Interesting. I came to the same conslusion about you. Maybe if you weren’t so bad at the game and could handle Usurper you wouldn’t be crying about it on the forums.
Funny you should say that, because I don't have any issue with Usurper whatsoever. While it may seem like an annoying card designwise, I think it is one of the few good designed cards balancewise, as in theory , it can keep any other leader in check.
What I was disagreeing with you on was your point of leaders not being wincons, which is clearly wrong
Decks like Foltest still have secondary and even tertiary win conditions. Especially with cards like Anna, Tridam, and Gaunter. Decks should be built to handle potential disruption, A leader that locks is no different than any other lock in the game. It should be balanced like any other card and mechanic in the game.
Post automatically merged:
I didn’t say every leader. And I said that because for the most part they aren’t. They just support the archetypes for which they’re apart. Eredin isn’t a win con anyway, it’s Imlerith. Most leaders are generic point cards and none are win cons. They may support win con cards like Imlerith and Gaunter, but so do other cards with the same effect, on top of the fact those those cards function well without any specific leader.
And thats why I said you don't understand how the game works.
And the fact you don’t realize that no leader offers an effect that isn’t already offered by cards you place in your deck demonstrates your inability to understand this game either.
Lock cards and a leader that locks your leader are two completely different things.
I agree that people can't rely on their leader to win and that is because of Usurper. Part of the game is completely unappealing to me because of that one leader.
Yeah but subjective criticism and personal experience shouldn’t really dictate what is allowed in this game. I, or anyone, could equally say that about any mechanic, one that you for example find balanced, fun, and a positive part of the game. If anything, Usurper forces auto pilot decks from steam rolling and forces deck creativity where you can try to win through a secondary win condition and through skilled play, including baiting your opponent and playing around them. Instead of drop Imlerith activate Eredin, drop Aglais activate Francesca, drop Gaunter activate Foltest, drop Schirru activate Brouver.
If anything, he is a solid anti meta pick against brain dead auto pilot decks with unstoppable win cons. As long as he’s balanced why does it really matter? He certainly isn’t prevalent enough to warrant saying he occupies every match played. And all he does is take Leaders out of the match. Your opponent and you are still on an even playing field with no leaders. And your deck construction can’t be so bad that without you Leader you can’t win a match. I’ve never felt like I’ve had to auto forfeit against Usurper.
Even if your only problem with him is just that you think he’s boring, many could make the same complaint against any deck you use that wins through whatever means.
I don't think your idea is feasible in the current state of the game, at least for the leaders. I don't like at all the idea of having cards which enhances your leader abilities, that would make deckbuilding to be centered around your leader much more than it would be now, and also becoming more draw dependant.
And naive of me thinking you quit, but here you are still secretly playing
And naive of me thinking you quit, but here you are still secretly playing
No, you are quite right, I don't play anymore. That does however not mean that I do not understand the game I have probably played the most out of all my games in the last 2 yearsAnd naive of me thinking you quit, but here you are still secretly playing
Please drop the "you don't understand the game" arguments. It's rude, off-topic and gone on for more than long enough.
Be nice, and stay on topic.
Be nice, and stay on topic.
I believe Usurper is objectively bad for the game because he removes mechanics that should be important to deck building because the devs themselves made them important. Usurper does nothing to force deck creativity. All it does is limit your possibilities.
If something is too powerful then the devs fix that in balance patches. Its a bad idea to think that an OP deck is fine because there is one leader out there that stops it in it's tracks. That is a binary solution.
How prevalent he is currently doesn't really matter to my argument. Sometimes he might only be a little prevalent and later he might be meta. I think he is bad for the game because of how he hurts the deck building. Fun is of course subjective but I don't really see how this leader adds fun to the game. It's a boring leader that only serves to remove your decks mechanics.
Boring is only a part of why I don't like it.
The only arguments presented are subjective experiences and using that to balance a game is probably the worst idea ever.
“I don’t like the card” is not a objective reason it should not be in the game.
Like I said, it’s your opinion. Just like in my opinion he forces decks to be constructed in a way where they may need alternative win conditions. I’ve already pointed out that your argument is a double standard against locks. I could equally say that the locking mechanic and destruction isn’t fun. I don’t get to use my effects. I think it limits deck building because your card gets destroyed or locked the moment it is played.
