What needs to happen to fix Monsters

[Celadyl]

I think its very obvious MO is completely busted. the current meta deck is way too cheap in provision and the cards generate an insane amount of points, over 100 points in 5 cards is very possible. I'm not sure how the devs could oversee the glaring issues with this archetype, especially since they are introducing us to more and more people who are alledgedly pro players and have deep insight into the game and its mechanics.
I'm not a pro player (I've been to pro rank but that doesnt mean much) and just play the game for fun and I dont want to come off as a know-it-all but here's my suggestions to fixing current MO relict/koshchey.

Witch apprentice: power 3, provision 5. ability: at the end of your turn, boost self by 2. sabbath: cancel the ability.
seeing how this card has no trouble at all going to 14 or even higher while reaching sabbath is absolutely no problem given the explosive points of this deck, personally I would change her to an opener and sabbath enabler, which in return will cap her power at something like 11 or 13 probably, which is still extremely powerful for a 5p. it would also generate a new layer of strategy about when to reach sabbath and when not to. I recognize this card would be veery strong in unitless decks á la kelltulis, but it starting at 5 power makes it less unanswerable than it currently is and therefore isnt as probematic, imo. I could easily see this as a 6p card but then this archetype becomes too top heavy in provisions.

Mamunna: power 4, provision 10. ability: zeal, order: banish a bronze unit from your graveyard, then summon a copy of it from your deck to this row. sabbath: play the copy instead.
with this ability mamunna into griffin will still play for 13 (like yghern for example) with little setup and also thin a card and not go too tall. even with kiki worker or conqueror she would play as 11 with thinning, which isnt great but its not exactly a brick either. her true power imo comes from tutoring self-eafter, which is the most OP bronze card MO has atm, imo. people have suggested making this a 12p and similar nerfs but again, I think an archetype cannot consist of just 6p bronzes and 12+p golds, therefore I suggest this nerf, which keeps it rougly at 10 provision strength.

Bloody Mistress/Gernichora: Power 7, Provision 13. ability: unchanged.
This card is way too strong to be a 10 provision card. with sabbath it deploys as 9 points with 3 bodies (triggering thrives up to 7), all of which are engines. the fruits are easy to remove but it's almost impossible to deal with all 3 engines at the same time (remember what made cards like waters of brokkilon so strong?). I dont think I even have to comment about the caranthir, idarran combo issue.

She who knows: power 10, provision 12. ability: unchanged.
the card sees some play but I think we can agree currently it's a little underwhelming due to how easily it is interrupted (locking it or just damaging it to reduce its resilience value). personally I would make it 12 provision.

Idarran: power 6, provision 8. ability: the first time you spawn a bronze unit on your side of the board, spawn a 1-power copy of it on this row, and give it doomed.
I know Idarran is not a MO card and nerfing neutrals because of one deck most of the time isnt the right way to do it. but this card is and has only ever been truly problematic in monsters, imo. yesterday I tried to put him in an elf swarm list with vanadain, scenario, eleyas etc. and he worked pretty neatly, especially good with elven neophyte. obviously it also works well with larvae and most other swarm lists (rip devotion firesworn). but this card shouldnt be able to copy the most powerful gold cards, not for 8 provision. there is a reason renew costs 12 and can only target 9 provision and below. so I think this change would not destroy the card but make it memey and fun, the way it probably should be.

caranthir: dear caranthir, what can I even say... I know a lot of people love this card but personally I think it's time this card gets a complete rework. copying your win conditions is bound to be a very problematic thing time and time again, and this card appearently only gets stronger with the powercreep of the expansions. if caranthir was changed I could see gernichora being 11 provision I guess.
I'd suggest making him similar to bride of the sea (replaying MO specials in combination with frost, possibly second naglfar to help the shit consistency in devo MO), but thats just me.

self eater: I think this card is borderline broken but it lives and dies with the strength of other relict cards, and it is restrictive enough for me to be okay with it for now.


I think with these changes MO would still be very good but way less obnoxious to play against. what do you guys think? do you agree or disagree? I wanted to make the discussion a bit more constructive, since it really wasnt going anywhere in the other threads.
cheers

 

[EduFerraz]

for me witcher aprendice and caranthir has the same problem.

Or they are too OP, or they are too weak.

A lot of times my caranthir has to spawn an useless 1 card point because i dont have any target to him, so its a 5 power to 9 provision.

The sane goes to pig. In a short row you have an useless card playing for 4 power (ok, its just 5 provision, so thats "ok" to play a 4 power card).

