Wait....Viper witchers are unchanged???

+
I never said variance is a bad thing. I was specifically talking about that much variance on a 4p bronze card also based around RNG.

It's not random. It's the top card of the opponents deck.

I think you want to argue that having different types of tactics is a good thing but here you are saying people should never build decks around a powerful finisher or a powerful engine. Doesn't that limit the game? Yeah you have other gold cards but you put that one in the deck for a reason and it's silly that a 4p bronze can go into your deck and get rid of it. It's not a clever tactic, it's just a bad RNG card.

I didn't say that. And besides, Vipers does not really prevent a single card based strategy or some particular ending engine. In most cases not. And if players only have one strategy for their deck, that's their fault. If one card can be taken out and it's an automatic lost game, then their deck is not good enough. But sure, people should be allowed to base their whole deck around a single card, but at their own risk. I don't think the game should reward them for doing so.

I don't have that many decks, but I have none that are fully dependent on a single card. I think that's a silly strategy. The Vipers does not also get rid of a card of choice, it banishes the top card only.

It's not a clever tactic, but I don't play Vipers to be clever, I play it for disruption purposes and/or sabotage. And those are not the only cards I use for that purpose, that's just my overall strategy for my Usurper deck, and Vipers are just 2 of 6-7 cards I use for that purpose. It's not a hugely powerful deck either TBH, it's just a tactic style I found fun for a while, and I don't think it should be removed. I'm moving away from it now, but my deck will still be there for me to pick up again when I feel like it. I think it is a tactic/strategy that belongs in the game. It's quite unique, but it's not in any way very powerful. Vipers is just part of that mix of things.

I've had Vipers used on me, and I don't mind it at all. Even a few times they took away one of my top 3 most important cards, and I was like, meh.. I can play some other way with my deck,

The player clearly forfeit based on the viper witcher play. It won the game.

Like I said, that was not due to Vipers, but a weak player with a weak deck. If I play Demavend, do I forfeit if someone takes out an important card like Dandelion? No, I play on. If I forefeit, the 4 damage card you used did not win the game, I gave the game away because I'm a bad player who forfeited.

That isn't true at all. What happened was clear. I played one card which banished their win condition so they didn't feel it was worth even playing the game at that point.

Yeah, because it was a bad player with a bad deck. I've had plenty of games where important cards have been taken out in various ways. I don't forfeit as soon as that happens.

Well you have been arguing against some tactics here like building around one or two powerful win conditions. How about old imlerith sabbath which could come back in a different form at some point. People built around that card all the time. But one viper could win against that deck. Vipers are the worst kind of "tactics" you can put in a game. It's pure chance.

Nah, Vipers isn't pure chance. It is a reasonable counter to decks who over-rely on single cards, and even against such decks, it's not a strong card. 1/22 chance and then 1/21 chance.

Vipers is also a great counter to people using "fisher" or other cards to put some card on top of their deck. No other card can counter that play in the same way. Sure, some other cards can counter that in some way or another, but not directly.

RNG is already built into card draw. Who plays first and second. Deck match up. Injecting more RNG unnecessarily gets bad fast. I didn't start playing this game to play flip the coin and see who gets heads.

I think I've said it many times, randomness belongs in card games. Despite this, Gwent is mostly down to skills and strategy, but there is still randomness to it, which is a good thing. Randomness is needed, it's a core part of the game, a core part of any cardgame, and it's there to stay.
 
It's not random. It's the top card of the opponents deck.

Which is going to be a random card unless you moved one specific one to the top.


I don't think the game should reward them for doing so.

You are kind of advocating that players get punished for doing that. It limits the game unnecessarily. It's more interesting to try to bank on one or two win conditions than it is to play an RNG card that randomly takes out someones best card.

I don't have that many decks, but I have none that are fully dependent on a single card. I think that's a silly strategy. The Vipers does not also get rid of a card of choice, it banishes the top card only.

Plenty of people have giant plays they bank on that will most likely cost them the game if they get banished randomly. One example right now is Sheldon skaggs which can be worth 26 points.

It's quite unique, but it's not in any way very powerful. Vipers is just part of that mix of things.

It's weird to say it's not powerful when it can win the game.

Like I said, that was not due to Vipers, but a weak player with a weak deck.

It was specifically due to the viper play. Your perception of the player doesn't change that fact. The deck could also be very strong as long as you don't rip out it's win condition with an RNG card.

If I play Demavend, do I forfeit if someone takes out an important card like Dandelion? No, I play on. If I forefeit, the 4 damage card you used did not win the game, I gave the game away because I'm a bad player who forfeited.

Irrelevant.

Yeah, because it was a bad player with a bad deck. I've had plenty of games where important cards have been taken out in various ways. I don't forfeit as soon as that happens.

Your perception of the player and deck is irrelevant. Maybe you never played his deck before. Doesn't matter. He might have had no chance of winning or little chance of winning. Either way it happened because of that viper play and I won due to that play. No other card could have done that.

Nah, Vipers isn't pure chance. It is a reasonable counter to decks who over-rely on single cards, and even against such decks, it's not a strong card. 1/22 chance and then 1/21 chance.

That is objectively not true. It is pure chance every time you play it not knowing the top card.

Vipers is also a great counter to people using "fisher" or other cards to put some card on top of their deck. No other card can counter that play in the same way. Sure, some other cards can counter that in some way or another, but not directly.

