Why are we not talking Gord?

+
Gord is usually playing for 10-14 points. A lot of 7p cards play for these points. Dunka, Urcheon, Beast, phantom, Gerd can do it as well, Herkja, Saul, Anna Strenger or even Voymir. The point distribution might be different but the points are still there.
 
Gord is usually playing for 10-14 points. A lot of 7p cards play for these points. Dunka, Urcheon, Beast, phantom, Gerd can do it as well, Herkja, Saul, Anna Strenger or even Voymir. The point distribution might be different but the points are still there.
All the cards you mentioned (except) Voynmir are cards which start an +1-3 engine and can be removed easily. Gord, however, only requires that you have played many specials before him. There´s almost no way to stop that engine (only trying to steal him or use Ihuarraquax but low probability that he is the highest provision card in deck).
So reducing body or increasing provisions might be appropriate.
Additionally I somehow like the ideas that players get some incentives to play him earlier.
 
All the cards you mentioned (except) Voynmir are cards which start an +1-3 engine and can be removed easily. Gord, however, only requires that you have played many specials before him. There´s almost no way to stop that engine (only trying to steal him or use Ihuarraquax but low probability that he is the highest provision card in deck).
So reducing body or increasing provisions might be appropriate.
Additionally I somehow like the ideas that players get some incentives to play him earlier.
There are arguments and will be over the matter. You can say that if gord isn't played as last say he can also be considered 0-3 points (heatwave, yrden, poisoned etc.) I think its a reasonable 7p card.
 
I won all my games so far with Syndicate on ranked but my Gord never got very high. It all depends on the list. I play a Devotion deck with 2 Mutants Maker and 'only' 9 crime cards.

Failed experiment plays effectively for 9 if used as a finisher and is almost as good as Gord is in my deck for 5 provisions...
 
I think the devs seriously need to consider removing the dual faction aspect of Gord and instead give ST a separate card with a similar ability. The huge point difference between a ST Gord and a SY Gord makes him impossible to properly balance. A dwarven hitman synergizing with Nature cards and Spells never made much sense to begin with.
 
My personal opinion is that enders like him are necessary in certain decks. So if anything we need one in every faction so that decks that can make use of a high finisher like that can use it. For MO would be to revert the change on Grave Hag (i think they changed her name now).
Before all the nerfs it was power 2, i can't remember the provisions, but the ability was "Deploy: Consume all units in your graveyard and boost self by 1 for each unit consumed". Now because of community [...] complaining, they nerfed her into oblivion and made her 1 point with 1 armor and gave her order which killed the card and that's why you don't see her being played in any decks.

Gord and Grave Hag could be good finishers in different decks for their respective factions but they need to be just as viable. Now as far as the other factions go, idk if they have similar cards, but if they don't then maybe the devs can add some to balance things out.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
My personal opinion is that enders like him are necessary in certain decks. So if anything we need one in every faction so that decks that can make use of a high finisher like that can use it. For MO would be to revert the change on Grave Hag (i think they changed her name now).
Before all the nerfs it was power 2, i can't remember the provisions, but the ability was "Deploy: Consume all units in your graveyard and boost self by 1 for each unit consumed". Now because of community [...] complaining, they nerfed her into oblivion and made her 1 point with 1 armor and gave her order which killed the card and that's why you don't see her being played in any decks.

Gord and Grave Hag could be good finishers in different decks for their respective factions but they need to be just as viable. Now as far as the other factions go, idk if they have similar cards, but if they don't then maybe the devs can add some to balance things out.

I disagree completely, because you then add yet more polarization - last play or die, which in itself is entirely reliant on the 'random' initial deal (i.e. whoever gets "luckiest" will automatically win). If it's all about last play, then you're just wasting 10 minutes playing a match over a coin flip.

The goal should be to move firmly away from "finishers" and create a much more balanced playstyle that doesn't involve the likes of Gord, Kolgrim, Mourntart, Aglais, Eist w/ leader ability, SW, etc. CDPR unfortunately wanted a direction of massive point swings, they think that's "fun", but I doubt much of the community agrees with them and certainly I think the game would benefit from huge reductions on damage, points ceilings and other bizarre mechanics (like Mamunna).