About the change in mamunna and blood mistress. Well i think, or change one card, or change another card. The both nerfs i think its too muh (even if they "buff" SWK, noones play that shit anyway - at leas the decks considered by players as "meta" doesnt have her)

 

[Guest 4375874]

I think its very obvious MO is completely busted. the current meta deck is way too cheap in provision and the cards generate an insane amount of points, over 100 points in 5 cards is very possible. I'm not sure how the devs could oversee the glaring issues with this archetype, especially since they are introducing us to more and more people who are alledgedly pro players and have deep insight into the game and its mechanics.
I'm not a pro player (I've been to pro rank but that doesnt mean much) and just play the game for fun and I dont want to come off as a know-it-all but here's my suggestions to fixing current MO relict/koshchey.

Witch apprentice: power 3, provision 5. ability: at the end of your turn, boost self by 2. sabbath: cancel the ability.
seeing how this card has no trouble at all going to 14 or even higher while reaching sabbath is absolutely no problem given the explosive points of this deck, personally I would change her to an opener and sabbath enabler, which in return will cap her power at something like 11 or 13 probably, which is still extremely powerful for a 5p. it would also generate a new layer of strategy about when to reach sabbath and when not to. I recognize this card would be veery strong in unitless decks á la kelltulis, but it starting at 5 power makes it less unanswerable than it currently is and therefore isnt as probematic, imo. I could easily see this as a 6p card but then this archetype becomes too top heavy in provisions.

Mamunna: power 4, provision 10. ability: zeal, order: banish a bronze unit from your graveyard, then summon a copy of it from your deck to this row. sabbath: play the copy instead.
with this ability mamunna into griffin will still play for 13 (like yghern for example) with little setup and also thin a card and not go too tall. even with kiki worker or conqueror she would play as 11 with thinning, which isnt great but its not exactly a brick either. her true power imo comes from tutoring self-eafter, which is the most OP bronze card MO has atm, imo. people have suggested making this a 12p and similar nerfs but again, I think an archetype cannot consist of just 6p bronzes and 12+p golds, therefore I suggest this nerf, which keeps it rougly at 10 provision strength.

Bloody Mistress/Gernichora: Power 7, Provision 13. ability: unchanged.
This card is way too strong to be a 10 provision card. with sabbath it deploys as 9 points with 3 bodies (triggering thrives up to 7), all of which are engines. the fruits are easy to remove but it's almost impossible to deal with all 3 engines at the same time (remember what made cards like waters of brokkilon so strong?). I dont think I even have to comment about the caranthir, idarran combo issue.

She who knows: power 10, provision 12. ability: unchanged.
the card sees some play but I think we can agree currently it's a little underwhelming due to how easily it is interrupted (locking it or just damaging it to reduce its resilience value). personally I would make it 12 provision.

Idarran: power 6, provision 8. ability: the first time you spawn a bronze unit on your side of the board, spawn a 1-power copy of it on this row, and give it doomed.
I know Idarran is not a MO card and nerfing neutrals because of one deck most of the time isnt the right way to do it. but this card is and has only ever been truly problematic in monsters, imo. yesterday I tried to put him in an elf swarm list with vanadain, scenario, eleyas etc. and he worked pretty neatly, especially good with elven neophyte. obviously it also works well with larvae and most other swarm lists (rip devotion firesworn). but this card shouldnt be able to copy the most powerful gold cards, not for 8 provision. there is a reason renew costs 12 and can only target 9 provision and below. so I think this change would not destroy the card but make it memey and fun, the way it probably should be.

caranthir: dear caranthir, what can I even say... I know a lot of people love this card but personally I think it's time this card gets a complete rework. copying your win conditions is bound to be a very problematic thing time and time again, and this card appearently only gets stronger with the powercreep of the expansions. if caranthir was changed I could see gernichora being 11 provision I guess.
I'd suggest making him similar to bride of the sea (replaying MO specials in combination with frost, possibly second naglfar to help the shit consistency in devo MO), but thats just me.

self eater: I think this card is borderline broken but it lives and dies with the strength of other relict cards, and it is restrictive enough for me to be okay with it for now.


I think with these changes MO would still be very good but way less obnoxious to play against. what do you guys think? do you agree or disagree? I wanted to make the discussion a bit more constructive, since it really wasnt going anywhere in the other threads.
cheers

All of this comes down to Sabbath, it's that simple and complicated. I'll say it here...in a few months the devs will increase the Sabbath limit of 25pts to 30. And that will not solve the problem.

The problem is Sabbath is a terrible mechanic for a faction where they keep pushing tall play. It's either really good or really terrible. Sabbath is easily interrupted so the devs felt the answer to that was "make it easier to achieve" by adding cards like Gerni or Mamuna and make them compatible with Caranthir. They deliberately made it compatible with Caranthir which could have been easily avoided so Caranthir isn't the problem, the cards were designed specifically for it when they didn't need to be.

