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

+
Randomness is not an argument against anything. Randomness has its place, but it should work well and not be silly. Randomness (outcome) works well for Viper Witchers.
 
And there you have the RNG element which is talked about so much in this thread. What if it is a neckar and not a speartip?

It doesn't matter what gets picked off by VW. It's a bad form of variance because it has exactly zero to do with strategy. No work must be done to achieve a good result. No work can be done by the opponent to force a poor result. Which result occurs is entirely in the hands of the game.

Highly variable cards are fine. Provided they fit within the context of a strategic, skill-based card game. In other words, if a card has a high and low end of value achieving the high end should require some type of setup from card synergy, a specific board state, using it at the proper time, etc. It should have to satisfy conditions. Incidentally, this innately opens up the potential for the opposing player to deny those conditions. Thus, there is a back and forth. One player attempts to satisfy the conditions while the other can attempt to deny them.

VW does not fit this description. You play the card and it banishes an opponent card. You have no control over the outcome. The opponent has no control over the outcome. It's pure luck. Depending on how that luck goes it could decide the game outcome. Either by removing an incredibly valuable card or one the opponent does not wish to play anyway. It doesn't matter if the card is good, bad, overpowered or balanced. It's a bad form of variance in a game described and advertised as skill-based and strategic, pure and simple.

Obviously, all of the above depends on whether the game is a strategic, skill-based card game or even intended to be. It's certainly advertised as one. It's possible Gwent is intended to be like other casual card games and the advertised version is smoke and mirrors.
 
The variance of Vipers fit well into my strategy of sabotage and disruption.

There are many cards in the game that cannot be countered or deny their ability. And you say "good" result, as if that is a given, it's not. More likely than not, you will just thin the deck of the opponent of a bad card. That's IF you get the Viper(s) R1 or R2 and can use them in the situation. R3 is pretty pointless to play it, except in a few situations.
Post automatically merged:

The variance of Vipers fit well into my strategy of sabotage and disruption.

There are many cards in the game that cannot be countered or deny their ability. And you say "good" result, as if that is a given, it's not. More likely than not, you will just thin the deck of the opponent of a bad card. That's IF you get the Viper(s) R1 or R2 and can use them in the situation. R3 is pretty pointless to play it, except in a few situations.

I think it makes little sense for anyone who run Skellige or Monster decks to complain about Vipers. Both those factions have 4 provision cards that generate alot more value than the 6 provision Viper Witcher card, or most 4-5 provision cards of NR and NG before. Not sure about 4-5 provision cards of NG right now, they might be at a higher level. ST, not sure, but seems level of NR.
 
Last edited:
It doesn't matter if the card is good, bad, overpowered or balanced. It's a bad form of variance in a game described and advertised as skill-based and strategic, pure and simple.

I think it makes little sense for anyone who run Skellige or Monster decks to complain about Vipers. Both those factions have 4 provision cards that generate alot more value than the 6 provision Viper Witcher card, or most 4-5 provision cards of NR and NG before.

:shrug:
 
Just played a match against NG. Leader Usurper, my current deck built with the help of DRK3 and others here on the forums. It's a Harald the Cripple deck. The match went over all 3 rounds. In R1, his VW banished my Dagur Two Blades (10 prov.), in R2 it banished Bekker's Dark Mirror (9p). Both cards generally considered crucial for a Harald deck end game. Opponent forfeited half through R3 being about 12 points behind.

But your mind is so set in stone, that VW needs a change because, erm, random and ... reasons. It isn't a threat. It's more about what you make out of the situation. For example, I never rely on Dagur, instead I have two completely different strategies. I don't mind playing him in R3, but it doesn't break my game if not.
 
Just played a match against NG. Leader Usurper, my current deck built with the help of DRK3 and others here on the forums. It's a Harald the Cripple deck. The match went over all 3 rounds. In R1, his VW banished my Dagur Two Blades (10 prov.), in R2 it banished Bekker's Dark Mirror (9p). Both cards generally considered crucial for a Harald deck end game. Opponent forfeited half through R3 being about 12 points behind.

Sounds like his deck sucked.

But your mind is so set in stone, that VW needs a change because, erm, random and ... reasons.

Or you could restate what I have clearly said in this thread. Taking cards out of your deck so you can never play them is a bad and unfair mechanic. You winning a game against it is anecdotal and doesn't change that.

