison keyword in 2021.

Which of course was already perfectly clear and the only logical interpretation.
 
Has remained unchanged = has not been changed = is the exact same as when it was added to the game = Poison keyword in 2019 == Poison keyword in 2021.

Which of course was already perfectly clear and the only logical interpretation.
I agree, the poison-mechanic itself hasn't been changed at all, it just got a nerf through Veil.
 
Has remained unchanged = has not been changed = is the exact same as when it was added to the game = Poison keyword in 2019 == Poison keyword in 2021.

Which of course was already perfectly clear and the only logical interpretation.
...and meaningless for the context of the discussion and unrelated to its purpose, lacking in communicative intention. Or what, was your intention to just randomly state commonly-known facts with no implications or intentions to prove anything? Apologies, but that's not a logical interpretation, not for a normal definition of "logical" or "clear". And of course, I don't believe that was your intention.

I know you're probably trolling at this point, but I'm just in the right mood to go full sperg mode, so lessgo. Semantics time.

So first you mention how defenders hasn't been nerfed, which serves as the backdrop for the actual argument- "defenders don't need a nerf because there're viable countermeasures for them". Which is a valid argument. Note that the first part - the context on its own - is not, because the fact that mechanic has remained the same over the years doesn't automatically prove it's in the desirable state or should stay the same. Especially, considering all the criticism. Hence, the need for elaboration. The resultant message is "defenders are fine and don't need a nerf".

So far, so good.

You start your second thought with "likewise", which implies the same logical pattern as in the first one.
Indeed, you mention how poison hasn't been nerfed, which considering the use of intoductory "likewise" and the communicative purpose of the first part, plus your following subjective elaboration - "your suggestion would make it trash" - implies that we're supposed to arrive at a similar conclusion - something like "Poison is fine and doesn't need a nerf". Which is the only logical interpretation, because otherwise the second half of your message makes no sense as a communicative act and breaks the logic of the overall reasoning. Because, again, why would you say "likewise" and then proceed to just throw random facts at us, if not to prove a similar point?

So while you didn't state that "poison=fine" outright, what you said strongly implied, without a possibility of any other reasonable reading, that this was the opinion and the intended message behind your statements. Therefore, you can't really say that you said none of what I countered, because you did impicitly. Unless, of course, you really were just randomly bringing up trivial facts about poison for no reason. Which wouldn't be logical of anyone to assume...or do in a forum discussion.

Therefore: you're being confrontational and dismissive for the sake of it. Which I don't find very admirable, coming from a moderator.
 
...for the record: poison is fine in its present form, which is the same form it started in. There are enough methods to deal with it available for every faction, and there are multiple factions that can use it. Defender can also be dealt with, easily enough now that I seldom use it in decks anymore as it is usually instantly purified or Heatwaved.

Yes, they can both be annoying, btu there are other cards out there that are far worse.
 
...and meaningless for the context of the discussion and unrelated to its purpose, lacking in communicative intention. Or what, was your intention to just randomly state commonly-known facts with no implications or intentions to prove anything? Apologies, but that's not a logical interpretation, not for a normal definition of "logical" or "clear". And of course, I don't believe that was your intention.

I know you're probably trolling at this point, but I'm just in the right mood to go full sperg mode, so lessgo. Semantics time.

So first you mention how defenders hasn't been nerfed, which serves as the backdrop for the actual argument- "defenders don't need a nerf because there're viable countermeasures for them". Which is a valid argument. Note that the first part - the context on its own - is not, because the fact that mechanic has remained the same over the years doesn't automatically prove it's in the desirable state or should stay the same. Especially, considering all the criticism. Hence, the need for elaboration. The resultant message is "defenders are fine and don't need a nerf".

So far, so good.

You start your second thought with "likewise", which implies the same logical pattern as in the first one.
Indeed, you mention how poison hasn't been nerfed, which considering the use of intoductory "likewise" and the communicative purpose of the first part, plus your following subjective elaboration - "your suggestion would make it trash" - implies that we're supposed to arrive at a similar conclusion - something like "Poison is fine and doesn't need a nerf". Which is the only logical interpretation, because otherwise the second half of your message makes no sense as a communicative act and breaks the logic of the overall reasoning. Because, again, why would you say "likewise" and then proceed to just throw random facts at us, if not to prove a similar point?

