Usurper, Viper Witchers & Traheaern. When?

[Archan6el]

...

I believe you're missing the point entirely and your arguments for Viper Witchers with the provisions don't make any sense. These leader and card mechanics cross a red line for many players. That is not needed if some principles and standards would be implemented and upheld.
There is no way that you can compare Skellige (as a whole?) with Usurper, Viper Witchers and Traheaern. Those mechanics are completely different and that is simply trying to create false equivalency. Your counter argument that you have to be skilled to play Usurper and Viper Witchers sounds really silly to me. That's like saying you have to be skilled to do nothing. But as you said, you think Usurper and Viper Witchers are fun, so we clearly have different principles and standards.

 

[C7Racehead]

You don't require to be any more or less skillful while playing Usurper over any other leader. Your level of skill isn't determined by what you play; it lies in the fundamentals such as knowing when to pass or push, card sequencing based on match up and what you save your removal for.

So there's no point in saying that playing Usurper is showing a lack of skill. You might find it distasteful and that's purely subjective.

You must also understand that your principles and standards are not all encompassing.

 

[tulamide]

I want to feel that I got outplayed or outsmarted.

You should consider this tought: If you have a deck that completely relies on your leader and your opponent disables your leader, you have been outsmarted.

No, I don't say this to tease you. It's just a try to push your view into a new perspective.

 

[SMiki55]

I have nothing against the Usurper in terms of fair play, but as a new player I find his ability too boring to even try playing him. It would be much cooler to give him some active ability, e.q. poisoning or banishing enemy's cards.

 

[mzeebra]

I believe you're missing the point entirely and your arguments for Viper Witchers with the provisions don't make any sense. These leader and card mechanics cross a red line for many players. That is not needed if some principles and standards would be implemented and upheld.
There is no way that you can compare Skellige (as a whole?) with Usurper, Viper Witchers and Traheaern. Those mechanics are completely different and that is simply trying to create false equivalency. Your counter argument that you have to be skilled to play Usurper and Viper Witchers sounds really silly to me. That's like saying you have to be skilled to do nothing. But as you said, you think Usurper and Viper Witchers are fun, so we clearly have different principles and standards.

Ofcourse you have to be skilled to play Usurper. He has the least provisions of any leader at 160.

I never said that about Viper Witchers, I said their effect is very small in general. If you have both, you can banish two cards from the top of the deck, at 12 provisions and put 8 points at the board. Not really game-changing, just disruptive.

I didn't miss the point, I just said I find it alot of fun to play with Usurper and Viper Witchers, especially against overly leader dependent deck. There is little better than the feeling of beating an unbalanced deck, just because they expect to use some cheap tricks. The truth is that X decks cannot play against Y decks, and no deck can play against all other decks. If you choose to play some super specialized deck, then you did not take into consideration decks that counter that, which may or may not include Usurper. Granted, Usurper is better against those decks than he is against more "general" decks. At 160 provisions and no leader ability, you do have to also use skills to win with Usurper, there is no automatic win if that is what you are trying to indicate.

Ofcourse I can compare with Skellige. You are wining about Usurper because he is sabotaging your deck and taking away the "fun". For me Skellige is just the same. Played well, Skellige will just take out anything you put on the board, while placing some points. For me that is far more annoying than Usurper, and it is also a kind of Sabotage deck. Same goes for traps. There are many annoying decks, Usurper might be the most annoying for you. For others it might be another deck. One of the main points of playing well is to sabotage the other players advances and approaches, Usurper is just one way of doing that of many, including trap decks and skellige.

I don't think Usurper and Viper Witchers are just fun, I think they are hilarious. I don't think I will play Usurper forever, but even when I change decks, I will still think the same of Usurper. Perhaps you should try to play a Usurper deck? Try to see if from a different point of view?

Usurper is a good addition to the diversity of strategies in the game. Viper Witchers are in a somewhat unique group of cards, but so are many other cards. They are interesting cards. And as someone mentioned, they are definetely not an "auto-include" in all Nilfgaard decks, and they also play on the whole Nilfgaard lore and specialty. I think for me, one of the reasons I like Usurper more than I should, is that it in many ways take the arrogance and bloat out of over-specialized decks. It's a mighty fine counter to those.

 

[Raja_Rajan]

It's this kind of RNG I personally dislike. It's one thing you are high rolling with Gascon, but having a bronze card potentially erase a gold card from existence is just wrong. Traheaern as a one-of gold card is okay. Still RNG, but somewhat less and you get some free information.

I rather see Viper Witchers become a 4p 4str card with the following ability: Reveal the top card from the opponent's library. This would make them competitive without becoming intrusive.

And while we are at it, lets make him have "Bonded" ability too.

Viper Witcher: 4 Provisions, 4 Power. Deploy: Reveal the top card from your opponent's deck. Bonded: Reveal the top 2nd and 3rd card from your opponent's deck.