So it's ok to you if people can't use fisher king because of viper witchers taking their cards out of their decks? That seems far more limiting to the game.

I think I've said it many times, randomness belongs in card games. Despite this, Gwent is mostly down to skills and strategy, but there is still randomness to it, which is a good thing. Randomness is needed, it's a core part of the game, a core part of any cardgame, and it's there to stay.

I just said in that very post that randomness is a part of card games. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be a limit on RNG cards.

Now you're trying to advocate for skills and strategy while at the same time arguing in favor of a card that can randomly banish someones win condition. Yeah that makes sense.
 
Which is going to be a random card unless you moved one specific one to the top.

And? I don't see how that is an issue. People now seem to come up with some abstract ways of complaining about the game, using terms such as RNG, variance and binary. I find it rather silly to be honest. All those are core to the game.

You are kind of advocating that players get punished for doing that. It limits the game unnecessarily. It's more interesting to try to bank on one or two win conditions than it is to play an RNG card that randomly takes out someones best card.

No, I'm not saying they should automatically be punished for that, but generally speaking, they will naturally be punished for that. Relying on one single card in the deck is highly likely to be a strategy that will punish you in various ways. That's build into the game and core of the game. You'd have to change almost the whole game to avoid that.

People are free to choose the strategy and tactic they want, which is a good thing, but I personally think it's a bad decisions to stake the whole game on a single card. That's also a tactic I only respect slightly more than "special card decks", meaning I have little respect for it.

Plenty of people have giant plays they bank on that will most likely cost them the game if they get banished randomly. One example right now is Sheldon skaggs which can be worth 26 points.

Yeah, and giant cards should come with a well balanced risk/reward. That's the whole discussion in threads about Gimpy Gerwin, Sheldon Skaggs and Hubert Rijk currently. What exactly is the risk and reward and how does one find the perfect balance for these cards? Being able to potentially banish such a card with a 1/22 chance with Viper Witcher does not change that discussion in any way.

It's weird to say it's not powerful when it can win the game.

Viper Witcher cards cannot win the game. It's ridiculous to claim they can. They simply cannot. Even 5x Viper Witchers cannot win you a game.

It's like saying just choosing Eldain as your leader can win you the game. It's not true. IF you "win" a game, because someone forfeit, that's not because you chose Eldain (or Vipers), it's because the other player is bad and forfeited.

It was specifically due to the viper play. Your perception of the player doesn't change that fact. The deck could also be very strong as long as you don't rip out it's win condition with an RNG card.

That's his and his deck's fault.

Your perception of the player and deck is irrelevant. Maybe you never played his deck before. Doesn't matter. He might have had no chance of winning or little chance of winning. Either way it happened because of that viper play and I won due to that play. No other card could have done that.

If someone forfeit it's their choice and their fault. They lost as soon as they did that. People can play whatever deck they want, that's the fun of the game. If their deck is bad, perhaps they should improve it? It's not my fault if their deck is bad.

And just because some decks are good or bad against some others, does not justify removing it.

My Usurper deck is not particularly good against decks with high provisions who play alot of 5 power units. Does that mean those kind of decks should be removed? Seriously, alot of people just complain on this forum about things that are bad for their own decks, and not what might actually be wrong/unbalanced in the game. Viper Witchers as they are, is a great card for this game. There are many great cards, and there are some not so great cards, I think Viper Witchers is one of the best balanced cards and most interesting cards that I know of. Alot of people seem to want to remove unique card to make the game as monotonous as possible.

Part of the great thing about this card game, is that there are so many different options and so many different ways to play. I think it's definetely a priority and in the best interest of Gwent and CDPR to re-balance ALL the cards, some that are almost never used, and some that are overused. I don't think Vipers belong in that group of cards that need some kind of change, I think it is just fine as it is.

Personally I think the Blue Stripe Scout that can put enourmous tempo in the round with 8 points (4 on it's own power) per play at 4 provisions is a card that is far better value than Viper Witchers. I'd have to be in game to compare some other 4-5-6 provision cards, but there are others that are way better than Viper Witchers at lower or equal provisions.

That is objectively not true. It is pure chance every time you play it not knowing the top card.

And? That's better than the ability of the Viper Witchers for example removing the top gold card, which would not be "pure chance". The pure chance is actually a great justification to why Viper Witchers are fine as they are.

So it's ok to you if people can't use fisher king because of viper witchers taking their cards out of their decks? That seems far more limiting to the game.

Ofcourse they can use it, and most players don't have Vipers to counter it. I do in my Usurper deck.

I just said in that very post that randomness is a part of card games. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be a limit on RNG cards.

Perhaps. But I think the balance is just fine as it is in regards to amount of "RNG" variance cards. I think CDPR is looking very hard at those cards to find the perfect balance between risk and reward, which is also a good thing. They have already adjusted Gerwin, Skaggs and Hubert to find a better balance. Vipers are not even in that category at all. It's a completely different card, and certainly not a round winning one.

Now you're trying to advocate for skills and strategy while at the same time arguing in favor of a card that can randomly banish someones win condition. Yeah that makes sense.

Yeah, this game is skill and strategy based. Having some interesting cards, variance, randomness is a great thing. And Vipers never banishes someones win condition, it simply banishes the top card of the opponents deck.
 