It isn't a threat. It's more about what you make out of the situation. For example, I never rely on Dagur, instead I have two completely different strategies. I don't mind playing him in R3, but it doesn't break my game if not.

Good for you. So what? You really want to argue that vipers can't banish win conditions?
 
Good for you. So what? You really want to argue that vipers can't banish win conditions?
No, I say that VW isn't any more bad of a card than any other card, for banishing one important card. It is in the hands of the opponent, if banishing one card renders their whole deck ueseless.
Sounds like his deck sucked.
Of course. It can't be anything else. (Why did I expect that answer?)
I've had people quit off of one play because I randomly banished their Hubert. That's a bit crazy for a 4p bronze to just win a game.
Remember this? I just presented an opposite example. But what do you do? This:
You winning a game against it is anecdotal and doesn't change that.
Funny, isn't it. An anecdotal quit off of a play is an argument for you, an anecdotal win of a play is not.

It feels terrible and unfair.
Yes, it does. But what it feels like is no argument. (Please don't let me start again about how terrible and unfair it feels to get your play destroyed with the last card being a Geralt incarnation :) )
 
No, I say that VW isn't any more bad of a card than any other card, for banishing one important card. It is in the hands of the opponent, if banishing one card renders their whole deck ueseless.

It's more of a bad card for having the stupid RNG based ability of going into someones deck and removing their play before they can even play it. The whole point here is that its not in the hands of the player with one win condition. He literally can't do anything to stop the viper witcher taking that card. That is just bad and not fair to the player. It really limits deck building to tell people that they can never rely on one specific card. That has been a normal part of deck building since the beginning.

Of course. It can't be anything else. (Why did I expect that answer?)

Hmmm because you allegedly lost two of your strongest gold cards and couldn't use your leader and still beat him without a problem. Pretty obvious assumption although it doesn't matter anyway.

Remember this? I just presented an opposite example. But what do you do? This:

Your anecdote was presented for a silly reason. You're trying to prove that someone can still win if their gold cards are banished. when did I say that it was impossible? I didn't. I said that win conditions can be banished which is true. Your anecdote was pointless.

Funny, isn't it. An anecdotal quit off of a play is an argument for you, an anecdotal win of a play is not.

My anecdote was an example of something that anyone who plays this game will already know. That losing win conditions vastly effects the game. You might still have a slight chance of winning and you might not. Nice try at a gotcha but that doesn't work.

Yes, it does. But what it feels like is no argument. (Please don't let me start again about how terrible and unfair it feels to get your play destroyed with the last card being a Geralt incarnation :) )

A whole lot of players other than me have condemned viper witchers and yes how the player base feels about a card does matter.

Removal is simply a part of the game. I would agree that there is too much removal right now and I have made threads arguing that point. Removal is always going to be a part of the game. Stupidly banishing cards in your deck with RNG does not have to be in this game.
 
It's more of a bad card for having the stupid RNG based ability of going into someones deck and removing their play before they can even play it. The whole point here is that its not in the hands of the player with one win condition. He literally can't do anything to stop the viper witcher taking that card. That is just bad and not fair to the player. It really limits deck building to tell people that they can never rely on one specific card. That has been a normal part of deck building since the beginning.

It's not unfair, it's just a different tactic. Many tactics can feel unfair.

Anyways, it's interesting how you mention tempo in another thread, but Vipers is an absolute poor play in regards to tempo, and it brings no tempo for later on either. Let's say you want to maximize Trahern + 2x Vipers, that makes for very bad tempo, even worse (probably) if you add Cantarella.
 
It's not unfair, it's just a different tactic. Many tactics can feel unfair.

I'm to the point where I think you are trolling me and I should just ignore your posts completely. We just came from another thread where you are suggesting that all ways to replay gold cards is too unfair or exploitable so maybe they shouldn't be here. Then you come here and tell me Vipers are ok because its a different tactic. Please try to think this through a little bit.

Anyways, it's interesting how you mention tempo in another thread, but Vipers is an absolute poor play in regards to tempo, and it brings no tempo for later on either. Let's say you want to maximize Trahern + 2x Vipers, that makes for very bad tempo, even worse (probably) if you add Cantarella.

