Usurper, Viper Witchers & Traheaern. When?

[mzeebra]

I think that many people have bitter experiences with Usurper and therefore don't like him. Personally I didn't like him when I first met him, but I didn't think it did not fit with the game.

I do think he fits in the game and after playing him I also like him as a leader.

 

[1990BW]

Usurper is one of the most diffcult leaders to play because he relies heavily on getting more value out of provisions.
You'll have to put cards in deck with high risk and rewards like:

- Count Caldwall (can be stolen with damaging and taller units)
- Slave infantry (great Gimpy target which everyone seems to play)
- Doppler (only good with lots of cards in hand)
- Ocvist (can be locked or removed)
etc.

He's at his best against engine decks anything else will be hard to play against.
Leaders with high provisions, like Eithné or Morvran, are a instant loss because they simply have a lot more high value cards.
Big boy monsters can easily out-tempo you and heck even Bran can be diffucult to play against with his high tempo discard cards.
So no Usurper isn't broken I even think he's to weak to be competitive but maybe that is a issue with the whole Nilfgaard faction right now.
Assimilate is bad, engines are bad and thinning is too expensive.
As for Viper Witchers they were good with the Emhyr Witcher deck.
But since his leader ability has changed (which demolished the NG Withcer deck) VW are unreliable and thus not worth playing.
Traheaern is a good card but there are a lot of but's:

- He's good in R1
- He's only good in R2 if you won R1 or your opponent passes early in R2
- Against most decks he's useless in R3

 

[Archan6el]

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

Sure, with one player not knowing this until the game starts and having his/her strategy ruined because of that, unlike the "Nilfgaardian" player. So no, not acceptable to me.

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)
...
Why do you think you know more about CDPRs vision then CDPR themselves?

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.

CDPR's actions (introducing Usurper with this ability) are not aligned with what they communicated several times for HC about leader-deck synergy (which is something that is very fun and that I value much). Funny how people just keep denying/ignoring that. Don't twist it into something else (about my personal vision or valuing CDPR's vision).

 

[Draconifors]

CDPR's actions (introducing Usurper with this ability) are not aligned with what they communicated several times for HC about leader-deck synergy

Unless they specifically said that all Leaders should have potential synergies with decks, Usurper does not go against it.

If they did say all Leaders should have synergies, then Usurper is hardly the first exception to a "rule" like that. Not in the context of GWENT, but in general.

 

[mzeebra]

Assimilate is bad, engines are bad and thinning is too expensive.

I agree. Assimilate is very disappointing and not a viable concept for winning. It's not powerful at all compared to most other boost functions, and it only works with very specialized decks. This was supposedly a new Nilfgaard ability then? How sad.

I've tried Assimilate with Henrietta and I've seen other play assimilate based decks, and they are just not that good. Son congrats to Nilfgaard for getting the worst and least interesting new ability of any faction. As a side thing, assimilate is a decent ability.

If CDPR adds alot of new interesting spy concept, and maybe tweak Assimilate to mean more than it does currently, it could become a viable concept.

Anyways, I'm no expert, but I do play Nilfgaard and have for awhile, and assimilate is not what I would put my money on.

Post automatically merged: Apr 13, 2019

Sure, with one player not knowing this until the game starts and having his/her strategy ruined because of that, unlike the "Nilfgaardian" player. So no, not acceptable to me.

How does not having the leader ability ruin the strategy? In a poorly balanced deck, yes. In a well balanced deck, no. Usurper is not the only one who bricks overly leader dependent decks.

 

[Archan6el]

Unless they specifically said that all Leaders should have potential synergies with decks, Usurper does not go against it.

If they did say all Leaders should have synergies, then Usurper is hardly the first exception to a "rule" like that. Not in the context of GWENT, but in general.

Now you're kidding right? The point is that it was always communicated that leader-deck synergy will be important and fun. Then a leader is introduced who blocks the leader-deck synergy of all opponent leaders (and of course has no deck synergy himself). That's pretty funny isn't it? Sad actually.

