You cant play 2 Priest with Portal. About Portal...."Some value them highly. Others hate them".
Also..Alzurs Thunder on the Priest. Both cards are bronze and 5provs, just an example.
Also..Alzurs Thunder on the Priest. Both cards are bronze and 5provs, just an example.
I didnt mention svalblod portal, I just said they are very hard to remove and you have only one turn before they go into tall range.
and yes alzurs thunder is an answer but for a unit that goes absolutely bonkers if you dont stop them round one svalblod priest should still be strength 4 on the round they are played IMO. and honestly who likes to run alzur especially with armor now..
Again, the issue is the multiple units in the same turn, more than the units themselves.
Portal has become too versatile. Reducing engine power to easy removal range sets the meta to one from a few seaons ago, where engines seldom saw play. Portal would continue to be an 8 point play for all other factions bar ST, who would still be able to use it to get 2 Dwarven Berserkers on the field. Portal has to change.
As for Sly Seductress, she emphasises two problems in Gwent - dumb boosting mechanics and the inability for other factions to drain SY coins. At the moment Gwent has so many dumb-auto boosting mechanics that many factions can field decks where losing one boosting unit tends to provide minimal disruption to the side of the board it was on. Compounding this, is that many of the methods of enabling symetrical removal have been crippled with defenders and removal of point redistribution on the opponent's side.
Coin interaction is problematic, since the current system enables Sy to easily ramp and repeatedly produce coin for tributes or hoard/multiple ability triggers within a few turns of each other. Even with problem cards like Madame Luisa taken out of the picture, it's still quite easy for SY to realise something like Savolla's tribute abilty and trigger abilities like Edwald Borsoldi or Witch Hunter executioner. Other factions need cards that can deal with coin.
while I agree, some engines are just way better than others. for most engines you need something like charges or play a specific type of card (tactics, elves...), or combo to trigger them. but your opponent playing any card is just a ridiculously easy condition. that's where my sentiment for nerfing sly to 3 base strength comes from. I'd say nothing about the card if it was 6 provision like the temerian drummer since they are pretty similar to each other and just generate a point every turn without you needing to do anything. but it's a goddamn 4 provision lol
I think Seductress are fine but Portal is clearly a problem.
You said they have no setup but actually they do, you need both of them to be at full potential, otherwise you can cast none unit spells and get away with it.
The thing, however is that Portal kinda remove the setup primarily required for Seductress to be a huge threat.
One way of fixing the problem would be to make Portal playing two different 4 pro cards from your deck, this way you can't get both Seductress at once and need to set things up by keeping one in your hand and/or use Adriano...It would also force players to put more than a single 4pro unit in their decks, making it less of a hardcore tutor, which would be more healthy for the game.
Then Portal still remains quite versatile for NG Assimilate to put two engines on the board. Ducal Guard and Ard Feain Heavy Cavalry are both 4 cost units. ST could also pull asymetrical engines with Dwarven Berserker and Dryad Fledgeling. Portal's ability requires a rework. Perhaps something like lock a unit on either side of the board then move them to the opposite rows might be better for making this card less auto include without fully relegating it meme-deck status.
It is, and I think Sly Seductress could probably help a little with the SY coin problem by making her ability shield dependent as well as a review of her cost. After all, NR has a 2 power, 7 cost gold card that auto-boosts on condition he has a shield. Why should a bronze card be that much better for less provisions?
However, the problem still remains that Portal has gotten far too good across too many factions. I personally think that raising it's provision cost wont do much now that it has more cards in the pool that synergise with it. As we've seen in recent updates, if a card is good enough to run, it needs a massive increase in provision cost to put it ahead of other cards on the culling list.
Last edited:
I don't think that locks should stay in the graveyard, the card is played and the status then disapears. You don't keep your units bleeding when you rez them right? Besides, there is already much control and removal around to deal with cards as Phoenix, if you can lock Phoenix in the GY then its time to lower its provisioncosts to like...9 or 8.