And? I don't see how that is an issue. People now seem to come up with some abstract ways of complaining about the game, using terms such as RNG, variance and binary. I find it rather silly to be honest. All those are core to the game.

Well I'm pretty confident more people are interested in winning through their knowledge and skill instead of pure luck. When you inject too much RNG into the game it can feel too much like luck.

No, I'm not saying they should automatically be punished for that, but generally speaking, they will naturally be punished for that. Relying on one single card in the deck is highly likely to be a strategy that will punish you in various ways. That's build into the game and core of the game. You'd have to change almost the whole game to avoid that.

It's pretty easy to rely on just a few cards to win a game. The game provides you with ways to get those cards consistently through stuff like royal decree and fisher king. I don't know what you mean when you say they would have to change the whole game.

People are free to choose the strategy and tactic they want, which is a good thing, but I personally think it's a bad decisions to stake the whole game on a single card. That's also a tactic I only respect slightly more than "special card decks", meaning I have little respect for it.

It's not just the idea of building around a single card or a few cards. It's that when it comes down to one single game, one match up, it can be decided by one card. For example gimpy gerwin could be the deciding factor in winning or losing a game. It could have generated you 15 points in the last round but you did't have it because a viper banished it. I don't see your logic in not respecting someone who comes up with one big strategy. How many decks have you seen that are built with renew? They specifically want renew to bring back a strong card that synergizes with their deck. That is a common thing to do in this game and if a viper banishes your renew target that is a big deal.

Yeah, and giant cards should come with a well balanced risk/reward. That's the whole discussion in threads about Gimpy Gerwin, Sheldon Skaggs and Hubert Rijk currently. What exactly is the risk and reward and how does one find the perfect balance for these cards? Being able to potentially banish such a card with a 1/22 chance with Viper Witcher does not change that discussion in any way.

I don't see your point here at all. Those discussions are centered on whether those cards are too powerful or not. Gimpy and skaggs were nerfed in the last patch. That is how you balance a game. Not with an RNG chance to banish it.

Viper Witcher cards cannot win the game. It's ridiculous to claim they can. They simply cannot. Even 5x Viper Witchers cannot win you a game.

I'm giving you example after example. How many do you need? Have you not seen an arachas deck built around playing glustyworp and renewing it? Think about their odds of winning the game and how those odds change if glusty is banished from the game? Even if you don't automatically lose 100% of the time that way it's still going to drastically change the odds.

It's like saying just choosing Eldain as your leader can win you the game. It's not true. IF you "win" a game, because someone forfeit, that's not because you chose Eldain (or Vipers), it's because the other player is bad and forfeited.

How is choosing a leader comparable to banishing a win condition? It's not.

The other player literally never played a card so therefore never made a "bad" play. All he did was watch his best card get taken out of the game. It's understandable if he doesn't feel like he can win at that point.

That's his and his deck's fault.

Once again you seem to be pushing the idea that no player should ever make a deck centered on one strategy. That severely handicaps the game.

If someone forfeit it's their choice and their fault.

Whether he forfeits or loses badly it's still a result of the viper either way.

They lost as soon as they did that. People can play whatever deck they want, that's the fun of the game. If their deck is bad, perhaps they should improve it? It's not my fault if their deck is bad.

Seems to be a much simpler and better solution to not put terrible RNG cards in the game that rip cards out of the players deck.

And just because some decks are good or bad against some others, does not justify removing it.
My Usurper deck is not particularly good against decks with high provisions who play alot of 5 power units. Does that mean those kind of decks should be removed?

Literally has nothing to do with this topic. This isn't about bad matchups. It's about one card mechanic.

Seriously, alot of people just complain on this forum about things that are bad for their own decks, and not what might actually be wrong/unbalanced in the game.

Vipers are wrong for the game.

Viper Witchers as they are, is a great card for this game. There are many great cards, and there are some not so great cards, I think Viper Witchers is one of the best balanced cards and most interesting cards that I know of. Alot of people seem to want to remove unique card to make the game as monotonous as possible.

I think they want games based more on skill than luck. They probably also feel like losing cards out of their deck is cheap and not fair play.

Personally I think the Blue Stripe Scout that can put enourmous tempo in the round with 8 points (4 on it's own power) per play at 4 provisions is a card that is far better value than Viper Witchers. I'd have to be in game to compare some other 4-5-6 provision cards, but there are others that are way better than Viper Witchers at lower or equal provisions.

Vipers average value is probably not that great. I can definitely see that as being true. That isn't the point.

And? That's better than the ability of the Viper Witchers for example removing the top gold card, which would not be "pure chance". The pure chance is actually a great justification to why Viper Witchers are fine as they are.

I was correcting what you said. Of course removing the rng would make the card incredibly over powered. That doesn't justify this level of RNG. Would you also be in favor of a card that randomly drops at anywhere between 1 and 40 points? Mabye you would be in favor of that I don't know. I would run from this game if they printed cards like that.

Ofcourse they can use it, and most players don't have Vipers to counter it. I do in my Usurper deck.

Vipers aren't popular currently but they could be in future metas and ruining fisher as well as albrich would be bad. The game already has few tutors.


Perhaps. But I think the balance is just fine as it is in regards to amount of "RNG" variance cards. I think CDPR is looking very hard at those cards to find the perfect balance between risk and reward, which is also a good thing. They have already adjusted Gerwin, Skaggs and Hubert to find a better balance. Vipers are not even in that category at all. It's a completely different card, and certainly not a round winning one.