So while you didn't state that "poison=fine" outright, what you said strongly implied, without a possibility of any other reasonable reading, that this was the opinion and the intended message behind your statements. Therefore, you can't really say that you said none of what I countered, because you did impicitly. Unless, of course, you really were just randomly bringing up trivial facts about poison for no reason. Which wouldn't be logical of anyone to assume...or do in a forum discussion.

Therefore: you're being confrontational and dismissive for the sake of it. Which I don't find very admirable, coming from a moderator.
Wow, you're really going a loooong way here to prove that you're right. I think Draconifors simply doesn't see as big of a problem in poison like you do (which is perfectly fine) and wanted to say that the developers seemingly also don't want its current state to go. And while you're right about poison being restrictive for a bunch of cards, it also has its positive sides, mainly preventing overly greedy metas. Your own opinion is not always the whole truth.
 
...and meaningless for the context of the discussion and unrelated to its purpose, lacking in communicative intention. Or what, was your intention to just randomly state commonly-known facts with no implications or intentions to prove anything? Apologies, but that's not a logical interpretation, not for a normal definition of "logical" or "clear". And of course, I don't believe that was your intention.

I know you're probably trolling at this point, but I'm just in the right mood to go full sperg mode, so lessgo. Semantics time.

So first you mention how defenders hasn't been nerfed, which serves as the backdrop for the actual argument- "defenders don't need a nerf because there're viable countermeasures for them". Which is a valid argument. Note that the first part - the context on its own - is not, because the fact that mechanic has remained the same over the years doesn't automatically prove it's in the desirable state or should stay the same. Especially, considering all the criticism. Hence, the need for elaboration. The resultant message is "defenders are fine and don't need a nerf".

So far, so good.

You start your second thought with "likewise", which implies the same logical pattern as in the first one.
Indeed, you mention how poison hasn't been nerfed, which considering the use of intoductory "likewise" and the communicative purpose of the first part, plus your following subjective elaboration - "your suggestion would make it trash" - implies that we're supposed to arrive at a similar conclusion - something like "Poison is fine and doesn't need a nerf". Which is the only logical interpretation, because otherwise the second half of your message makes no sense as a communicative act and breaks the logic of the overall reasoning. Because, again, why would you say "likewise" and then proceed to just throw random facts at us, if not to prove a similar point?

So while you didn't state that "poison=fine" outright, what you said strongly implied, without a possibility of any other reasonable reading, that this was the opinion and the intended message behind your statements. Therefore, you can't really say that you said none of what I countered, because you did impicitly. Unless, of course, you really were just randomly bringing up trivial facts about poison for no reason. Which wouldn't be logical of anyone to assume...or do in a forum discussion.

Therefore: you're being confrontational and dismissive for the sake of it. Which I don't find very admirable, coming from a moderator.
Just a small hint from experience: insisting that you know better what a person said than the person who actually said it is not a form of productive comunication. If you aren't intrested in other opinions why bother to read and answer?
Draconifors statement was not very inviting, but "putting words in his mouth" will not get you anywhere.

Both mechanics are like he said not changed and the same like they where when introduced. But it is also true that "veil" was added to tune down poisons omnipotency.

To get into the discussion: IMHO poison works but is not a "good and fun" game desing. Something like a degenerating effect (bleeding already does it), could be more interesting. I could get behind the idea of old wether coming back on single targets. Poison -> set units power to 1. Unit can not be boosted until poison is purified. Something like that.

Defenders aren't great either. You have some valid points but you basicly already mentioned them all in your "HW has to go" posts.
Defenders are ok but they could be better. And here I say the same like in the HW thread: current state of the game is not great but it works. I would rather have no defender but also no total crazyness like Melusine and the like.
I actually starting to miss the terrible midrange piles of early hc because when everything was bad nothing was really bad (rather then the everything is op so nothing is really op state today)
 
I think the problem begins with cards — especially engines — that are just too strong and must be removed. So removal is increased to deal with them. But then there are cards that are too vulnerable so defenders are introduced. But the defenders also protect the cards that are too strong, so removal is increased to deal with defenders. But then there is too much removal so engines have to start stronger — or cards need to play for more value immediately. But more value after the fact means we need more removal to keep the game from being one dimensional…. And this cycle repeats forever.

But pragmatically, you can’t do a whole lot about one link in the chain without unbalancing the whole game …. and I don’t think reworking every card is feasible.