How does not having the leader ability ruin the strategy? In a poorly balanced deck, yes. In a well balanced deck, no. Usurper is not the only one who bricks overly leader dependent decks.

What do you mean by "poorly balanced deck"? That you cannot rely on your leader to actually work and every deck we build now has to be able to deal with a potential Usurper opponent? Again, that would not be aligned of the communication about leader-deck synergy. On top of that, it's simply boring and makes the game less fun and interesting.

 

[C7Racehead]

Many people are disagreeing with you here. It's not to put down your point of view, it's rather to put emphasis on the fact that this is entirely subjective. As I've said before, Usurper has its place in the game even though it doesn't align with leader-deck synergies as you put it.

He serves to remind you that you can't go all in on combos which actually creates more diverse gameplay if you take a moment to reflect on it. If everybody would be able to pull off their combos consistently, GWENT would become too predictable with its in-game scenarios being less diverse.

I'm an advocate for variety as I've expressed in many different ways on these boards before. And Usurper does actually bring variety.

 

[Draconifors]

The point is that it was always communicated that leader-deck synergy will be important and fun. Then a leader is introduced who blocks the leader-deck synergy of all opponent leaders (and of course has no deck synergy himself).

Thirty (and that number will likely only go up) Leaders in the game, one of whom is anti-synergy. It really is not that big of a deal.

One could even argue it's a good thing an exception like Usurper exists, just so there is something to break the pattern. Which actually is similar to what the previous poster said, so it's not just my opinion either.

 

[deckard_kaine]

I don't like playing against Usurper, but I admit he is the "necessary evil". We need a leader like that. He is the required tool to heal a broken Meta. (Recent example being OP Dettlaff decks)

 

[Archan6el]

Thirty (and that number will likely only go up) Leaders in the game, one of whom is anti-synergy. It really is not that big of a deal.

One could even argue it's a good thing an exception like Usurper exists, just so there is something to break the pattern. Which actually is similar to what the previous poster said, so it's not just my opinion either.

You're still ignoring the point that it makes absolutely no sense to communicate and advertise leader-deck synergy and then to introduce a leader who accomplishes exactly the opposite. If you have a vision (leader-deck synergy), you stick to it and do everything to promote it. You don't create exceptions. Exceptions are the death of your vision, and your credibility as well for that matter.

I don't like playing against Usurper, but I admit he is the "necessary evil". We need a leader like that. He is the required tool to heal a broken Meta. (Recent example being OP Dettlaff decks)

Well, that's the issue isn't it? People starting to believe that Usurper is the "necessary evil". He's not. It's just fighting evil (unbalanced game) with evil. It solves nothing and only creates more problems. The root cause needs to be addressed: the game needs to be balanced. Usurper's ability changed.

 

[Draconifors]

introduce a leader who accomplishes exactly the opposite. If you have a vision (leader-deck synergy), you stick to it and do everything to promote it. You don't create exceptions. Exceptions are the death of your vision.

When exactly did they say that, anyway? I can't find a single quote from a RED saying that, anywhere, but I may not be using the right search terms.
I'm interested in exact wordings.

In any case, I'm not ignoring it; I'm saying it's not something they need to always, 100% stick to. It's more of a principle than a rule set in stone.

A single exception is not the "death" of a vision, but can, in fact, emphasize it and add to its overall value.
"Exception X sure is annoying, which makes me all the more glad that everything else follows vision Y."

----

I feel this thread is just going in circles. at least when it comes to Usurper, so I'm not going to participate in the discussion any longer. Everyone has their own views, which is perfectly fine.

I am interested to see whether that upcoming Nilfgaard faction revision changes any of the cards discussed here.

 

[mzeebra]

Just wanted to add one thing that I've observed recently when playing Usurper, it can be problematic to put enough points on the board due to the low provisions of 160. Even with two large point cards and slave infantry it can be an issue, and sometimes feel like a real struggle.

I think for this reason that Viper Witchers are even more important to such a deck.