Those three cards are not RNG cards. They drop at specified values depending on the target or how much boost they get based on the plays of each player. Vipers are pure RNG in most cases. That is completely different than the cards you named.

Yeah, this game is skill and strategy based. Having some interesting cards, variance, randomness is a great thing. And Vipers never banishes someones win condition, it simply banishes the top card of the opponents deck.

You are simply wrong with that claim. Vipers obviously can and do banish players win conditions.
 
Only thing I can say (again) is I hope they don't change it. I play nilfgaard most of the time, never did I use Viper Withcers in my deck because they are pretty weak when you look at them and they have low impact when played, you're better off with many other bronze plays.

But some people just love playing that style/type of deck (which is quite unique) so please, don't go out of your way to ruin it, just like some other players want to with Kambi...
I'd understand if it was OP, but man, so much fuss for a semi-feelbad card.
 
Well I'm pretty confident more people are interested in winning through their knowledge and skill instead of pure luck. When you inject too much RNG into the game it can feel too much like luck.

It's not pure luck and Vipers never won me a single round. There is not too much randomness in the game, the balance is pretty good. Where the balance lacks is between factions, and also some cards are almost never used, so the balance is obviously wrong for those.

For example gimpy gerwin could be the deciding factor in winning or losing a game. It could have generated you 15 points in the last round but you did't have it because a viper banished it.

That's part of the game, and it's highly unlikely to happen. And again, you seem to rely on a single (debatable) overpowered card.

Perhaps there should be more cards, not less, that interfere with the opponents deck. Make things a bit more balance and give more chances to give non-counterable cards out of the match. It can be seen both ways, and it's a debate in itself.

I'm giving you example after example. How many do you need? Have you not seen an arachas deck built around playing glustyworp and renewing it? Think about their odds of winning the game and how those odds change if glusty is banished from the game? Even if you don't automatically lose 100% of the time that way it's still going to drastically change the odds.

And? You seem to want a game where any particular deck gets to play out like the owner planned. That's silliness, and it would make for a worse game.

How is choosing a leader comparable to banishing a win condition? It's not.

Vipers have NEVER banished a win condition.

The other player literally never played a card so therefore never made a "bad" play. All he did was watch his best card get taken out of the game. It's understandable if he doesn't feel like he can win at that point.

I've had my best cards taken out of the game many times, in many different ways. That's part of the game, and I don't forfeit just because that happens, I go on and try to win the game. If what you are saying was the case and such cards should vanish from the game, we are talking about a dusin cards at least.

Once again you seem to be pushing the idea that no player should ever make a deck centered on one strategy. That severely handicaps the game.

No I don't. I'm just saying there is a risk/reward for everything in this game. No deck should be "safe", like you seem to propose.

Whether he forfeits or loses badly it's still a result of the viper either way.

Due to a bad and unbalanced deck. If one single card lose him the game, then he has a serious deck building issue. That's not my problem TBH.

Seems to be a much simpler and better solution to not put terrible RNG cards in the game that rip cards out of the players deck.

That's just one strategy, and those kind of cards are very few.

Vipers are wrong for the game.

I disagree, I think they are good for the game. As was reveal.

I think they want games based more on skill than luck. They probably also feel like losing cards out of their deck is cheap and not fair play.

Yeah, and Vipers have nothing to do with luck, they never won anyone a game. Even if they banished the two best gold cards, that still didn't win the game.

Vipers average value is probably not that great. I can definitely see that as being true. That isn't the point.

And? That just makes my argument that it is a well balanced card even more correct.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
 
And ... here is the noob question of the day (but serious):

What in Svalblod's name are "viper witchers"? On GwentUP, the only card you get, when searching for "viper" is that card that gets boosted by a revealed card from the opponent's deck.
 
And ... here is the noob question of the day (but serious):

What in Svalblod's name are "viper witchers"? On GwentUP, the only card you get, when searching for "viper" is that card that gets boosted by a revealed card from the opponent's deck.

Not sure how exactly they are named, but those NG dudes for 6 provisions with 4 power that banish the top card of opponent's library.
 
Only thing I can say (again) is I hope they don't change it. I play nilfgaard most of the time, never did I use Viper Withcers in my deck because they are pretty weak when you look at them and they have low impact when played, you're better off with many other bronze plays.

But some people just love playing that style/type of deck (which is quite unique) so please, don't go out of your way to ruin it, just like some other players want to with Kambi...
I'd understand if it was OP, but man, so much fuss for a semi-feelbad card.

Kambi is even worse. You save it till the end and destroy the other players final play and turn. That is ridiculous.
Post automatically merged:

It's not pure luck and Vipers never won me a single round.

I don't know why you're trying to deny an obvious fact here. If you just play a viper witcher and hope to hit something good with it that is a pure luck play. You can disagree with my opinion on viper witchers but why deny what it actually does?

Your personal experience doesn't change anything. I've given you examples of the card being far too powerful which you just deny happens.

There is not too much randomness in the game, the balance is pretty good.

There is when games can be won based on luck which cards like vipers enables.

That's part of the game, and it's highly unlikely to happen. And again, you seem to rely on a single (debatable) overpowered card.

