Why Ciri Nova is in the game?

[FG15-ISH7EG]

Ciri has a setback. You need exactly 2 of every bronze card, which limits the deck quite a lot and excludes a lot of decks.
Also 25 points isn't that big for a finisher. There are a lot of other cards that can achieve that too.

The problem I see is that there is no reason to play her before the last card, because she has no board interaction. She is a constant 25 point card no matter when you play her, so the latter the more secure.
Therefore, I would suggest, that instead of strengthening to 25, she would only strengthen to 9 if she has no adjacent unit, to 17 with 1 adjacent unit and to 25 with 2.
This would leave her the same in most games, but if both players only start round 3 with very few cards, she could be a lot weaker.

 

[StrykerxS77x]

Ciri has a setback. You need exactly 2 of every bronze card, which limits the deck quite a lot and excludes a lot of decks.
Also 25 points isn't that big for a finisher. There are a lot of other cards that can achieve that too.

The problem I see is that there is no reason to play her before the last card, because she has no board interaction. She is a constant 25 point card no matter when you play her, so the latter the more secure.
Therefore, I would suggest, that instead of strengthening to 25, she would only strengthen to 9 if she has no adjacent unit, to 17 with 1 adjacent unit and to 25 with 2.
This would leave her the same in most games, but if both players only start round 3 with very few cards, she could be a lot weaker.

What's interesting is I am seeing a Ciri Nova version of nearly every popular deck in the game. That just doesn't seem healthy.

 

[Karajorma]

So now you're seeing every popular deck + a Ciri Nova version? At the very least that's doubled the diversity of the game.

 

[TheEpicWhale]

You can try and flip it left or right,

but when an opponent plays Ciri:Nova as his last card you never think: "wow what a clever move, that is such a well thought out and balanced deck".

Because that is simply not true.

Most of them are decks that are thought out well and then have a Ciri:nova slapped on for good measure.

It is boring and really doesn't require much skill to play.

The factionless cards just shouldn't be able to make such huge powerswing imho.

Those cards should be stapples for the faction deck you want to play.

 

[Karfuss]

When there's a Ciri: Nova deck for every single deck archetype, whether that be Dwarves, Nekker consume, Spelltael, etc etc... The card is the issue. It isn't creating new deck archetypes, it's reworking existing ones to accommodate it. To pretend otherwise is a straight lie, or maintaining one's own interests.

The be all and end all is that a factionless card shouldn't be a finisher, and if it is, it should NOT be stronger than faction combo finishers (looking at you Skellige). It is also ridiculous that you can hold on to a Scorch in hand, specifically for Ciri: Nova, but coinflip RNG decides you're not going to use it. You are better off, somehow, getting a 25+ tempo after being bled your finisher (as all Ciri: Nova decks will try to do)... It's a situation that should not happen.

Introduce the Magic mechanic whereby the hand with the least value (spells are not measured) dictates who goes last, or fundamentally change Ciri: Nova into giving opponent a single card draw and ending pass turn. Having one less silver card, while still having both your faction finish combos and the single finisher of Ciri is NOT a drawback.

 

[x1Cygnus]

So I had a 12 game losing streak this evening (even though I'm using a combo of those super OP dorfs and a Henselt deck) mostly losing to Nova variants of other popular decks and that NG reveal/mill deck with Avalach and some gold weather that's going around. I think Stregobor is broke same as Shilard was in that it gives oppo a card from deck even though my deck was zeroed - could be wrong about that though, but it sure felt like he was getting extra cards.... anyway; 12 straight loss must have tanked my ranking points good and proper (at R 15 now) so after some serious thought over a cold one, I've decided to put Gwent down for a little while and play.... well, something else for a bit.

 

[Jeydra]

When there's a Ciri: Nova deck for every single deck archetype, whether that be Dwarves, Nekker consume, Spelltael, etc etc... The card is the issue. It isn't creating new deck archetypes, it's reworking existing ones to accommodate it. To pretend otherwise is a straight lie, or maintaining one's own interests.

The be all and end all is that a factionless card shouldn't be a finisher, and if it is, it should NOT be stronger than faction combo finishers (looking at you Skellige). It is also ridiculous that you can hold on to a Scorch in hand, specifically for Ciri: Nova, but coinflip RNG decides you're not going to use it. You are better off, somehow, getting a 25+ tempo after being bled your finisher (as all Ciri: Nova decks will try to do)... It's a situation that should not happen.

Introduce the Magic mechanic whereby the hand with the least value (spells are not measured) dictates who goes last, or fundamentally change Ciri: Nova into giving opponent a single card draw and ending pass turn. Having one less silver card, while still having both your faction finish combos and the single finisher of Ciri is NOT a drawback.

The coin flip has no bearing on who gets the last play. The person that gets the last play is the one that won round 1 (excluding spies and / or round 1s that result in 2+ difference in CA). Complaining about coin flip and then about getting bled in the same breath just doesn't make sense as well. Even if you lost the coin flip in round 1 and proceeded to lose the round up a card, in round 2, your opponent is the one going first ("lost the coin flip"). Why couldn't you preserve your +1 card advantage and use that to Scorch the Ciri: Nova?