Caranthir isn't limiting the devs, the devs are limiting themselves by relying on mechanics like Sabbath and thrive. They could have given Gerni a far better ability. As for Mamuna, a boring ghoul ability that they modified to add thinning and summoning for sabbath support.

People keep asking why they didn't use more Adrenaline for a lot of these cards and that's the answer. MO is one of the slowest tempo factions if not the slowest which always made them easy to answer....deathwish, Vampires, Frost. It needed a mechanic that allowed it to obtain points quickly. I've been waiting on such a mechanic, that or maybe slow down the power creep in the other factions. Sadly that is the new direction for the game and we got Sabbath. It's just unfortunately a very poorly thought out solution.

 

[Pacifixer]

If Caranthir changes, there is no reason to change Idaran. Apart that, i 100% agree with everything!
Apprentice - totaly busted for 5 prov. Shoud be 6 prov or 3 power.
Mamunna - 20 points, 0 effort! This is the reason why i hate MO.
Sabbath - it's too easy to get to 25, again 0 effort, 0 skill.
Even if they leave Mamuna a the rest be, Caranthir has to change. He should at leat have a provision limit. All the high-end Caranthir combos are mindblowingly overpowered if you can't stop them - Koshchey, Bloody Mistress, Kiki Queen.

Post automatically merged: Aug 6, 2021

All of this comes down to Sabbath, it's that simple and complicated. I'll say it here...in a few months the devs will increase the Sabbath limit of 25pts to 30. And that will not solve the problem.

The problem is Sabbath is a terrible mechanic for a faction where they keep pushing tall play. It's either really good or really terrible. Sabbath is easily interrupted so the devs felt the answer to that was "make it easier to achieve" by adding cards like Gerni or Mamuna and make them compatible with Caranthir. They deliberately made it compatible with Caranthir which could have been easily avoided so Caranthir isn't the problem, the cards were designed specifically for it when they didn't need to be.

Caranthir isn't limiting the devs, the devs are limiting themselves by relying on mechanics like Sabbath and thrive. They could have given Gerni a far better ability. As for Mamuna, a boring ghoul ability that they modified to add thinning and summoning for sabbath support.

People keep asking why they didn't use more Adrenaline for a lot of these cards and that's the answer. MO is one of the slowest tempo factions if not the slowest....deathwish, Vampires, Frost. It needed a mechanic that allowed it to obtain points quickly. I've been waiting on such a mechanic, that or maybe slow down the power creep in the other factions. Sadly that is the new direction for the game and we got Sabbath.

Good point.
MO haven't had a single well designed expansion since . . . . actually never. Vampire rework (around Iron Judgement) was good. MM had potential, but they butchered it with dumb point-slam, so pure Wild Hunt deck was never a thing.

 

[Celadyl]

for me witcher aprendice and caranthir has the same problem.

Or they are too OP, or they are too weak.

A lot of times my caranthir has to spawn an useless 1 card point because i dont have any target to him, so its a 5 power to 9 provision.

The sane goes to pig. In a short row you have an useless card playing for 4 power (ok, its just 5 provision, so thats "ok" to play a 4 power card).

About the change in mamunna and blood mistress. Well i think, or change one card, or change another card. The both nerfs i think its too muh (even if they "buff" SWK, noones play that shit anyway - at leas the decks considered by players as "meta" doesnt have her)

I think mamunna is way too strong now, mistress is just a provision thing imo. I think if people werent copying this card left and right it wouldnt be such an issue but 10 is still very cheap for 3 engines in 1 turn with 9 points.

Post automatically merged: Aug 6, 2021

All of this comes down to Sabbath, it's that simple and complicated. I'll say it here...in a few months the devs will increase the Sabbath limit of 25pts to 30. And that will not solve the problem.

The problem is Sabbath is a terrible mechanic for a faction where they keep pushing tall play. It's either really good or really terrible. Sabbath is easily interrupted so the devs felt the answer to that was "make it easier to achieve" by adding cards like Gerni or Mamuna and make them compatible with Caranthir. They deliberately made it compatible with Caranthir which could have been easily avoided so Caranthir isn't the problem, the cards were designed specifically for it when they didn't need to be.

Caranthir isn't limiting the devs, the devs are limiting themselves by relying on mechanics like Sabbath and thrive. They could have given Gerni a far better ability. As for Mamuna, a boring ghoul ability that they modified to add thinning and summoning for sabbath support.