But now you admit that it can happen. No, you apparently missed the point of the example. Gimpy doesn't always get a lot of value but in that particular game he could have made a giant difference. That isn't relying on one giant play like we have discussed before. It's an example of vipers randomly getting rid of the card that you needed that would make the difference in that particular game.

Perhaps there should be more cards, not less, that interfere with the opponents deck. Make things a bit more balance and give more chances to give non-counterable cards out of the match. It can be seen both ways, and it's a debate in itself.

This right here is exactly why I care so much to talk about viper witchers. The idea to inject more of this stuff into the game is horrible. That would only make the game worse and I'm willing to bet far more players would hate it like I would. I play card games to actually develop a strategy and play it. Not watch my opponent get rid of my cards before I can use them.

And? You seem to want a game where any particular deck gets to play out like the owner planned. That's silliness, and it would make for a worse game.

Of course not and that doesn't really even happen now. Most decks have to deal with card draw and sometimes you don't get every card you want. That is part of the game. Then even if you get all ofyour cards there are many ways other players can counter your strategy such as removal and pushing rounds to force out your win conditions. Sometime the matchup is completley counter to your strategy. That stuff makes sense. Banishing cards randomly does not.

Vipers have NEVER banished a win condition.

How can you say something so obviously not true? It's a card that either banishes something at random or one put purposely on top of the deck. How would it be even possible for this card to NOT have banished a win condition?

I've had my best cards taken out of the game many times, in many different ways. That's part of the game, and I don't forfeit just because that happens, I go on and try to win the game. If what you are saying was the case and such cards should vanish from the game, we are talking about a dusin cards at least.

What you choose to do in a game is completely irrelevant.

What dozen cards? I don't know what you are talking about.

No I don't. I'm just saying there is a risk/reward for everything in this game. No deck should be "safe", like you seem to propose.

What deck is safe from being countered? That isn't true. I'm not arguing against counters. I'm saying that banishing cards like this one is bad for the game.

Due to a bad and unbalanced deck. If one single card lose him the game, then he has a serious deck building issue. That's not my problem TBH.

I have given you many examples of decks that generate a lot of points from one card. It's a normal part of this game and has been around a long time. If you dislike relying so much on one card thats fine for you but it's not a "deck building issue". Players should be able to build how they want and not worry about that card getting randomly or purposely banished before they can even play it.

That's just one strategy, and those kind of cards are very few.

And? The question right now is are they good for the game. I don't want to see more cards like them pop up because players didn't speak up about it.

I disagree, I think they are good for the game. As was reveal.

You seem to like RNG a lot. What about the question I asked? Would you be down for a card that randomly drops between 1-40 points. Sounds like a lot of fun right?


Yeah, and Vipers have nothing to do with luck,

At this point I am going to have to assume you are purposely saying things that you know aren't true.

they never won anyone a game. Even if they banished the two best gold cards, that still didn't win the game.

Weird assumption.

And? That just makes my argument that it is a well balanced card even more correct.

Then you missed the point like I said. This was never about their average value. This is about a bad RNG based ability that makes the game worse.
 
Last edited:
Not sure how exactly they are named, but those NG dudes for 6 provisions with 4 power that banish the top card of opponent's library.
Thank you. Yes, that was the card I found.

The rest of this post is in general, not directed to you Smradd!

Ok, so the title reads "Viper Witchers are unchanged?", which implies they would need a change. And reading the thoughts, why they should be changed, I can read
- they are random
- they are too strong
- other cards do specific actions

I don't understand this. I don't play Nilfgaard at all, but I face lots of NG decks. I never saw Viper Witcher as a threat. That'S why I was so surprised to find this topic and needed to confirm it's the card I was thinking of.

Does it hurt, when it banishes your precious gold card? For sure! Is it unpleasant? Absolutely! Is either a reason to change the card? Not at all. If that was the case, there are dozens of cards who should be changed, like the various Geralt incarnations. They are strong, gamebreaking, banish your strategy, they hurt, it is unpleasant. But that's part of the game. To face unpleasant, hurting situations. That's why we got the possibility to build our decks. Nobody is forced to build a deck that's focused on one card. You know there are cards, who can counter that, so having a plan B if plan A fails is a good idea.

I can get rid of VW really quick. And that's all the threat there is. Yes, I have a card less in my 25 card deck, so it banished 1/25th of my chances.

And to the three points I listed. It can't be both, random AND strong. Randomness means, that you sometimes hit a strong card and sometimes a weak card. I can't think of anything more balanced than that. Arguing they are too strong because the have the potential to banish a valuable card is like saying "Geralt: Professional needs a change, because it is too random to destroy a card, just because it could accidentally have a multiple of 3 power". Nobody is able to have ALL the cards on the board NOT to be a multiple of 3, and so it will hit sometime somewhere some card. Extremely random!

And finally it surprised me to read that cards were argued to be ok because they do specific actions, while at the same time Kambi is considered "even worse" than VW, although Kambi falls exactly into that category. It does exactly one specific action.

I do understand that some people feel uncomfortable with the opponent having access to your deck, and it is unpleasant. But it is not too strong nor too random. It is just a NG strategy. Some NG decks I faced in the past overdid it in my eyes. So I forfeited and did the next match. No big deal. And some I played against and surpisingly won.

I really think this debate is going too far in terms of threat through VW.
 
Kambi is even worse. You save it till the end and destroy the other players final play and turn. That is ridiculous.