Having one less silver card is an obvious drawback. By design silver cards are worth more points than bronzes.

So I had a 12 game losing streak this evening (even though I'm using a combo of those super OP dorfs and a Henselt deck) mostly losing to Nova variants of other popular decks and that NG reveal/mill deck with Avalach and some gold weather that's going around. I think Stregobor is broke same as Shilard was in that it gives oppo a card from deck even though my deck was zeroed - could be wrong about that though, but it sure felt like he was getting extra cards.... anyway; 12 straight loss must have tanked my ranking points good and proper (at R 15 now) so after some serious thought over a cold one, I've decided to put Gwent down for a little while and play.... well, something else for a bit.

If you're playing a super OP deck and still lose 12 consecutive games to Ciri: Nova, I'd look less at game balance and more at your play choices. The odds are, you're playing your deck wrong.

 

[Philologus]

When there's a Ciri: Nova deck for every single deck archetype, whether that be Dwarves, Nekker consume, Spelltael, etc etc... The card is the issue. It isn't creating new deck archetypes, it's reworking existing ones to accommodate it. To pretend otherwise is a straight lie, or maintaining one's own interests.

And? You think it's that easy working with a requirement of exactly two of each bronze in the deck?

Try doing that if you don't net-deck.

Try doing that if you don't net-deck AND you play NR.

Trust me fella.. it takes some thought to make a competitive deck under those circumstances. I lose more than I win, but I am climbing up the ladder. Hope to reach Rank 20, this season, but with the one-month session, I am not sure if it's viable.

 

[TheEpicWhale]

And? You think it's that easy working with a requirement of exactly two of each bronze in the deck?

Try doing that if you don't net-deck.

Try doing that if you don't net-deck AND you play NR.

Trust me fella.. it takes some thought to make a competitive deck under those circumstances. I lose more than I win, but I am climbing up the ladder. Hope to reach Rank 20, this season, but with the one-month session, I am not sure if it's viable.

Yah but just because you haven't chosen the easiest way doesn't mean that 95% of the netdeckers don't.

There is probably someone out there that doesn't play an overpowered Brouver or Spy deck.

So now those don't have to be changed anymore? Just not how it works.

Ciri: Nova is a neutral card and like i said before, those should be stapples to make your faction deck work a bit better.

Not the reason your faction deck wins at all.

 

[Karfuss]

The coin flip has no bearing on who gets the last play. The person that gets the last play is the one that won round 1 (excluding spies and / or round 1s that result in 2+ difference in CA). Complaining about coin flip and then about getting bled in the same breath just doesn't make sense as well. Even if you lost the coin flip in round 1 and proceeded to lose the round up a card, in round 2, your opponent is the one going first ("lost the coin flip"). Why couldn't you preserve your +1 card advantage and use that to Scorch the Ciri: Nova?

Having one less silver card is an obvious drawback. By design silver cards are worth more points than bronzes.

So you're re-affirming my claim, that whomever goes last is dictated wholly by coinflip. Thanks.

ALL Ciri: Nova decks will try to bleed you for the card advantage, SO THEY GO LAST. So no. You don't HAVE a card advantage because you're actually forced to make a dead play Round 2, and you don't have an advantage if you're forced to finish Round 1.

It's really reinforcing that those who aren't experiencing the hijinks of Ciri: Nova, or realising how broken she actually is, are the players running her and answering a Ciri: Nova with their own Ciri: Nova.

As for silvers, come now. Name ONE deck archetype that needs 6 silvers to do everything they're capable of. Just one. It isn't a drawback when you have a 26 score body on the board, which is the highest, most consistent score attainable by a Gold card, and far more than a Silver is capable of. "B-b-but one less silver" is moot. Every existing deck type and Faction can use Ciri: Nova.

Hjalmar WISHES he was that good, of whom requires a combo with Clan Hunter. All while desperately praying the enemy doesn't buff the Undvik spy, or doesn't have Scorch (because surprise surprise, not even Hjalmar can be a last play). And lol, he's a Faction legendary bless him. RIP.

 

[Draconifors]

IMO Nova is a really boring card, because she's only ever used as a finisher -- or a means to catch up in points in desperate situations. I've seen her successfully played in all five factions, and checking if opponent has 26 cards at game start has become routine.

:sleepy:


On the bright side, it's always great fun to see her fail to be enough or, better yet, get scorched.

 

[Jeydra]

So you're re-affirming my claim, that whomever goes last is dictated wholly by coinflip. Thanks.

ALL Ciri: Nova decks will try to bleed you for the card advantage, SO THEY GO LAST. So no. You don't HAVE a card advantage because you're actually forced to make a dead play Round 2, and you don't have an advantage if you're forced to finish Round 1.

It's really reinforcing that those who aren't experiencing the hijinks of Ciri: Nova, or realising how broken she actually is, are the players running her and answering a Ciri: Nova with their own Ciri: Nova.