 

[mzeebra]

You might find it distasteful and that's purely subjective.

I think this is the most contentious part. People find Usurper distasteful and or disgusting. One more reason you should try to play him in a game that can easily give you the cringe in general.

Post automatically merged: Apr 12, 2019

You should consider this tought: If you have a deck that completely relies on your leader and your opponent disables your leader, you have been outsmarted.

I love this point. Maybe not outsmarted by someone, but maybe outsmarted himself even.

Post automatically merged: Apr 12, 2019

I have nothing against the Usurper in terms of fair play, but as a new player I find his ability too boring to even try playing him. It would be much cooler to give him some active ability, e.q. poisoning or banishing enemy's cards.

Maybe after you play awhile and had enough annoying losses from cringeworthy decks, you might consider giving Usurper a go just to hand some stuff back.

Post automatically merged: Apr 12, 2019

Reveal the top 2nd and 3rd card from your opponent's deck.

So you want to take their main ability away and replace it with something as useless as a reveal alone? Why would I even care to bring them then?

Viper Witchers fit perfectly with the Usurper deck. Their power is not great, they can banish 2 cards. It's a well balanced card, 6 provision cost, 4 points on the board, banish top card. It's one of the most well balanced cards in the game.

What's even the chance you get to play both in the 2 first rounds? Not more than 50% in my experience. So you get to banish 1 card. Cry, cry, cry. How awful.

 

[BrokeCiri]

Archan6el may i ask what other PvP games have you played?

And while we are at it, lets make him have "Bonded" ability too.

Viper Witcher: 4 Provisions, 4 Power. Deploy: Reveal the top card from your opponent's deck. Bonded: Reveal the top 2nd and 3rd card from your opponent's deck.

Viper Witcher
Power: 4 Provision: 6
Deploy: Reveal a random card from your opponent's deck then damage it by 1.

 

[mzeebra]

Btw, as a Usurper player who do bring both Viper Witchers, I have to add they are NOT my core strategy. They are very nice to have, but not core to my strategy. Just part of a wider strategy.

Post automatically merged: Apr 12, 2019

Viper Witcher
Power: 4 Provision: 6
Deploy: Reveal a random card from your opponent's deck then damage it by 1.

I would certainly not bring them in that case. I doubt many would. If you want to make the card useless, that's a good suggestion you have there.

 

[SkiZophreniC]

In short, the key point is that these leader, cards and mechanics ruin the fun and frustrate players.

Personally I like to play against Usurper. Usually my whole plan is ruined so that I have to really think about how to win; it is very strategic.

I can't see the problem with Traehern. It is a subtle removal, much more subtle than, say, Regis BL...

The only point I agree, is your point about Viper Witchers - too much random.

But you should not generalize your point of view. I personally have fun when playing against Usurper; and not against this kind of Francesca spell deck... but hey let people play what they like!

 

[BrokeCiri]

Btw, as a Usurper player who do bring both Viper Witchers, I have to add they are NOT my core strategy. They are very nice to have, but not core to my strategy. Just part of a wider strategy.

Post automatically merged: Apr 12, 2019

I would certainly not bring them in that case. I doubt many would. If you want to make the card useless, that's a good suggestion you have there.

What's your idea then? Its a perfect 6:6 and it didn't completely stray away from his current ability.

 

[mzeebra]

What's your idea then?

My idea as I said before is that they are perfectly fine as they are, including the provision cost for them, which is not a 4 or 5 provision card. But 6.

They are just part of a wider sabotage strategy. If I get to play both, then great. Most often I get to play 1, sometimes 0.

I think locking is more central to my strategy to be honest. But locking is also part of the same sabotage part of the strategy. Aside from that I guess just plain destroying cards is "another" side to it.

Post automatically merged: Apr 12, 2019

Personally I like to play against Usurper. Usually my whole plan is ruined so that I have to really think about how to win; it is very strategic.

I like your point here. Playing against Usurper gives you a chance to focus on your deck alone, and perhaps slightly rethink it. Perhaps it is overly dependent on the leader? Perhaps your card choices by themselves are not good enough and should/could be improved?

 

[Draconifors]

I think if this would be introduced, there would be people playing it. Would be a nice social test.

I meant that it might have been a good suggestion to post on the forums on April Fools. Never to actually implement in the game, not even as a one-day-only joke. That would be a terrible idea.

Many decks are annoying for different players. Usurper might just be annoying for you. Personally I would much rather play against a Usurper deck than a trap deck.

Agreed. Even though I have two artifact removal units in my deck trap decks are really, really annoying to face. Usurper just... is. He doesn't do anything. Facing him while playing him myself is rather amusing; one Usurper disables the other's ability to disable him.

Btw, as a Usurper player who do bring both Viper Witchers, I have to add they are NOT my core strategy. They are very nice to have, but not core to my strategy. Just part of a wider strategy.