That card is not bad, it's just one of many types of card. You seem to have a problem with variety of cards. It seems you want to make the game more boring by making less type of plays and less variety.

I don't know why you're trying to deny an obvious fact here. If you just play a viper witcher and hope to hit something good with it that is a pure luck play. You can disagree with my opinion on viper witchers but why deny what it actually does?

No it's not. You put 4 points on the table and you banish the top card. That's 100% of the time like that. No luck in that, and even if there was, that's part of card games. There is a luck and randomness factor to card games, and you don't seem to understand this. There is variation to what that top card you banish is, and that variation can be more or less lucky, yes. But that's a great mechanic which absolutely belongs in a card game.

Luck is part of card games, so is randomness. You seem to want to remove those aspects alltogether. And then you have other people complaining about "binary" whatever that means, and saying tall removal is wrong as well. So all they want is a narrow game with place points and damage points. Everything else is binary, rng or variance.

Your personal experience doesn't change anything. I've given you examples of the card being far too powerful which you just deny happens.

If you think a single card is a win condition, then you know nothing about this game. Viper Witcher is absolutely not a powerful card. If anything, it prevents you from playing tempo, so it can be counterproductive.

There is when games can be won based on luck which cards like vipers enables.

Vipers never won or lost anyone a game. There are 25 cards in the deck, and you get 10 at hand to start with and 3 new each round start.

But now you admit that it can happen. No, you apparently missed the point of the example. Gimpy doesn't always get a lot of value but in that particular game he could have made a giant difference. That isn't relying on one giant play like we have discussed before. It's an example of vipers randomly getting rid of the card that you needed that would make the difference in that particular game.

Exactly, and then some random card like Gimpy lost you the game because you happen to meet a deck with Gimpy when you play Draug or Blue Strip Commandoes or Slave Infantry or anything similar. It's part of the game, get over it. If you want to talk fine tuning about Vipers I'm in, but I don't think they need any adjustment at all.

This right here is exactly why I care so much to talk about viper witchers. The idea to inject more of this stuff into the game is horrible. That would only make the game worse and I'm willing to bet far more players would hate it like I would. I play card games to actually develop a strategy and play it. Not watch my opponent get rid of my cards before I can use them.

You talk about strategy, but you completely discount sabotage and disruption as a type of strategy and propose it should be banished from the game. I think it's an archtype of the game. Reveal is closely related, but it's more of an intelligence gathering type move that does not put points at the table, currently. I personally think they should fix reveal and make it far more powerful, and reveal more useful information than random. Like highcards (power/provision), lowcards etc.

Of course not and that doesn't really even happen now. Most decks have to deal with card draw and sometimes you don't get every card you want. That is part of the game. Then even if you get all ofyour cards there are many ways other players can counter your strategy such as removal and pushing rounds to force out your win conditions. Sometime the matchup is completley counter to your strategy. That stuff makes sense. Banishing cards randomly does not.

Maybe let's abolish the card draw since it's random and let players pick the cards themselves.

:smart:


How can you say something so obviously not true? It's a card that either banishes something at random or one put purposely on top of the deck. How would it be even possible for this card to NOT have banished a win condition?

No, you don't banish a random card, you banish the one on top. And saying a single card is a win condition is ludicrous.

And? The question right now is are they good for the game. I don't want to see more cards like them pop up because players didn't speak up about it.

Absolutely. They are great for the game. It's one type of mechanic of many, and it's a very interesting one. There are several cards that interfere with a players deck or hand, or graveyard. I think those cards are in a way very similar in nature and it's one of the most interesting and different aspects of the game. Alike to reveal as well, I really like reveal, I think it's awesome as a game mechanic for this card game, and I really hope CDPR will fix it instead of dropping it.

You seem to like RNG a lot. What about the question I asked? Would you be down for a card that randomly drops between 1-40 points. Sounds like a lot of fun right?

Well, that seems like a crazy exhaggeration, but there is actually a card that randomly puts between 1-11 points on the board, and absolute, I think it's great such a card exist. Do I use it? Nope.

Then you missed the point like I said. This was never about their average value. This is about a bad RNG based ability that makes the game worse.

Well, it's quite absurd, because RNG actually makes the game better. This game cannot exist without RNG. It's a cardgame. If you can't handle it, perhaps you should play something else, like chess or backgammon.
 
Does it hurt, when it banishes your precious gold card? For sure! Is it unpleasant? Absolutely! Is either a reason to change the card? Not at all. If that was the case, there are dozens of cards who should be changed, like the various Geralt incarnations.

You must have misunderstood my posts. The geralt cards have nothing to do with my issues with viper witchers. They are completely different cards. Randomly banishing your card right out of your deck is a different thing than removing a card from the board.

I can get rid of VW really quick. And that's all the threat there is. Yes, I have a card less in my 25 card deck, so it banished 1/25th of my chances.

That is not how the odds would work. Each card isn't equal and it would depend on other factors like the match up.

And to the three points I listed. It can't be both, random AND strong.

Please reread my posts. I have not argued that the card is too strong. I have said that it's probably weak on average. It's variance is very high.

Randomness means, that you sometimes hit a strong card and sometimes a weak card. I can't think of anything more balanced than that.

IMO playing this game for a long time a large amount of RNG like this card is bad for the game. Players generally don't want to win or lose to luck.