Elimination of the 3d models and return of the cards of the leaders with variations as in thronebraker.
Yet boosted and damaged cards don't reset when shuffled back to the deck, which is another area where cards are considered out of play... Ideally, Phoenix would just return from the graveyard and give itself a doomed tag. That would enable it to retain its intended effect of being 4 points carryover, something that's importatnt for the player entering round 2 down on cards. Unfortunately this would come at the cost of losing another interesting ability from the game. Maybe Phoenix egg could summon the Phoenix from the graveyard and give it doomed, though I suspect this would result in the artifact remaining on the board, again causing the interesting ability to become a little less unique.
I would like a new mode, where a player has to enter with 3 different faction decks, pay entry in money or ore (like in Arena), win 9 or loose 3 matches (like in Arena) and before each game start see opponent’s three factions, ban one and (as one gets banned) choose one out of the remaining two to play. There would be rewards based on the number of wins (like in Arena).
it's a Phoenix, they tend to return all of the time. There are card-advantage decks that rely on the Phoenix and possibly shall perish if the card gets a nerf, their choice already is a small amount of cards that fit the idea. Cards that re-enter the deck after being affected by anything, say Shilard when one is in hand, should keep that disadvantage, untill they enter the GY. It would be too easy to swap units in hand / deck to *purify* them.
Talking about doomed, it makes no sense that Zoltan:Scoundrel now has doomed Dudas.
Talking about doomed, it makes no sense that Zoltan:Scoundrel now has doomed Dudas.
Well, until there's more ways to deal with it, then perhaps that's not such a bad thing. Carryover has never achieved its intended effect of offsetting card disadvantage in Gwent. Instead the inverse is true and carryover tends to work even better with card advantage.
I think the change was actually brought in when handbuffing with deck reshuffling was a thing. It was more to preserve boosted status than remove damage status. Prior to that, talking open beta pre-midwinter, cards would lose status when going back to the deck without producing any game breaking effect.
I think pretty much all tokens have a doomed tag now. If you lived through the various graveyard consume and foglet swarms that allowed MO to dominate the meta, you'd see the sense in having all created tokens doomed.
The return of blacklisting would be nice.
A word on leader abilities - are they needed anymore? Won't happen, even if it's a good idea, but I'd rather you have one (or maybe 2 or 3) slot in your hand where you can guarantee a card. An 11th card, which is the one you rely on the most, be it Portal, RNR, etc. So get rid of all leader abilities and just make it a card game.
A word on leader abilities - are they needed anymore? Won't happen, even if it's a good idea, but I'd rather you have one (or maybe 2 or 3) slot in your hand where you can guarantee a card. An 11th card, which is the one you rely on the most, be it Portal, RNR, etc. So get rid of all leader abilities and just make it a card game.
The problem is that, you now have much more mulligans than you ever had in any version on this game. If you add to that the amount of tutors/thin effect that have been added to the game since homecoming, you take the risk of getting good cards too easily.
I'm not against the idea itself but just, not sure it's the right move and I quiet like the ability to have so many mulligans per game, I'm kinda okay with getting screwed because I redraw a bronze that I threw away by time to time.
Oh wow, I think this is typically the kind of change that would make me quit the game, plain and simple.
Like seriously? All the change CDPR did to the leaders only give players freedom of who they want to play, regardless of the effect. effects are still there and untouched though and quiet frankly this is the way it should be.
Leader effects are what makes Gwent what it is and they play a massive role in deck building.
If you get rid of leader abilities you basically destroy every archetypes as we currently know them and make the game incredibly boring.
It's just my opinion, obviously but I strongly disagree with that kind of change.
I think pretty much all tokens have a doomed tag now. If you lived through the various graveyard consume and foglet swarms that allowed MO to dominate the meta, you'd see the sense in having all created tokens doomed.
I belief it was a special card before, containing a star at the left corner. That way it could be duplicated many times and shuffled back with Lippy.
I belief it was a special card before, containing a star at the left corner. That way it could be duplicated many times and shuffled back with Lippy.