Problem is we seem to just keep seeing more and more of these cards created with the hundreds of unused cards just gathering dust.
 
I disagree completely, because you then add yet more polarization - last play or die, which in itself is entirely reliant on the 'random' initial deal (i.e. whoever gets "luckiest" will automatically win). If it's all about last play, then you're just wasting 10 minutes playing a match over a coin flip.

The goal should be to move firmly away from "finishers" and create a much more balanced playstyle that doesn't involve the likes of Gord, Kolgrim, Mourntart, Aglais, Eist w/ leader ability, SW, etc. CDPR unfortunately wanted a direction of massive point swings, they think that's "fun", but I doubt much of the community agrees with them and certainly I think the game would benefit from huge reductions on damage, points ceilings and other bizarre mechanics (like Mamunna).

Problem is we seem to just keep seeing more and more of these cards created with the hundreds of unused cards just gathering dust.
Well here i agree and disagree. I agree that in a perfect game we shouldn't have finishers and we should get our points on the board through skill and all the cards that we have in our deck but that's a bit of an unrealistic expectation in my opinion.
I also hate to see the finishers you mentioned above but you have to realize that in order for all of those to go away they would have to rework 4-5 decks. Kolgrim is all about building your deck around him, Aglais the same, Eist... whatever Eist at least requires a leader ability and Bloodthirst 3 so in that regard he seems more fair. Mourntart is a dead card.

So my thinking is that while i agree that these cards are annoying and in some cases straight up unfair, it would be very bad to nerf all those cards into oblivion and take out of the game 4-5 perfectly viable decks. Because let's face it, without Aglais there will be no hand buffing and without Kolgrim there will be no mill (not that i would mind for that cheap deck to disappear).
So rather than kill 4 decks, i suggested buffing other similar cards to let even more decks to join the battle. I always was against this mentality of "let's nerf everything into the ground". I prefer "let's buff other things to give those top decks some competitors".

Also, i don't agree that the game would benefit from a reduction in overall points. If anything, i wanna see even crazier point swings from certain combos like it was in the beta. When they announced the "new" version of gwent i hated 2 things about it:
1. The fact that they removed the ranged row. I thought that would take out a whole layer of strategy from the game and i was right.
2. The points were very low. It was like "play a card, get 5 points" while in the beta was "play a card, trigger 2 other effects and swing the game by 30 points" and i prefer that type of crazy swings over the monotonous low point values that used to be (and still are in some cases).

But that's just my opinion. I'm sure there are people who prefer it the way it is now.
 
Well here i agree and disagree. I agree that in a perfect game we shouldn't have finishers and we should get our points on the board through skill and all the cards that we have in our deck but that's a bit of an unrealistic expectation in my opinion.
I also hate to see the finishers you mentioned above but you have to realize that in order for all of those to go away they would have to rework 4-5 decks. Kolgrim is all about building your deck around him, Aglais the same, Eist... whatever Eist at least requires a leader ability and Bloodthirst 3 so in that regard he seems more fair. Mourntart is a dead card.

So my thinking is that while i agree that these cards are annoying and in some cases straight up unfair, it would be very bad to nerf all those cards into oblivion and take out of the game 4-5 perfectly viable decks. Because let's face it, without Aglais there will be no hand buffing and without Kolgrim there will be no mill (not that i would mind for that cheap deck to disappear).
So rather than kill 4 decks, i suggested buffing other similar cards to let even more decks to join the battle. I always was against this mentality of "let's nerf everything into the ground". I prefer "let's buff other things to give those top decks some competitors".

Also, i don't agree that the game would benefit from a reduction in overall points. If anything, i wanna see even crazier point swings from certain combos like it was in the beta. When they announced the "new" version of gwent i hated 2 things about it:
1. The fact that they removed the ranged row. I thought that would take out a whole layer of strategy from the game and i was right.
2. The points were very low. It was like "play a card, get 5 points" while in the beta was "play a card, trigger 2 other effects and swing the game by 30 points" and i prefer that type of crazy swings over the monotonous low point values that used to be (and still are in some cases).

But that's just my opinion. I'm sure there are people who prefer it the way it is now.

The only people who prefer it now didn't play beta!! Or at least I've never seen anyone say it's a better game now.