People keep asking why they didn't use more Adrenaline for a lot of these cards and that's the answer. MO is one of the slowest tempo factions if not the slowest which always made them easy to answer....deathwish, Vampires, Frost. It needed a mechanic that allowed it to obtain points quickly. I've been waiting on such a mechanic, that or maybe slow down the power creep in the other factions. Sadly that is the new direction for the game and we got Sabbath. It's just unfortunately a very poorly thought out solution.

sabbath certainly isnt the most creative tag but personally I dont think its that terrible. I also disagree with MO being the slowest tempo faction. I guess only WoW cards can have adrenaline for some reason, good point

Post automatically merged: Aug 6, 2021

If Caranthir changes, there is no reason to change Idaran. Apart that, i 100% agree with everything!
Apprentice - totaly busted for 5 prov. Shoud be 6 prov or 3 power.
Mamunna - 20 points, 0 effort! This is the reason why i hate MO.
Sabbath - it's too easy to get to 25, again 0 effort, 0 skill.
Even if they leave Mamuna a the rest be, Caranthir has to change. He should at leat have a provision limit. All the high-end Caranthir combos are mindblowingly overpowered if you can't stop them - Koshchey, Bloody Mistress, Kiki Queen.

Post automatically merged: Aug 6, 2021

Good point.
MO haven't had a single well designed expansion since . . . . actually never. Vampire rework (around Iron Judgement) was good. MM had potential, but they butchered it with dumb point-slam, so pure Wild Hunt deck was never a thing.

yes, the caranthir combos are extremely binary and barely beatable without immediate control. Idarran can become a problem at any time, everytime a strong gold spawns something, idarran can copy it.

 

[ianann]

This morning: Three Games in a row VS. new MO Relics. Insta-Quit at the first Self Eater. Sabbath in combination with MO is OP too imho, you get high powers with MO naturally, add the witch apprentice cards (for 5?!?) and your points go skyrocketing.

 

[rrc]

All of this comes down to Sabbath, it's that simple and complicated. I'll say it here...in a few months the devs will increase the Sabbath limit of 25pts to 30. And that will not solve the problem.

I was thinking the same. Sabbath at 25 is too easy. People achieve sabbath in their 3rd card by not even commiting any Legendary cards consistently. Sabbath should be made 30 as most of the Sabbath payoff is too huge (2 points per turn from a 5P card is too broken if it can be achieved this easily) But as you said, if it happens, it is going to make these decks fall out of favor. I don't know how to fix this, but this current Relict Sabbath is too oppressive.

 

[Celadyl]

I was thinking the same. Sabbath at 25 is too easy. People achieve sabbath in their 3rd card by not even commiting any Legendary cards consistently. Sabbath should be made 30 as most of the Sabbath payoff is too huge (2 points per turn from a 5P card is too broken if it can be achieved this easily) But as you said, if it happens, it is going to make these decks fall out of favor. I don't know how to fix this, but this current Relict Sabbath is too oppressive.

what do you think about my proposed witch apprentice change? would kind of "fix" how easy sabbath is to achieve without changing it. combined with general nerfs to overtuned golds I think sabbath can stay as it is. it might be that people end up ditching witch apprentice but on the other hand you need relicts in this deck and the choice is limited

 

[KaynOfNosgoth]

Witch apprentice: power 3, provision 5. ability: at the end of your turn, boost self by 2. sabbath: cancel the ability.
seeing how this card has no trouble at all going to 14 or even higher while reaching sabbath is absolutely no problem given the explosive points of this deck, personally I would change her to an opener and sabbath enabler, which in return will cap her power at something like 11 or 13 probably, which is still extremely powerful for a 5p. it would also generate a new layer of strategy about when to reach sabbath and when not to. I recognize this card would be veery strong in unitless decks á la kelltulis, but it starting at 5 power makes it less unanswerable than it currently is and therefore isnt as probematic, imo. I could easily see this as a 6p card but then this archetype becomes too top heavy in provisions.

Absolutely not. The whole point of the deck is to achieve sabbath to get effects. Having a card actually lose value by achieving your goal makes no sense and it would 100% kill the card. But yeah, sabbath is really easy to achieve so a 30 point sabbath might not be a bad thing.

Mamunna: power 4, provision 10. ability: zeal, order: banish a bronze unit from your graveyard, then summon a copy of it from your deck to this row. sabbath: play the copy instead.
with this ability mamunna into griffin will still play for 13 (like yghern for example) with little setup and also thin a card and not go too tall. even with kiki worker or conqueror she would play as 11 with thinning, which isnt great but its not exactly a brick either. her true power imo comes from tutoring self-eafter, which is the most OP bronze card MO has atm, imo. people have suggested making this a 12p and similar nerfs but again, I think an archetype cannot consist of just 6p bronzes and 12+p golds, therefore I suggest this nerf, which keeps it rougly at 10 provision strength.