Same here. In my case Viper Witchers provide value for Ivo and Vesemir: Mentor; a total of six points of extra value when everything goes according to plan. That sometimes compensates for less than optimal RNG.

 

[mzeebra]

Same here. In my case Viper Witchers provide value for Ivo and Vesemir: Mentor; a total of six points of extra value when everything goes according to plan. That sometimes compensates for less than optimal RNG.

That's interesting. We use Usurper with completely different strategies. Just goes to show he is not only x or y. My deck is called Usurpers Oppression, might give away what exactly it does.

I guess if you use Vesemir Mentor you also have Auckles and Serrit? A kind of Witcher deck?

 

[Archan6el]

So there's no point in saying that playing Usurper is showing a lack of skill.

Who's saying that? Not needing skill and showing a lack of skill are very different.

You should consider this tought: If you have a deck that completely relies on your leader and your opponent disables your leader, you have been outsmarted.

No, I don't say this to tease you. It's just a try to push your view into a new perspective.

It comes done again to the principles, standards, but also vision of the game. CDPR has clearly communicated that leaders synergizing with their deck is their focus. So this argument is invalid, because it is not aligned with that vision. Usurper has the same problem; it's not aligned with the leader-deck synergy vision.

Ofcourse you have to be skilled to play Usurper. He has the least provisions of any leader at 160.
...
Ofcourse I can compare with Skellige. You are wining about Usurper because he is sabotaging your deck and taking away the "fun". For me Skellige is just the same.
...
I think for me, one of the reasons I like Usurper more than I should, is that it in many ways take the arrogance and bloat out of over-specialized decks. It's a mighty fine counter to those.

Playing Usurper, in the way of strategically using his ability requires 0 skill as it is automatic. Deck provisions are not relevant to that. Playing his deck is another question, but I don't think an Usurper deck is at the top of difficult decks to play.

Expressing my opinion is wining? Nice to see a Mod giving a thumbs up for this post. Please calm down a bit and read carefully. I did try Usurper, VW and Traheaern. It feels like cheating. If you think Skellige mechanics are of the same equivalency as Usurper, VW and Traheaern, which they factually are very clearly not, then discussion is pointless.

"Arrogance and bloat of over-specialized decks. It's a mighty fine counter to those." That clarifies a lot to me. It seems you're falling for the lazy-balancing-Usurper-as-a-counter-trap. Counters are played on the battlefield. Usurper as a counter to everything makes him a counter to nothing.

Maybe after you play awhile and had enough annoying losses from cringeworthy decks, you might consider giving Usurper a go just to hand some stuff back.

And that's the core issue here. As I mentioned above, the lazy-balancing-Usurper-as-a-counter-trap. Ask CDPR to properly balance their leaders, cards and mechanics instead of giving this lame "Usurper solution".

I meant that it might have been a good suggestion to post on the forums on April Fools. Never to actually implement in the game, not even as a one-day-only joke. That would be a terrible idea.

Of course, that why I said it is a ridiculous proposal. But as people have different standards (or no standards at all), I'm sure there are people who would use this card if it was available. It's up to the devs to set the standards for this game.

 

[mzeebra]

Expressing my opinion is wining? Nice to see a Mod giving a thumbs up for this post. Please calm down a bit and read carefully. I did try Usurper,

I'm sorry, that's not what I meant. I just could not think about the correct word at the time, which is complaining (about).

VW and Traheaern. It feels like cheating.

Why?

If you think Skellige mechanics are of the same equivalency as Usurper, VW and Traheaern, which they factually are very clearly not, then discussion is pointless.

Well, you clearly did not bother to read what I said. I said the same category, not the same. Both sabotage the other player, Usurper does this by manipulation of you use the mentioned card, Skellige does it by destroying everything you put on the board, and traps a kind of middle thing. Those are just 3 examples of the same thing, done in different ways. I mention Skellige and Traps because those are the best examples I can think of.

TBH, if I play NR, I would rather have 2 of my cards banished and one moved to the graveyard than everything I put on the board rendered useless by endless overpowered destruction (which sabotage my plays).

"Arrogance and bloat of over-specialized decks. It's a mighty fine counter to those." That clarifies a lot to me. It seems you're falling for the lazy-balancing-Usurper-as-a-counter-trap. Counters are played on the battlefield. Usurper as a counter to everything makes him a counter to nothing.

Yes, I said it and I stand by it. I came from playing NR, and tbh, it was really annoying at times, and often very frustrating. So playing Usurper is quite a nice way to give back. Especially to Skellige.

How is Usurper a counter to everything? He is just the counter to a single thing, the other leader.

And that's the core issue here. As I mentioned above, the lazy-balancing-Usurper-as-a-counter-trap. Ask CDPR to properly balance their leaders, cards and mechanics instead of giving this lame "Usurper solution".