Fair points, I just think we don't have one or the other - we have sizeable swings and a handful of "finishers", which are polarized by the need to counter, then a number of mundane ploddy cards. I think this middle ground is what is killing the game. Because there are a handful of big swings, but they need an archetype, the decks become extremely repetitive. So you need to either remove the stupid swings as mentioned, or go all in and provide countless crazy swings so you're really yo-yo'ing around a game. I'd be up for seeing what that looks like, so although I disagree with you and would prefer a small margins strategic game I can see merit in the idea of creating loads and loads of big swing point synergies.

Both make sense, because it's the polarization, limited "big" cards and subsequently myopic nature of deckbuilding that harms Gwent the most.
 
Gord is not a problem or ST. They have to work the entire match to boost him up.If they don't have last and it happens to the best of us Gord is easily removed or resetted in todays meta.Since ST has to run so many spells to boost gord you can get a hand with a couple of units and the rest spells.It has happened to me on several occasions.Whats OP is mummuna playing for 20 in the 3rd or even 2 round with little setup and immerith dicarded that insect for a quick easy 16 ponits and then azrael consuming it for a easy 14 point play and lets not forget about NG hyperthin in round 3.
 
Gord is not a problem or ST. They have to work the entire match to boost him up.If they don't have last and it happens to the best of us Gord is easily removed or resetted in todays meta.Since ST has to run so many spells to boost gord you can get a hand with a couple of units and the rest spells.It has happened to me on several occasions.Whats OP is mummuna playing for 20 in the 3rd or even 2 round with little setup and immerith dicarded that insect for a quick easy 16 ponits and then azrael consuming it for a easy 14 point play and lets not forget about NG hyperthin in round 3.
NG Hyperthin also has to work out a lot to make use of Golem for 12 points on deploy for Yen, Triss and Xarth. So if Gord is ok because you have to work for him to provide good value in R3 and have last say, then so is the case for Hyperthin. If you have more cards in your deck than Golem, chances are that you won't get as much value from the 3 high payoff cards. In regards to Gord in ST, he sucks only if you don't manage to develop your Sorcerers and Seers.
 
Gord at 7 provisions is just as OP as another 7 prov card... tunnel drill, which is incidentally the only other card worth 7p that can play for 20+ points in a turn.

Gord should only get buffed for crime or nature spells, not all spells. Way too much value for spellatiel compared to a crime deck, makes no sense at all.
 
If ST didnt get the price of power buffs gord in natures gifts would be struggling to win games especaily at the high level.A problem matic card is NG viper witcher banishing your card out of your deck before you can play it then theres canterella who plays your card before you can she can then get coup de gra and play another one of your cards feels bad man.Anybody familiar with a card called alchemist vilgefortz can easily destroy any of your cards then play the top card from your deck.TOXIC TOXIC TOXIC cards that are killing the community, Stay out of my hand.With lippy SK can get replay golds again that includes neautrals.MO can play for a lot of points easily.
 
You mean Kingslayer, because Viper Witcher is a clog card.
Kingslayer can be annoying, but is a RNG card with very slow tempo that can both destroy a gold card or mill your opponent bronzes.
For 7p Gord is op, because is not so difficult to him to reach a huge value, even if you have to build your deck around. Since PoP ST have strong cards to do that.
It will continue to be seen in games even at 9p.
 
You mean Kingslayer, because Viper Witcher is a clog card.
Kingslayer can be annoying, but is a RNG card with very slow tempo that can both destroy a gold card or mill your opponent bronzes.
For 7p Gord is op, because is not so difficult to him to reach a huge value, even if you have to build your deck around. Since PoP ST have strong cards to do that.
It will continue to be seen in games even at 9p.

If Kingslayer appears once, it'll apper at least four times or more, along with 2 x Cantarella and Traeharn. Mill will get rid of 7 of your cards, which - as has been pointed out repeatedly elsewhere - is very toxic and should be nerfed to oblivion. Traeharn should be 8 prov, Cantarella 9 and Kingslayer only able to target Bronze.

But this isn't the thread for that. Gord really isn't a problem, because you just need a reset or tall removal and know you have to win R1. It is very much another coin toss, because you can only win R1 with a better deal than your opponent has.
 