Again, the whole point of the card is to help with sabbath. I still stand by my suggestion to change the ability to Deploy so that you won't be able to get 2 or even 3 copies of the card and it'll be fine.
Or like someone else suggested, divide the ability into 2 parts.
Example:
Zeal - Consume a unit from gy and boost self by that ammount
Order - Summon / Play (if sabbath is met) a copy of that card from your deck.
That way you can actually counter the second part and the card won't go above 10 points (if countered).

Bloody Mistress/Gernichora: Power 7, Provision 13. ability: unchanged.
This card is way too strong to be a 10 provision card. with sabbath it deploys as 9 points with 3 bodies (triggering thrives up to 7), all of which are engines. the fruits are easy to remove but it's almost impossible to deal with all 3 engines at the same time (remember what made cards like waters of brokkilon so strong?). I dont think I even have to comment about the caranthir, idarran combo issue.

Again, the problem comes into play when you have 3 copies. She by herself is not hard to counter. If you kill the fruits in time (or lock her) you are left with a 7 for 10 (if you kill the fruits) or a 9 for 10 (if you lock her).
Cahir or Dagur are 2 examples of way more powerful engines that can reach way crazier values if left unchecked. I don't see why Gerni should be nerfed to oblivion because she can generate 3 points per turn if you don't counter her.

She who knows: power 10, provision 12. ability: unchanged.
the card sees some play but I think we can agree currently it's a little underwhelming due to how easily it is interrupted (locking it or just damaging it to reduce its resilience value). personally I would make it 12 provision.

I dubt that will make much of a difference. There are simply way better options in a relict deck that her. But sure why not.

Idarran: power 6, provision 8. ability: the first time you spawn a bronze unit on your side of the board, spawn a 1-power copy of it on this row, and give it doomed.
I know Idarran is not a MO card and nerfing neutrals because of one deck most of the time isnt the right way to do it. but this card is and has only ever been truly problematic in monsters, imo. yesterday I tried to put him in an elf swarm list with vanadain, scenario, eleyas etc. and he worked pretty neatly, especially good with elven neophyte. obviously it also works well with larvae and most other swarm lists (rip devotion firesworn). but this card shouldnt be able to copy the most powerful gold cards, not for 8 provision. there is a reason renew costs 12 and can only target 9 provision and below. so I think this change would not destroy the card but make it memey and fun, the way it probably should be.

100% agree. I've made the same suggestion myself. Like someone lese mentioned, if they rework Caranthir the Iddarran problem will go away but there might be other cards coming in the future that might have similar effects to Caranthir and the problem will come again. Better to nerf him now (since it won't make much of a difference anyway) to be on the safe side.

caranthir: dear caranthir, what can I even say... I know a lot of people love this card but personally I think it's time this card gets a complete rework. copying your win conditions is bound to be a very problematic thing time and time again, and this card appearently only gets stronger with the powercreep of the expansions. if caranthir was changed I could see gernichora being 11 provision I guess.
I'd suggest making him similar to bride of the sea (replaying MO specials in combination with frost, possibly second naglfar to help the shit consistency in devo MO), but thats just me.

Again, i'm 100% with you on this one. He should be reworked to be amazing in a Wild Hunt deck and only mediocre (if not even bad) in mish-mash decks.

As for the Selfeaters i believe we already discussed it in the other thread. Ok that's all i have for this, cheers!

 

[Unkn0wn0ne]

I was thinking the same. Sabbath at 25 is too easy. People achieve sabbath in their 3rd card by not even commiting any Legendary cards consistently. Sabbath should be made 30 as most of the Sabbath payoff is too huge (2 points per turn from a 5P card is too broken if it can be achieved this easily) But as you said, if it happens, it is going to make these decks fall out of favor. I don't know how to fix this, but this current Relict Sabbath is too oppressive.

I somehow doubt increasing the Sabbath threshold will help. Doesn't it seem like Mamunna and Selfeater were only added to make Sabbath more easily achievable?
I suspect that if the Sabbath threshold is increased, then even more powerful MO cards will be added.

Post automatically merged: Aug 7, 2021

Mamunna: power 4, provision 10. ability: zeal, order: banish a bronze unit from your graveyard, then summon a copy of it from your deck to this row. sabbath: play the copy instead.

Someone (not sure who) suggested changing Mamunna's boost to be by the Banished unit's provision cost instead of base power. That would limit Mamunna's value to 16/10p which is much more reasonable.