Regarding Usurper, I never once stated that he should exist to balance out other Leaders. That’s a gross exaggeration of what I said and a straw man argument.
I said that he helps mitigate playstyles like that which exist, regardless if they’re balanced or not. Gwent has always been Control>Engine>Pointslam / Swarm>Control. He’s just a control type leader.
I respect your opinion but I also disagree with it. I do see why you have it though. And honestly, despite your resistance to binary gameplay, you have the habit of framing this scenario in a binary way. Usurper existing or being gone isn’t really a solution to any problems the game may have.
Moderator's note: manually merged back the latter section of the post because it got "lost" in another post.
“I don’t like the card” is not a objective reason it should not be in the game.
Like I said, it’s your opinion. Just like in my opinion he forces decks to be constructed in a way where they may need alternative win conditions. I’ve already pointed out that your argument is a double standard against locks. I could equally say that the locking mechanic and destruction isn’t fun. I don’t get to use my effects. I think it limits deck building because your card gets destroyed or locked the moment it is played.
Regarding Usurper, I never once stated that he should exist to balance out other Leaders. That’s a gross exaggeration of what I said and a straw man argument.
I said that he helps mitigate playstyles like that which exist, regardless if they’re balanced or not. Gwent has always been Control>Engine>Pointslam / Swarm>Control. He’s just a control type leader.
I respect your opinion but I also disagree with it. I do see why you have it though. And honestly, despite your resistance to binary gameplay, you have the habit of framing this scenario in a binary way. Usurper existing or being gone isn’t really a solution to any problems the game may have.
Moderator's note: manually merged back the latter section of the post because it got "lost" in another post.
Last edited by a moderator:
Of course that isn't a reason. Explaining how the card negatively impacts the entire game would be an objective reason.
Forcing decks to pretend like their leaders don't exist is not giving the game more depth or making it more interesting. It's simply subtracting something from the game. Your argument on locks didn't make any sense which I already pointed out. Cards that lock other cards are a completely different thing from a leader that locks a leader. When you build a deck you can account for locks being in the game. Locks might not affect your deck or you can plan to bait them out or a number of other strategies. Usurper is completely uncounterable and instantly takes your leader out of the game.
You were suggesting that Usurper is a solution to OP "brain dead" decks and my response is that we absolutely do not need Usurper to be that counter and it's a bad solution to any of those kinds of problems.
I have plenty of issues with the game aside from Usurper. Removing him from the game is something I think will happen eventually and for good reason.
Removing him would just be caving to people who want Gwent to be the same boring autopilot deck fest we’ve had all open beta. So enjoy your auto pilot decks and your boring game to go with it.
Really not understanding your autopilot deck critique. If there is some kind of issue here that I am not yet aware of then Usurper would not be the solution to it. You can balance out OP decks without a bad solution like a leader that turns off your leader.
I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse here. Building a deck to be completely reliant on one, singular ability is what we call poor deck building. This is especially true for HC. Usurper does not punish decks for relying on the leader. It punishes decks for including any synergy with the leader. A Demavend, AQ or Foltest deck doesn't necessarily need the leader to win (the former are hard pressed to win without it though). It's a supplement to the deck concept.
The fact is Usurper is a concept where building for synergy gets punished. If you run any leader and carry any cards designed to benefit from that leader you're punished for it when you queue into Usurper. It requires nothing on the part of the player running Usurper. All they do is choose a leader. This is bad design.
The difference with locks is you have to carry, draw and play locks. This means the other player can account for locks and play around them. There is no play around ability for Usurper beyond avoiding certain leaders or intentionally building away from leader synergies.
Which auto-pilot decks? I honestly cannot think of a single auto-pilot deck in HC. There is simply too much variance game to game in HC for anything to really be considered auto-pilot. This is one of the benefits of the reduced reliability. Auto-pilot concepts go poof.
I'd add, Usurper wouldn't stop auto-pilot decks from existing even if they were still a thing. All it would do is screw them over completely when they ran into Usurper. This would mean nobody would play them if Usurper became common. If nobody plays a concept it may as well not exist. Again, bad design. Interestingly, this is basically what happens right now. Decks are built toward leader synergy. If you run into Usurper you just find a way to deal with it or auto-lose and move on to the next game.