Moderator: A couple more posts deleted. There's no need to be condescending, or mock each other.
DRK3;n10247122 said:For people complaining that Venendal can be a dead card if obtained on R3 or when you dont have valuable revealed targets - so what? there are many other bronzes who work like that, its called 'risk and reward' ex. reaver scouts, they easily bring another one of your units, but if those units were killed, he's a dead card, you have to consider that risk.
And maybe you havent noticed, but revealing your opponent's entire hand had become really easy, to the point sometimes you had more reveal options but only your own hand as target - so what did CDPR did? Created this new 'conceal' mechanic so you can never 'reveal too much' as you can keep revealing those fire scorpions to hit again, etc.
Sure, there are decks that are pretty resistant to Venendal, and one of those decks might be the most popular atm, but does that make the card "balanced" when its still OP against most other decks?
mpk_394;n10264572 said:[SNIP] re: Cynthia [/SNIP]
ser2440;n10264132 said:No one is saying it isn't. But as the rounds progress and deck thinning takes place it unavoidably becomes higher.
Not really. I can downplay it because I've tried this combo myself a gazillion times. I know it's not as good as it sounds. If you don't VE her you are getting screwed because very rarely will the stars align for other VEs in your deck to find good enough value with enemy cards. Not to mention you don't even know when you'll draw them. And running only one to use Cantarella with isn't worth it. It's really as simple as that.
As have I in probably as many matches as you have or more. If you read the last part of my previous post (maybe it just doesn't work for me) you'd know that I was just stating my opinion with this particular part and in no way did I suggest it proves anything. It's not a bad card. I never even said that. Quite the contrary it is quite good. But not even the menace everyone seems to be describing it. And you are free to try it yourself and see how well that works for you. Because Reveal is one of my oldest decks and I've been fine tuning it for a long time. (just in case it isn't clear again, this is my opinion. For facts, please respond to the last part of my post, see below)
Gladly. But first I have to ask what counts as evidence for you. Is it the GwentUp report? Is it Swim's analysis? Or you can just sit and think how many times you've lost to Reveal in total on your own too, that would work. But sure. I'll let you know what I came up with after you let me know
Ser.. you made the statement, so you back it up! Don't you think it's a bit disingenuous to make a claim and then ask someone else to prove it? What kind of tactic is that?
ser2440;n10266282 said:I asked what you count as proof so that I may provide it. That's all. I don't see where you think I am asking you to prove it, aside from my third-to-last sentence which came right before and after 4 others telling you that I will provide the proof you seek as soon as you tell me what counts as proof for you.
MU24bmw;n10267432 said:I got done over good by a VE (this was before I realised what could happen). Cynthia reveals my Geralt (yes, it's not a great card, but I hardly had any Gold's to choose from for that deck). Next turn, VE takes Geralt's power. So I mulligan Geralt away in round 2. Then round 3 I get my 1 point Geralt back again after my only mulligan - argh!
So my point is that mulliganing the card away doesn't reset it's power back to base strength. Which mean's you don't want to draw it again, but sometimes you do!
SHALLAHJUSTICE;n10269792 said:After skimming through this thread i would say it's the general consensus that VE is a broken card that needs fixing as soon as possible.
You choose. I'll take whatever data analysis you present.
ser2440;n10270952 said:Fair enough for starters, that's the latest GwentUP meta report. Voorhis has a 5.2% popularity but only a 45% winrate. Sure it's more popular than, say Eredin or even Henselt. Does it make the cut? Not really. And that's not even decks using Venendals, all of them.
In the Meta Snapshot by Gwentlemen, Reveal or any deck using Venendals, is not even there (to clarify, as the meta snapshot says, these are the 3 strongest archetypes of each faction. Reveal rates lower than swarm as such). Granted, the snapshot is a bit old, but it definitely was created after the Midwinter Patch, and at least a whole season for which we had Venendals.
All in all, when Reveal rates that low, I fail to see how this card is "ruining ranked play"
And finally, perhaps this discussion will do it for you, where every commentator agrees that not only it's inconsistent and polarized, but also that there are ways to work around it like armorsmiths or D-Bomb or mushrooms or Peter Saar or (formerly) Quen
Lol.. you should actually read the thread to which you sent me! All of them seem to agree VE + Cantarella is OP! From there, some say it's mediocre.
Not really. I can downplay it because I've tried this combo myself a gazillion times. I know it's not as good as it sounds. If you don't VE her you are getting screwed because very rarely will the stars align for other VEs in your deck to find good enough value with enemy cards. Not to mention you don't even know when you'll draw them. And running only one to use Cantarella with isn't worth it. It's really as simple as that.
I don't know about the GwentUp report; does it pertain only to the highest ranks? Because I run into reveal about 1/4 of the matches. (Yes, I have been counting)
I never said it's "ruining ranked play". Someone else may have. Please attribute quotes to the correct person. I said it's OP, especially as concerns the Cantarella combo.
And that snapshot is almost one month old!!! It was taken ONE DAY AFTER THE PATCH? C'mon man! Don't be that way!
4RM3D;n10270202 said:If most people say the earth is flat, that doesn't make it so. Nevertheless, the perception of players is still important, regardless of whether it's correct. If CDPR wants to fix VE, it should be because players dislike it, rather than it being broken. A subtle, but important, distinction.
Philologus;n10243032 said:THAT is absurd too, especially given that NG runs the Ointment card.