Example:
Zeal - Consume a unit from gy and boost self by that ammount
Order - Summon / Play (if sabbath is met) a copy of that card from your deck.

Do you mean:
Deploy: Consume a unit from graveyard and boost self by its base power.
Order: Summon/play (is Sabbath) a copy from your deck.

If so, I agree. That sounds reasonable too. Mamunna can be Locked of removed to prevent the massive pointslam.

Post automatically merged: Aug 7, 2021

Witch apprentice: power 3, provision 5. ability: at the end of your turn, boost self by 2. sabbath: cancel the ability.

I think just the power nerf is sufficient. If she's only at 5 power after one boost, she's still in 5p removal range. Your Sabbath suggestion doesn't really make much sense, though. A sabbath is a gathering of witches, so it should strengthen cards, not weaken them.
And even if it worked as you suggested, is that better? Players would simply try not to reach Sabbath. You could place one Apprentice on each row, then just focus on control, and get +4 every turn.

Idarran: power 6, provision 8. ability: the first time you spawn a bronze unit on your side of the board, spawn a 1-power copy of it on this row, and give it doomed.

The bronze parts sounds fine. That's probably enough to keep meme-y decks entertained, as you say.

 

[KaynOfNosgoth]

Do you mean:
Deploy: Consume a unit from graveyard and boost self by its base power.
Order: Summon/play (is Sabbath) a copy from your deck.

If so, I agree. That sounds reasonable too. Mamunna can be Locked of removed to prevent the massive pointslam.

Yes. That is what that other person suggested. I just explained it poorly i guess.

 

[quintivarium]

He [Caranthir] should be reworked to be amazing in a Wild Hunt deck and only mediocre (if not even bad) in mish-mash decks.

Post automatically merged: Aug 7, 2021

I absolutely oppose this idea. Units should very rarely -- if ever -- be limited to calculated "archetypes". This removes all creativity from deck-building. I even find the term "mish-mash deck" somewhat offensive as it implies there is no reason for the card choices. If I come up with some interesting ways to connect cards (maybe I want a C-archetype where every card has a title beginning with the letter C), that should not be inhibited by a developer's vision of valid archetypes. It makes sense to connect cards by natural synergies; it doe not make sense to limit players to pre-conceived archetypes as that only reduces variety and creativity. It is necessary that no synergies become so great that all other decks are excluded, but that should be done by addressing cards and synergies, not limiting them to chosen archetypes.

 

[InkognitoXI]

Post automatically merged: Aug 7, 2021

I absolutely oppose this idea. Units should very rarely -- if ever -- be limited to calculated "archetypes". This removes all creativity from deck-building. I even find the term "mish-mash deck" somewhat offensive as it implies there is no reason for the card choices. If I come up with some interesting ways to connect cards (maybe I want a C-archetype where every card has a title beginning with the letter C), that should not be inhibited by a developer's vision of valid archetypes. It makes sense to connect cards by natural synergies; it doe not make sense to limit players to pre-conceived archetypes as that only reduces variety and creativity. It is necessary that no synergies become so great that all other decks are excluded, but that should be done by addressing cards and synergies, not limiting them to chosen archetypes.

The issue is that if there are no archetypes there will be little diversity within the factions and one ends up with cookie-cutter decks, which was one of the worst mistakes of early homecoming.
You can call it whatver you want, however packages or archetypes are absolutely essential to building functioning decks, which are not converging into each other.
Relicts, Warriors, Elves etc are good examples of that (especially with all the different variations you play play for Warriors with different Ship packages and different 4p Warriors and other variations).

 

[KaynOfNosgoth]

Post automatically merged: Aug 7, 2021

I absolutely oppose this idea. Units should very rarely -- if ever -- be limited to calculated "archetypes". This removes all creativity from deck-building. I even find the term "mish-mash deck" somewhat offensive as it implies there is no reason for the card choices. If I come up with some interesting ways to connect cards (maybe I want a C-archetype where every card has a title beginning with the letter C), that should not be inhibited by a developer's vision of valid archetypes. It makes sense to connect cards by natural synergies; it doe not make sense to limit players to pre-conceived archetypes as that only reduces variety and creativity. It is necessary that no synergies become so great that all other decks are excluded, but that should be done by addressing cards and synergies, not limiting them to chosen archetypes.

Well, this all comes down to preferences. I for example like decks that have a thematic. Like this new Relict themed meta that they added. I love this. I would also love a Wild Hunt deck where i don't have to include insectoids and other cards just so that i'd be able to get any value out of it.
Oh, and by "mish-mash" deck i mean decks with no specific archtype. Just the best cards from each faction put in the same deck in order to be competitive. So you can stop being offended

I would love to see scenarios like Insectoids fighting ogroids. Or wild hunt fighting vampires. But no one actually plays such decks because they are not competitive. So all we're left with are 1-2 top tier mish-mash decks per faction that we see over and over again.