Context is important. Vipers are just bronze cards and can literally be used in any NG deck. On top of that as I have repeated many times now my argument with vipers never had anything to do with their power. I've said that they are weak on average.
 
I'm to the point where I think you are trolling me and I should just ignore your posts completely. We just came from another thread where you are suggesting that all ways to replay gold cards is too unfair or exploitable so maybe they shouldn't be here. Then you come here and tell me Vipers are ok because its a different tactic. Please try to think this through a little bit.

Nuance my friend. You best learn to read exactly what I write. I didn't say unfair, I said unreasonable.

I
Context is important. Vipers are just bronze cards and can literally be used in any NG deck. On top of that as I have repeated many times now my argument with vipers never had anything to do with their power. I've said that they are weak on average.

I don't think they are weak on average, I think they are fair/normal on average. Pretty well balanced overall. It's not a card you just want to auto-include at all. In fact, unless it fits your tactic, you probably wount need to bring it at all. It can be a filler card through, but 6 provision for a filler is not really great value, likely you will choose another 6 provision card.
 
Nuance my friend. You best learn to read exactly what I write. I didn't say unfair, I said unreasonable.

Because thats such a huge difference? Its not. If you think you aren't being hypocritical then please break down exactly how you aren't. What is unreasonable about replaying golds if it's objectively not overpowered?
 
Because thats such a huge difference? Its not. If you think you aren't being hypocritical then please break down exactly how you aren't. What is unreasonable about replaying golds if it's objectively not overpowered?

Yes, actually there is. Unfair reflects on "self", and unreasonable refers to "for the game". Two very different things.
It's pretty much "it's bad for me" and "it's bad for the game". Or "I don't like it" and "I don't like it for the game".
Post automatically merged:

What is unreasonable about replaying golds if it's objectively not overpowered?

How is it not overpowered to play a gold card 3 times? Gold cards are powerful cards with a huge variety of abilities. That's why there is 1 of each, unlike bronze, where there are two of each. Under rare circumstances, with rare and expensive cards, yes, perhaps it should be possible to summon or play a gold card a second time somehow. But, from what I've seen from the game, it is never a good thing for the game. This includes the double gold special card scoia'tael leader, and it includes the nerfed ability of Emhyr which allows him to play a gold card twice.

I think all of these have a negative impact on the game. I think they are bad for the game. Not 100% sure about that ST leader, but I think it should be looked into at least. Emhyr was changed recently, so it's difficult to tell the full impact the change will have, but so far it looks bad.

Playing an extra gold card should theoretically always give an advantage, if it doesn't then people probably would not do it. Some gold cards are more powerful than others, and being able to replay the best value gold or most powerful gold card (play twice and/or summon) is something I think is bad for the game in the long run.

I think for this single reason, now Emhyr and that ST leader are probably the most powerful leaders in the game, looking only at the leader ability. They can just do such a greater variety of things with their ability than all the other leaders. It has very high potential compared to most other leaders.
 
Last edited:
Yes, actually there is. Unfair reflects on "self", and unreasonable refers to "for the game". Two very different things.
It's pretty much "it's bad for me" and "it's bad for the game". Or "I don't like it" and "I don't like it for the game".

Dude these threads are ridiculous, none of what you're saying even makes any sense, it's almost unreadable. Then you have Stryker that's breaking down everything you say into huge quote walls. None of it even seems on topic. I have check which thread I'm in cause you're arguments are spanning multiple threads. Can you guys tone it down a bit?
 
Dude these threads are ridiculous, none of what you're saying even makes any sense, it's almost unreadable. Then you have Stryker that's breaking down everything you say into huge quote walls. None of it even seems on topic. I have check which thread I'm in cause you're arguments are spanning multiple threads. Can you guys tone it down a bit?

I will only quote once from now on. Sorry.
Post automatically merged:

Yes, actually there is. Unfair reflects on "self", and unreasonable refers to "for the game". Two very different things.
It's pretty much "it's bad for me" and "it's bad for the game". Or "I don't like it" and "I don't like it for the game".
Post automatically merged:


How is it not overpowered to play a gold card 3 times? Gold cards are powerful cards with a huge variety of abilities. That's why there is 1 of each, unlike bronze, where there are two of each. Under rare circumstances, with rare and expensive cards, yes, perhaps it should be possible to summon or play a gold card a second time somehow. But, from what I've seen from the game, it is never a good thing for the game. This includes the double gold special card scoia'tael leader, and it includes the nerfed ability of Emhyr which allows him to play a gold card twice.