If Kingslayer appears once, it'll apper at least four times or more, along with 2 x Cantarella and Traeharn. Mill will get rid of 7 of your cards, which - as has been pointed out repeatedly elsewhere - is very toxic and should be nerfed to oblivion. Traeharn should be 8 prov, Cantarella 9 and Kingslayer only able to target Bronze.

But this isn't the thread for that. Gord really isn't a problem, because you just need a reset or tall removal and know you have to win R1. It is very much another coin toss, because you can only win R1 with a better deal than your opponent has.
It is a problem when a mid-range card such as Gord can reach values that are 3 times his provision cost, if not more. Since ST spells/mages got enhanced last month, he has become a problem, for the same reason Caranthir and Idarran when Mamunna and Bloody Mistress were introduced became a problem before they were changed.

We still complain that Mamunna plays for 20 points on deploy. In the past there was complaint that Eist played for a fuckton of points as well because of the Blaze of Glory leader. I think Gord needs to be rethinked a little bit. It is stupid to have a 20+ Gord dropped as last say all the time and the only way to remove him is to reset or banish him (thus you must always have last say when facing an ST player).

Mill right now has been nerfed to oblivion. It was a menace when Sunset Wanderers was 11 provisions. Now even if it tries to mill you, it can no longer provide enough points to win first round. Sure, it is annoying as fuck, same as Clog because these you just can't interact/counter these two, but they are not the problem right now.

The game's current problems are 1) Mamunna playing for 20 points on deploy 2) SY having too much cheap control with Drill, Freakshow and to a lesser extent BGF (one of the best, if not the best bronze card at the moment) and 3) Gord playing for 3 times more points than his provision cost. These would have to be addressed as I am getting kind of tired of having month after month of control heavy meta because of such greedy decks and strategies.
Post automatically merged:

I still think NG are THE problem. They are the only faction I auto-quit against, I just frankly can't be arsed with all the same cheap lock/poison/spy/Joachim/Coup, Mage Assassin combo, etc. It's so, so boring, the same cards endlessly regardless of leader ability.
NG barely has a tier 2 deck in that Spies/Assimilate deck running with Imprisonment. Also, NG is annoying precisely because the meta has been moving towards removal heavy and greedy strategies, thus making Artaud and the spy package very valuable. Needless to say, NG is the least of a problem this current meta. As annoying as it can be sometimes, none of the cards and archetypes you mentioned play for 20+ points on deploy. Masquerade Ball is actually power crept, something absolutely unimaginable a few months back. The best NG decks right now don't run poisons and locks, except for leader. Hyperthin runs locks for some control, but that's it.

I am honestly much more bored whenever I see the same old shit with ST dropping Gord as the last card and winning the game, having Drill clean my board with not that much effort or seeing Mamunna opening round 3 with 20 points in the first move.
 
Last edited:
Post automatically merged:


NG barely has a tier 2 deck in that Spies/Assimilate deck running with Imprisonment. Also, NG is annoying precisely because the meta has been moving towards removal heavy and greedy strategies, thus making Artaud and the spy package very valuable. Needless to say, NG is the least of a problem this current meta. As annoying as it can be sometimes, none of the cards and archetypes you mentioned play for 20+ points on deploy. Masquerade Ball is actually power crept, something absolutely unimaginable a few months back. The best NG decks right now don't run poisons and locks, except for leader. Hyperthin runs locks for some control, but that's it.

I am honestly much more bored whenever I see the same old shit with ST dropping Gord as the last card and winning the game, having Drill clean my board with not that much effort or seeing Mamunna opening round 3 with 20 points in the first move.

What? NGs hyperthin has got around 50+ points in the 3 card 3rd round and its super consistent. Actually if you dont tech directly against hyperthin, youve got really bad time, and can forfeit the moment you realize its hyperthin NG. Get the hell out of there with "barely 2 Tier" lol, look at this months flippin statistics...
 
Last edited:
Gord is fine the way he is. You have to set him up the entire game.Which means you cant play him in the 1st or 2nd round for a lot of points and still there will be times when he doesnt play for 20 points.If ST doesnt get last say Gord can get removed or resetted easily in todays meta.The card that needs a nerf is Momuuna.ST isnt even in the top 3 decks NG SK MO are.
 
Top Bottom