Arguing they are too strong because the have the potential to banish a valuable card is like saying "Geralt: Professional needs a change, because it is too random to destroy a card,

Professional is not random. Its effect is not based on RNG.

And finally it surprised me to read that cards were argued to be ok because they do specific actions, while at the same time Kambi is considered "even worse" than VW, although Kambi falls exactly into that category. It does exactly one specific action.

Kambi is not worse because of RNG. Kambi is worse because it literally takes your final card and play out of the game. That is OP and a bad effect.
Post automatically merged:

That card is not bad, it's just one of many types of card. You seem to have a problem with variety of cards. It seems you want to make the game more boring by making less type of plays and less variety.

I have specifically said my issue is players taking cards out of someones hand or deck before they can even be played. I have played the game for a very long time and this game has lost a lot of really great mechanics when homecoming came about. I would love to see a lot more good mechanics come back and make the game more interesting. Not bad effects like these.

No it's not. You put 4 points on the table and you banish the top card. That's 100% of the time like that. No luck in that, and even if there was, that's part of card games.

You can't seem to get your argument straight. First you say there is no luck in that which is completely untrue and then you say "if there was". Which is it? You are denying reality here. You have no idea which card you are banishing. The top card of the opponents deck is completely random. So saying this play doesn't banish a random card is 100% wrong. I've already agreed that RNG is built into card games. Now would you agree that too much luck would make the game boring? Would you want the outcome of a game to be decided by luck? Did you play this game back when create cards would pull the one answer to win the game? Did you think that was good for the game?

There is a luck and randomness factor to card games, and you don't seem to understand this.

Wrong. I specifically said that myself. Please don't misrepresent my arguments.

There is variation to what that top card you banish is, and that variation can be more or less lucky, yes.

Alright. Glad we finally agree on this point.

Luck is part of card games, so is randomness. You seem to want to remove those aspects alltogether. And then you have other people complaining about "binary" whatever that means, and saying tall removal is wrong as well. So all they want is a narrow game with place points and damage points. Everything else is binary, rng or variance.

I don't think that poster was using binary correctly. There is nothing wrong with tall removal. It's an important counter and if a card is too strong the devs can simply adjust it's provisions. Artifacts are the real examples of binary gameplay. Either you have the specific counter to them or you don't.

If you think a single card is a win condition, then you know nothing about this game.

This game has lots of win conditions. I really only care about the arguments themselves but if you want to compare who has played the game longer, knows more about, achieved higher ranks and such then I can do that as well. If you think a single card can't effect the outcome of the game then you're just wrong on that point.

Vipers never won or lost anyone a game.

They have absolutely effected who wins and loses. That is obvious.

Exactly, and then some random card like Gimpy lost you the game because you happen to meet a deck with Gimpy when you play Draug or Blue Strip Commandoes or Slave Infantry or anything similar. It's part of the game, get over it.

So now you agree that vipers can destroy a win condition. Your position keeps changing as far as I can tell.

I have no issues with bad matchups. That has nothing to do with my arguments against vipers.

You talk about strategy, but you completely discount sabotage and disruption as a type of strategy and propose it should be banished from the game.

Never did that. I have argued against one strategy that players generally don't like and feels very unsporting. I have also argue that winning from luck is counter to vision the devs said they had for this game.

Just because something is disrupting doesn't make it ok for the game. I also don't think there should be a card which switches your opponents hand with their graveyard or anything similar.

Maybe let's abolish the card draw since it's random and let players pick the cards themselves.

:smart:

Strawman argument.


No, you don't banish a random card, you banish the one on top. And saying a single card is a win condition is ludicrous.

It is a random card and I thought you finally agreed this was a luck play. Which is it?

Single cards are win conditions all of the time. How do you play this game and not know that?

and I really hope CDPR will fix it instead of dropping it.

We are in agreement. I hope reveal comes back in a healthy form without all of the extra RNG. I don't know why they changed it so much from what we had in the first place.

Well, that seems like a crazy exhaggeration, but there is actually a card that randomly puts between 1-11 points on the board, and absolute, I think it's great such a card exist. Do I use it? Nope.

My first question here is why is that an exaggeration? According to your own arguments there would be no issue with that card existing provided it's provision cost was high enough to account for it's power. The problem with this card is players would HATE it because they would end up losing to someone who drops it for a lucky high roll. Do you seriously think players want to win or lose a game based entirely on luck?

Well, it's quite absurd, because RNG actually makes the game better. This game cannot exist without RNG. It's a cardgame. If you can't handle it, perhaps you should play something else, like chess or backgammon.

Strawman. I don't hate all randomness as it's inherent in digital card games themselves. My argument is that a player dropping a card and winning on luck is bad for the game. Please don't misrepresent my arguments.
 
Last edited:
Vipers have NEVER banished a win condition
I get that you're a new player and don't have a lot of experience, but there's no way you could believe that. Viper witchers can win the game turn 1 if they hit your win condition and it's all based on luck. That's why they're so despised.
 
Let's face it, ultimately this comes down to a question of design philosophy. Where should Gwent sit on the "serious strategy" to "casual fun" spectrum for card games.

Gwent began as and was promoted as a more serious strategy based card game. It probably reached its strategic peak immediately before the infamous Midwinter Update. Since then it has steadily migrated towards the more "casual fun" style.