I think all of these have a negative impact on the game. I think they are bad for the game. Not 100% sure about that ST leader, but I think it should be looked into at least. Emhyr was changed recently, so it's difficult to tell the full impact the change will have, but so far it looks bad.

Playing an extra gold card should theoretically always give an advantage, if it doesn't then people probably would not do it. Some gold cards are more powerful than others, and being able to replay the best value gold or most powerful gold card (play twice and/or summon) is something I think is bad for the game in the long run.

I think for this single reason, now Emhyr and that ST leader are probably the most powerful leaders in the game, looking only at the leader ability. They can just do such a greater variety of things with their ability than all the other leaders. It has very high potential compared to most other leaders.

As the other guy said your justification of unreasonable vs unfair makes absolutely no sense. You appear to be trying to argue that the phoenix deck is overpowered making it "unreasonable". The problem with that is I have played that deck and have explained to you in detail how it isn't even remotely overpowered. Its in fact weak enough that I can't even play it in ranked. It's far too inconsistent in needing to draw phoenix in the first round.

In the next paragraph you argue that it's "not good for the game" but you have no evidence for this. This is just your feeling or opinion. It's hypocritical for you to do that and then turn around and tell me that vipers are fine for the game because it's a different tactic. That's absurd. Vipers infuriate players and have NO COUNTERS. You sound like a relatively new player making these ridiculous claims about changing all of these cards based on absolutely nothing other than your feeling that they are unreasonable.

You don't even know what you are talking about because Emhyr was buffed recently because his win rate was so bad.
 
Last edited:
Dude these threads are ridiculous, none of what you're saying even makes any sense, it's almost unreadable. Then you have Stryker that's breaking down everything you say into huge quote walls. None of it even seems on topic. I have check which thread I'm in cause you're arguments are spanning multiple threads. Can you guys tone it down a bit?

To be fair, I wasn't the one mixing the threads and spilling things from one place to the other.

I'm also not the one who is trying hard to get cards changed, I'm just here for the talk, to talk about the cards/the game, hear your opinions, and say mine.
 
Banish is a very interesting mechanic. But it should not be usable on cards which are in your deck in any way.

Banishing cards from graveyard? Not a problem. Banishing cards wich are on the board? Ok. Any why? You can do some counterplay, play your ozrell earlier if you expect banish ( as an example) and there are ways how to protect units on the board too.
But you cant do anything about cards which banish your cards from your deck. Thats not ok.

Viper witchers should be changed to have synergies with new poison mechanic, seems much better and logical to me.

P.S havent read this whole thread, just wrote my opinion about this.
 
I'm also not the one who is trying hard to get cards changed, I'm just here for the talk, to talk about the cards/the game, hear your opinions, and say mine.

I have pointed out one card which has a toxic mechanic that the majority of players on this forum think needs to be changed.
You on the other hand want cards nerfed or changed that see little play because somehow they are "unreasonable". If you just want to discuss this then you have to try listening to people giving you the facts before saying if a card is too strong or not.
 
I have pointed out one card which has a toxic mechanic that the majority of players on this forum think needs to be changed.
You on the other hand want cards nerfed or changed that see little play because somehow they are "unreasonable". If you just want to discuss this then you have to try listening to people giving you the facts before saying if a card is too strong or not.

There are many toxic things in this game. I just had a guy forfeit because I played Tibor and pulled a 1 power bear, appearently he did not like that. I think Tibor is a great card. You put 13 points on the board, but the outcome can be better or worse, depending on what card you pull. I think exactly that makes the card work well, the randomness to it. I also like that it pulls a card. It is a good card, but depending what you draw, it can even be a bad card.
 
There are many toxic things in this game. I just had a guy forfeit because I played Tibor and pulled a 1 power bear, appearently he did not like that. I think Tibor is a great card. You put 13 points on the board, but the outcome can be better or worse, depending on what card you pull. I think exactly that makes the card work well, the randomness to it. I also like that it pulls a card. It is a good card, but depending what you draw, it can even be a bad card.

I'm not a huge fan of summon but at least it puts your card on the board instead of banishing it from the game.
 
Top Bottom