I made a suggestion a while back that maybe they should add a new keyword, similar to Devotion but instead of getting the added bonus by sticking to your faction, you get it by sticking to your archtype.

For example: Caranthir (since he is the subject here anyway).
For the most part he stays the same. No changes. BUT! You add this new keyword as another effect... let's call it "Affiliation".

So it would go like this:

Caranthir -
Same ability, yada, yada, you know the effect
Affiliation: Wild Hunt - Don't change the power of the spawned unit.

This way you can still play him in your mish-mash decks BUT if i want an archtype themed deck i can do that AND get a nice little bonus to be able to keep up with the mish-mashes.

Everyone wins! But honestly such a change would take an gigantic effort on CDPR's part so i dubt it'll ever happen.

 

[Guest 4375874]

All these suggestions are good and I've made it clear I think these new cards and the sabbath mechanic are overtuned BUT, given the current state of the game, any of these changes will result in MO being dropped to the bottom of the ladder. Until the devs get out of this mindset that the only thing MO can do is point slam then it will not be balanced.

I'm not sure why people keep bringing up Caranthir, giving the new cards a simple deploy effect could have solved that problem. They were deliberately designed that way so Caranthir isn't the problem. It's just going to be a continuous cycle of busted cards with little to no setup, the community calls for a nerf and then they nerf the cards into the ground. It just happened with Viy and here we are again. It'll happen again and again until some new leadership and direction happens with the devs.

Caranthis should support Wild Hunt but that doesn't require a nerf:
Spawn 1p copy, IF it's a Wild Hunt unit add frost to the opposite row which could help Naglfars crew or give unit zeal (no good targets for that but you get the point)

 

[Jollyrogerxberg]

A sabbath is a gathering of witches, so it should strengthen cards, not weaken them.

Shabbat shalom, my friend. A sabbath is a day of rest after a week (6 days) of work.
What you are refering to would be a Black Sabbath or a Witch(es) Sabbath like the day of Walpurgis, celebrated each year at the mountain of Brocken.

 

[Celadyl]

Absolutely not. The whole point of the deck is to achieve sabbath to get effects. Having a card actually lose value by achieving your goal makes no sense and it would 100% kill the card. But yeah, sabbath is really easy to achieve so a 30 point sabbath might not be a bad thing.

I mean in my head this card would just go to like 11 or 13 and help you achieve sabbath and stop growing. imo that sounds way more reasonable for a 5p than having a ceiling of 18 if it's your 5th card in a 10 card round. but I see why people would dislike the idea.

Again, the whole point of the card is to help with sabbath. I still stand by my suggestion to change the ability to Deploy so that you won't be able to get 2 or even 3 copies of the card and it'll be fine.
Or like someone else suggested, divide the ability into 2 parts.
Example:
Zeal - Consume a unit from gy and boost self by that ammount
Order - Summon / Play (if sabbath is met) a copy of that card from your deck.
That way you can actually counter the second part and the card won't go above 10 points (if countered).

I like your suggestion as well. but giving it deploy doesnt solve the problem imo, its still up to 20 points with little setup. I noticed that the card has the same stats as imlerith (who is arguably way too weak) and wondered how this could be. the effects are not even close in power, and I cant think of many 10p cards that jam this many points.

Again, the problem comes into play when you have 3 copies. She by herself is not hard to counter. If you kill the fruits in time (or lock her) you are left with a 7 for 10 (if you kill the fruits) or a 9 for 10 (if you lock her).
Cahir or Dagur are 2 examples of way more powerful engines that can reach way crazier values if left unchecked. I don't see why Gerni should be nerfed to oblivion because she can generate 3 points per turn if you don't counter her.

in hindsight I agree 13p would be too much and kill the card. but I'm pretty sure it's going to get nerfed to 11 and thats fine. yes you can lock gerni but then there is still 2 thrive engines on the board, 10 is just too cheap imo. both cahir and dagur play extremely tall in 1 body and are therefore much more vulnerable than gerni, unless you play a damage ping deck to insta kill all the fruits. I dont rly like measuring new cards to those two examples, as I think both of these are very silly binary cards. oh, and you can also just counter them with movement.
thanks for the feedback, cheers

Post automatically merged: Aug 7, 2021

I think just the power nerf is sufficient. If she's only at 5 power after one boost, she's still in 5p removal range. Your Sabbath suggestion doesn't really make much sense, though. A sabbath is a gathering of witches, so it should strengthen cards, not weaken them.
And even if it worked as you suggested, is that better? Players would simply try not to reach Sabbath. You could place one Apprentice on each row, then just focus on control, and get +4 every turn.