I used to absolutely hate Heatwave as unconditional autoinclude removal that prevented use of so many interesting cards. But then I realized the scenarios, Gezrases, Brouver, patience mages, Melusines, Freakshows, scenarios, ad infinitum would run roughshod over the game without it. Maybe getting rid of defender would reduce the removal to reduce the overpowered garbage that has to be removed. But it is too late for that. And I’m starting to realize that a million op units keeps Heatwave in check. And a million removal tools keeps defender in check. Just maybe, balance works because of mechanics I dislike.
 
...and now we are at the same root problem again...

Just a small reminder: Defenders came with the "iron judgement" addon same as scenarious. Same expansion brought the reason why HW went into the meta (actually only after the rework of every artifact removal card). Here we can see pretty much that devs knew that cards like scenarious didn't fit the gamebalance. You invest to much to have them removed without gain, so defenders where given. Defender makes everybody run nukes and here we are like Quintivarium already said in a vicious circle.

And we can merge the treads because poison is just the "little cousins of the problem" and Heatwave/Defender/Unbalanced OPness is one and the same topic.
 
I think the problem begins with cards — especially engines — that are just too strong and must be removed. So removal is increased to deal with them. But then there are cards that are too vulnerable so defenders are introduced. But the defenders also protect the cards that are too strong, so removal is increased to deal with defenders. But then there is too much removal so engines have to start stronger — or cards need to play for more value immediately. But more value after the fact means we need more removal to keep the game from being one dimensional…. And this cycle repeats forever.

But pragmatically, you can’t do a whole lot about one link in the chain without unbalancing the whole game …. and I don’t think reworking every card is feasible.

I used to absolutely hate Heatwave as unconditional autoinclude removal that prevented use of so many interesting cards. But then I realized the scenarios, Gezrases, Brouver, patience mages, Melusines, Freakshows, scenarios, ad infinitum would run roughshod over the game without it. Maybe getting rid of defender would reduce the removal to reduce the overpowered garbage that has to be removed. But it is too late for that. And I’m starting to realize that a million op units keeps Heatwave in check. And a million removal tools keeps defender in check. Just maybe, balance works because of mechanics I dislike.
I actually think that removing defenders, immunity units and unconditional killswitch cards would solve it. Yes, we'll be stuck with uncontrollable broken engines running amok, but also: Brouver vs. Emhyr is an infinitely more fun and interactive situation than either vs. Heatwave. You can ping off armor. You can bring a lock. You can boost 1's to prevent seizing... there's a lot you can still do. And there would be a lot more important micro-interactions in this scenario. Especially considering defenders wouldn't be around.

And more importantly, without these two links, the remainder of this vicious chain would be much easier to set straight without terrible ripple effects.
 
Or what, was your intention to just randomly state commonly-known facts with no implications or intentions to prove anything?
Exactly. The whole point was to point out nothing has changed despite complaints. Simple as that.
But "commonly known" does not equal "everyone knows"; two years is a long time and many players have joined the community during that time.

the fact that mechanic has remained the same over the years doesn't automatically prove it's in the desirable state or should stay the same.
Where did I claim that? Nowhere.

I, again, simply stated a fact in that the keyword has not been changed despite complaints -- just like Poison.
Hence "likewise".

I did say I think Defenders are fine, BUT I gave a very clear and clearly separate reason for that, following "I've always found".

If I'd wanted to comment on whether I think Poison is fine I would have done so similarly to that "I've always found".

So while you didn't state that "poison=fine" outright, what you said strongly implied, without a possibility of any other reasonable reading, that this was the opinion and the intended message behind your statements.
Untrue. You're stating subjective views and interpretations as facts and the only truth.

You're also putting words in my mouth, which someone else also pointed out. Nobody generally likes it when people do that, and it just makes the person seem like they have no real arguments to provide.

End of this line of discussion, as far as I'm concerned.
 
I guess I wrongly assumed that the balance everyone understandably needs, isn't the "balance" that we're now having. I thought it's clear that fundamentally it's bad that, having your regular go-to deck suddenly do horribly worse just because of a defender. I remember that time when after playing Operator and sets up a bronze on both sides, my opponent protected that bronze with a defender, then my Duchess' Informant can't target that bronze at all and become a free -1 point for me. I was like, fine, time to forfeit.