I agree here, it would be nice if they now spent some real efforts at looking into every single card (and leader) and their provision costs, and had a good double check of all abilities and such as well to make a finer re-balance of the game. Too many cards are unused due to having too high cost vs usefulness, and too many cards are overused due to having too low cost vs usefuleness. I would like too see people use of all the cards in the game, not just the same few cards.

But even if they did that, I still see nothing wrong with Usurper leader ability vs the others.

Of course, that why I said it is a ridiculous proposal. But as people have different standards (or no standards at all), I'm sure there are people who would use this card if it was available. It's up to the devs to set the standards for this game.

Well look, the game just came out of beta about a few months ago. I think now is the perfect time to do what you suggest and I agree with. Sit down and look at every card, ability and their provision cost and re-balance these.

We all know which cards are used more and which are used almost never. That includes factions as well. Yes. It's well known by now, which factions need more and which ones can remain the same. They also all need a nice balance.

 

[Archan6el]

Why?
...
Both sabotage the other player, Usurper does this by manipulation of you use the mentioned card, Skellige does it by destroying everything you put on the board, and traps a kind of middle thing. Those are just 3 examples of the same thing, done in different ways. I mention Skellige and Traps because those are the best examples I can think of.

Because you don't play against the opponent's deck and strategy. You simply destroy it before it can be played against you, in an uncounterable way at that. To me, that's cheating, that's like playing tennis and cutting a few strings from your opponent's racket before the match starts. And that's very, very different from other leaders and cards, who compete by battling on the board.

How is Usurper a counter to everything? He is just the counter to a single thing, the other leader.

Well, not everything. Change "the other leader" to "any other leader" and you have what I mean.

I agree here, it would be nice if they now spent some real efforts at looking into every single card (and leader) and their provision costs, and had a good double check of all abilities and such as well to make a finer re-balance of the game. Too many cards are unused due to having too high cost vs usefulness, and too many cards are overused due to having too low cost vs usefuleness. I would like too see people use of all the cards in the game, not just the same few cards.

Exactly. And I see introducing Usurper as a lame trick/excuse/solution for balancing problems. Of course some people will like Usurper when you have such balancing problems. The fact remains that Usurper goes fully against CDPR's "leader-deck synergy" vision and there is zero explanation or justification for that.[/QUOTE]

 

[Jesting-Jack]

To me, that's cheating, that's like playing tennis and cutting a few strings from your opponent's racket before the match starts.

Not really. It's more like putting away both rackets and insisting on playing tennis with your hands.

I wouldn't call Usurper unfair, just boring.

 

[tulamide]

It comes done again to the principles, standards, but also vision of the game. CDPR has clearly communicated that leaders synergizing with their deck is their focus. So this argument is invalid, because it is not aligned with that vision. Usurper has the same problem; it's not aligned with the leader-deck synergy vision.

So basically you argue that you value CDPRs vision, but at the same time you don't value it because you don't like Ursuper, a card that CDPR decided to introduce to the game. That's contradicting. And therefore not an argument. (You can't select what DSPR does, to only pick what suits you)

Playing against Usurper isn't any more challenging than playing against other leaders. If you don't see that, then your personal experiences were a lot of lost games. Which others would take as a sign to change their deck. Why are you declining this strategic move? Is there no strategy left, when your leader is blocked (btw. not permanently, there are cards to "unblock" the leader)?

The fact remains that Usurper goes fully against CDPR's "leader-deck synergy" vision and there is zero explanation or justification for that.

Why do you think you know more about CDPRs vision then CDPR themselves? I would immediatly accept you saying "I don't like Ursuper, because I can't find a way to beat decks that contain him". But trying to tell us what CDPR thinks is strange, and that's why I can't accept what you say.

For the record: I don't play Ursuper, I'm speaking my mind from the perspective of a player that faces Ursuper a lot.

 

[Draconifors]

If you build a deck that is dependent on its Leader to function, then you're putting all of your eggs in one basket and setting yourself up for defeat every time you face Usurper. He is a threat that you need to take into account during deckbuilding if you don't want to "auto lose" against him.

I never build decks that rely on their Leader to be victorious. I do, of course, build synergies that benefit from the Leader, but the Leader is never an essential part of the synergies. Yes, I do it precisely because I know I will face Usurper sooner or later, but it doesn't annoy me that I need to do it. I would rather spend extra time building a deck that can win against any Leader than "auto lose" whenever the match start screen features Usurper just because I wanted to have the best possible synergies against all other Leaders.

Not really. It's more like putting away both rackets and insisting on playing tennis with your hands.

This sounds like a fairly accurate comparison, yes.
I'd much rather play twenty games against Usurper (while not using him myself) than play a single match of "hand tennis", though. Tennis balls hurt when hit with bare hands.