well if they would be trying not to reach sabbath they are forcing themselves to play slow tempo but thats the point I guess. like you said she would be in 5p removal range still. my suggestion only serves to give this card a shorter ceiling, it's probably the strongest 5p in the game right now. I also dont see how your lore reasoning speaks against this change, gwent is not balanced around lore at all for the most part.
like I said before I understand why people wouldnt like this suggestion but I thought it's interesting and adds another dimension to the sabbath mechanic

 

[quintivarium]

The issue is that if there are no archetypes there will be little diversity within the factions and one ends up with cookie-cutter decks, which was one of the worst mistakes of early homecoming.
You can call it whatver you want, however packages or archetypes are absolutely essential to building functioning decks, which are not converging into each other.
Relicts, Warriors, Elves etc are good examples of that (especially with all the different variations you play play for Warriors with different Ship packages and different 4p Warriors and other variations).

Ship packages are a good example of card packages tied together by theme and synergy, but flexible enough to apply in numerous theme decks without being so powerful that any ships are autoinclude anywhere. You can use them with Pirates, Warriors, Storms (druids), or creations of your own. And they never stand entirely on their own. I very much wish they were the model for other archetypes.

Certainly, Caranthir, as leader of the wild hunt, should synergize well with with at least some wild hunt cards. But there is nothing wrong with him working well in a relict deck too -- as long as he does not become so powerful in that deck as to make him preferable to virtually any other card.

I guess my concern is with a trend I see now where the developers seem to be almost forcing competitive players into a small handful of carefully controlled archetypes which might change over time, but which are always very limited in variety and very much designed to limit "out of the box" deck designs.

 

[Celadyl]

Post automatically merged: Aug 7, 2021

I absolutely oppose this idea. Units should very rarely -- if ever -- be limited to calculated "archetypes". This removes all creativity from deck-building. I even find the term "mish-mash deck" somewhat offensive as it implies there is no reason for the card choices. If I come up with some interesting ways to connect cards (maybe I want a C-archetype where every card has a title beginning with the letter C), that should not be inhibited by a developer's vision of valid archetypes. It makes sense to connect cards by natural synergies; it doe not make sense to limit players to pre-conceived archetypes as that only reduces variety and creativity. It is necessary that no synergies become so great that all other decks are excluded, but that should be done by addressing cards and synergies, not limiting them to chosen archetypes.

I dont agree. I would much rather have 4-6 archetypes per faction with some wiggle room than the "one jack of all trades deck with every best card the faction has to offer in it" that we see month and month again in SY, NG, NR and to some extent all the other factions too.
I think SY and NG are the prime offenders here, every expansion the few best cards just get integrated into NG ball or some SY (whatever leader is best at any given time) pointslam/control mix with no thematic background at all.
we get a bunch of bounty cards but a full bounty deck never sees the light of the day (or meta), same with NG spies, NR mages (some 4p mages and the 11 one made it into the deck, the rest is just the usual meta cards) etc etc etc
but personally I am more of a thematic and meme player than competetive and the net decking of competetive decks (and lack of said crativity) is probably my biggest issue with gwent as a whole.

I think even with more strict archetypes and card sets it would enable cdpr to balance each one to a similar level, so if you would encounter a faction you wouldnt immediately know what deck it is. but I know thats just wishful thinking on my part

 

[Guest 4375874]

I dont agree. I would much rather have 4-6 archetypes per faction with some wiggle room than the "one jack of all trades deck with every best card the faction has to offer in it" that we see month and month again in SY, NG, NR and to some extent all the other factions too.
I think SY and NG are the prime offenders here, every expansion the few best cards just get integrated into NG ball or some SY (whatever leader is best at any given time) pointslam/control mix with no thematic background at all.
we get a bunch of bounty cards but a full bounty deck never sees the light of the day (or meta), same with NG spies, NR mages (some 4p mages and the 11 one made it into the deck, the rest is just the usual meta cards) etc etc etc
but personally I am more of a thematic and meme player than competetive and the net decking of competetive decks (and lack of said crativity) is probably my biggest issue with gwent as a whole.

I think even with more strict archetypes and card sets it would enable cdpr to balance each one to a similar level, so if you would encounter a faction you wouldnt immediately know what deck it is. but I know thats just wishful thinking on my part

That isn't possible, you're suggestion would make the game more binary than ever because some decks would automatically be an auto loss against others since a counter they need may be a card in another archetype. That's already the case to some extent but if we force archetypes into a box then counter play would be severely restricted.