I know that purify exist, heatwave exist, yes, yes, I know. But it's not about that. Try to see it from a regular player who tries stuffs and want to enjoy some games. After patiently waited to queue for a game, he meets that Archgriffin/Patience deck and can't do much cause he's just playing with some regular deck. This partly explains the state of the game right now. From hundreds of cards, only some are considered playable. And worse than that, some are considered mandatory.

Maybe I should just stop trying to fix this game just by my own hopes and imaginations. The devs will most likely not care and drive it towards its doom anyway.

I know another game that has got crazily unbalanced, and of course it remains so, ever getting worse. That game still lives. I even still play it sometimes, especially whenever a new expansion comes out.

*sigh*
Bye Gwent.

I got loads of ideas to drag this game back to balance. I wanted to write them down, I actually was writing some of them. But I guess no, I should not continue. But I'm eager to share if anyone's interested.
 
Last edited:

DRK3

Forum veteran
Just a small reminder: Defenders came with the "iron judgement" addon same as scenarious. Same expansion brought the reason why HW went into the meta (actually only after the rework of every artifact removal card). Here we can see pretty much that devs knew that cards like scenarious didn't fit the gamebalance. You invest to much to have them removed without gain, so defenders where given. Defender makes everybody run nukes and here we are like Quintivarium already said in a vicious circle.

Actually, defenders came out in Iron Judgement (October) and scenarios came out shortly after, in Merchants of Ofir (December), alongside new stratagems. The rest of the comment is correct, and it took a long while scenarios were balanced - some may even say they never were, or that they were through powercreep, another problem.
 
I guess I wrongly assumed that the balance everyone understandably needs, isn't the "balance" that we're now having. I thought it's clear that fundamentally it's bad that, having your regular go-to deck suddenly do horribly worse just because of a defender. I remember that time when after playing Operator and sets up a bronze on both sides, my opponent protected that bronze with a defender, then my Duchess' Informant can't target that bronze at all and become a free -1 point for me. I was like, fine, time to forfeit.

I know that purify exist, heatwave exist, yes, yes, I know. But it's not about that. Try to see it from a regular player who tries stuffs and want to enjoy some games. After patiently waited to queue for a game, he meets that Archgriffin/Patience deck and can't do much cause he's just playing with some regular deck. This partly explains the state of the game right now. From hundreds of cards, only some are considered playable. And worse than that, some are considered mandatory.

Maybe I should just stop trying to fix this game just by my own hopes and imaginations. The devs will most likely not care and drive it towards its doom anyway.

I know another game that has got crazily unbalanced, and of course it remains so, ever getting worse. That game still lives. I even still play it sometimes, especially whenever a new expansion comes out.

*sigh*
Bye Gwent.

I got loads of ideas to drag this game back to balance. I wanted to write them down, I actually was writing some of them. But I guess no, I should not continue. But I'm eager to share if anyone's interested.
I'd like to hear your suggestions, but I have to say that the poison one would just absolutely destroy the whole mechanic. I've also given up playing the game for now, but we should never stop wanting a better game.
 
Maybe I should just stop trying to fix this game just by my own hopes and imaginations. The devs will most likely not care and drive it towards its doom anyway.
Just a general tip: the direction you don't prefer - although it is usually easier for one to digest by believing so - is not necessarily driving anything to "it"s doom".

I for one definitely prefer a meta/gamestate with active-reactive options (meaning numerous ways for removal) than a stagnating pool of engines and boosts, literally across all factions, 24/7.


I actually think that removing defenders, immunity units and unconditional killswitch cards would solve it. Yes, we'll be stuck with uncontrollable broken engines running amok, but also: Brouver vs. Emhyr is an infinitely more fun and interactive situation than either vs. Heatwave.
I disagree completely. The scanrio you describe is everthying but interactive and enjoyable for me.
Since most decks nowadays run multiple high-level threats and each would warrant the use of Heatwave, this makes the actual useage of this card rather tactical. Knowing when and what to Heatwave (or nuke with any other hardremoval cards) is significantly more complex than most who criticize it would accept.
You need to be able to prepare with at least 2-3 alternate interactive answers to your opponent's side and use them at the very right time, or be able to have an even greedier playstyle potentially outpointing his/her threats and engines on the long run.

The rest of the comment is correct, and it took a long while scenarios were balanced - some may even say they never were, or that they were through powercreep, another problem.
Pretty much the latter I'd say. While they were easily the apex of powerlevel for a few expansions, the current impact of some cards easily puts them to a lot more acceptable state.
 
Top Bottom