Most of the long-time players that were around from the early days seemed to prefer the "serious strategy" style. For them, the Midwinter Update signified a turn for the worse. Homecoming took things even further in that direction. Both events caused many of them to leave the game and few seem to have returned.

If you never experienced Gwent in that form, you may find it harder to empathize with the longer term players that aren't big fans of all the extra RNG that has been introduced into card abilities since Midwinter, and more so since Homecoming.

Personally speaking, I'm not a fan of Gascon's design, but I can accept it as it is more of a meme card. I don't like Traheaern, but at least the affected card is still potentially accessible in your graveyard. Viper Witchers just feel like they cross a line for me. Discarding to the graveyard is one thing, but straight banishing cards without them ever entering play leaves no potential recovery play for the victim.
 
Let's face it, ultimately this comes down to a question of design philosophy. Where should Gwent sit on the "serious strategy" to "casual fun" spectrum for card games.
On playgwent.com: "Outsmart them all", "GWENT is a card game of choices and consequences, where skill, not luck, is your greatest weapon", "SKILL BEATS LUCK - Crush the enemy with brute strength or outsmart them with clever tricks". Then we have the GWENT Masters, the official esports series of Gwent. The vision is very clear and must be used as a basis for everything. High RNG and variance are directly opposing skill and should therefore be significantly limited, especially in card abilities. That is why it's absolutely clear that the current VW ability does not belong in Gwent. Any other arguments don't matter as the basic requirements are not even met by this card. The devs need to walk the talk to not lose the players who are interested in and were promised a strategic, skill-based game.
 
On playgwent.com: "Outsmart them all", "GWENT is a card game of choices and consequences, where skill, not luck, is your greatest weapon", "SKILL BEATS LUCK - Crush the enemy with brute strength or outsmart them with clever tricks". Then we have the GWENT Masters, the official esports series of Gwent. The vision is very clear and must be used as a basis for everything. High RNG and variance are directly opposing skill and should therefore be significantly limited, especially in card abilities. That is why it's absolutely clear that the current VW ability does not belong in Gwent. Any other arguments don't matter as the basic requirements are not even met by this card. The devs need to walk the talk to not lose the players who are interested in and were promised a strategic, skill-based game.

1556955794346.jpeg
 
SKILL BEATS LUCK - Crush the enemy with brute strength or outsmart them with clever tricks
See? They never said there wouldn't be randomness, just that you can build your deck so that you beat sheer luck. Instead this thread is a complaint that luck shouldn't exist in the first place.

Professional is not random. Its effect is not based on RNG.
As is VW. Both cards have a specific job, they don't randomize their action. They do exactly one thing. Destroying a multiple of 3 card, banishing the top card of the opponent's deck. Yet, the outcome of both cards is totally random. You can't predict ahead of a match, which card Professional will destroy, can you? In fact, it is dependend on a lot of factors, like who buffs what, who damages what, the starting power of a card, etc. etc.
Randomly banishing your card right out of your deck is a different thing than removing a card from the board.
Again: You're not talking of VW. This card's effect is banishing the top card of the deck. That's not random. Random were those cards that arbitrarily revealed a card from your deck.
 
I disagree with the notion that VW and similar cards drag the game in a more casual-fun style because they use different mechanics than any other cards. It only means that you should account for them being in the game, like you should for any other card.

And now, I can't disagree with any of your views. As Archangel said, they make game a bit less strategic (and other cards like this), but not by a large margin as hearthstone with its RNG for example (or even MTG). Now it is up to devs to decide what they want about it, make it more straightforward and eliminate cards like this or continue along this way.

It is all about opinions, some think VW make the game more unstrategic, others think it adds more viable gamestyles. I'm in the latter but ultimately it doesn't matter; both sides are correct, no?
 
See? They never said there wouldn't be randomness, just that you can build your deck so that you beat sheer luck. Instead this thread is a complaint that luck shouldn't exist in the first place.

That is not what I said.

As is VW. Both cards have a specific job, they don't randomize their action.

I can't believe more than one person is trying to argue this. Professional has absolutely no RNG in it's effect. You target a card and you get some damage or destroy it. There is no RNG at all in that play. You know exactly what is going to happen when you play it. Viper witcher is usually played when you have no idea what the top card of the opponents deck is. That means you are hitting a completely random card. This is a 100% RNG play. You cross your fingers and HOPE for a powerful gold card. That is pure luck. I don't know how anyone can try to argue this point. This isn't debatable.

Yet, the outcome of both cards is totally random.

Incorrect. When you play professional you know exactly what is going to happen when it's played. There is no RNG in that play.

You can't predict ahead of a match, which card Professional will destroy, can you? In fact, it is dependend on a lot of factors, like who buffs what, who damages what, the starting power of a card, etc. etc.
Again: You're not talking of VW. This card's effect is banishing the top card of the deck. That's not random. Random were those cards that arbitrarily revealed a card from your deck.

Splitting hairs. It's a random card because you have no idea what card you are hitting. It really doesn't matter if it's the top card or just any card in your deck. That really makes no difference in this discussion.
 
Again: You're not talking of VW. This card's effect is banishing the top card of the deck. That's not random. Random were those cards that arbitrarily revealed a card from your deck.

I must disagree on this. Card position in deck is ALWAYS random, if you didn't put something on top. So saying that banishing the top card of the library isn't random is kinda not true.
 
Top Bottom