As for silvers, come now. Name ONE deck archetype that needs 6 silvers to do everything they're capable of. Just one. It isn't a drawback when you have a 26 score body on the board, which is the highest, most consistent score attainable by a Gold card, and far more than a Silver is capable of. "B-b-but one less silver" is moot. Every existing deck type and Faction can use Ciri: Nova.

Hjalmar WISHES he was that good, of whom requires a combo with Clan Hunter. All while desperately praying the enemy doesn't buff the Undvik spy, or doesn't have Scorch (because surprise surprise, not even Hjalmar can be a last play). And lol, he's a Faction legendary bless him. RIP.

What the hell are you talking about?

1) The Ciri: Nova deck can only try to bleed you if it wins round 1. Going first does not mean you lose round 1.
2) If you lose round 1 you should have card advantage in round 2 (i.e. the compensation you got for losing round 1 is that you're up a card). If not you lost round 1 on equal cards or worse, i.e. got massively outplayed in round 1. Don't believe me - next time you lose the coin flip, drypass round 1, and boom you're in round 2 up a card.
3) Bonus tidbit: you're in round 2, opponent is going first (i.e. "lost the coinflip"), and you're up a card, and somehow you couldn't preserve your CA (opponent didn't drypass since they're trying to bleed you, remember?) to round 3 since if you had managed to preserve it, you would have the last play.
4) You don't use 6 silvers because they're necessary. You use 6 silvers + 15 bronzes because they're better than 5 silvers + 16 bronzes.

I strongly suspect you don't understand what you're talking about. If nothing else it proves you're losing because you don't understand the game, and are now complaining about balance instead. RIP.

 

[Karfuss]

What the hell are you talking about?

1) The Ciri: Nova deck can only try to bleed you if it wins round 1. Going first does not mean you lose round 1.
2) If you lose round 1 you should have card advantage in round 2 (i.e. the compensation you got for losing round 1 is that you're up a card). If not you lost round 1 on equal cards or worse, i.e. got massively outplayed in round 1. Don't believe me - next time you lose the coin flip, drypass round 1, and boom you're in round 2 up a card.
3) Bonus tidbit: you're in round 2, opponent is going first (i.e. "lost the coinflip"), and you're up a card, and somehow you couldn't preserve your CA (opponent didn't drypass since they're trying to bleed you, remember?) to round 3 since if you had managed to preserve it, you would have the last play.
4) You don't use 6 silvers because they're necessary. You use 6 silvers + 15 bronzes because they're better than 5 silvers + 16 bronzes.

I strongly suspect you don't understand what you're talking about. If nothing else it proves you're losing because you don't understand the game, and are now complaining about balance instead. RIP.

1) Not at all. There is such a thing as bleeding in Round 2 y'know. Whereby using better mulligan shenanigans have more value in less cards. Forcing a last card play while still holding onto precious Ciri. One of your own cards being Scorch or Schirru, so innately you're down value anyway holding onto your "Ciri counter." At which point, they have card advantage OR they won the coin flip and you're forced to play before Ciri. So you need a 2+ card advantage out of Round 1 AND 2 to win. That's SOO balanced.
2) Refer to 1).
3) Refer to 2)
4) Obfuscation. Point, made simply, because we failed to understand: There is not a single deck or deck type, that requires 6 silver cards to function. You took one out to make your deck less obvious, and in turn got the most reliable gold card in the game. Which, paired with any bronze card, is worth FAR more. And any deck, from Dwarves to a fun Mage/Witcher deck someone decided to make, can use it.

Also nice acknowledgement of the Hjalmar point. Same amount of value (potentially), yet 4 drawbacks, the biggest that it can't be played last turn. Now, what do you think, is the reason behind a 26 potential value gold having 4 drawbacks? It can't be because a 26 tempo swing on a single gold card is OP, can it? I mean, that's what you're alluding to.

The very existence of Hjalmar makes defending Ciri: Nova moot. Aside from everything else. RIP argument.

 

[Jeydra]

Explain how you bleed round 2 without winning round 1. Wait, you can't. Your opponent can bleed you, but you can't bleed him. Free tip for you: if playing against a Ciri: Nova deck, win round one so you don't get bled round 2.

Don't even mention Hjalmar. Ciri: Nova imposes heavy deck-building restrictions. Hjalmar does not.

I rest my case.

 

[Karfuss]

Explain how you bleed round 2 without winning round 1. Wait, you can't. Your opponent can bleed you, but you can't bleed him. Free tip for you: if playing against a Ciri: Nova deck, win round one so you don't get bled round 2.

Don't even mention Hjalmar. Ciri: Nova imposes heavy deck-building restrictions. Hjalmar does not.

I rest my case.

By having more value in hand than opponent and an equal (sometimes less) number of cards. As mentioned. Never had a game where you've won both Round 1 and 2? Free tip: Decoy in deck can net you a double finisher with certain deck types, coughPauliecough.

You can tout heavy deck building restrictions all you want. 2 bronzes does not make a deck innately bad without Ciri, proven by the fact there are Ciri variants of every deck. You can intellectually deny that, but you cannot truthfully do so. Hell, half of them do just fine and have multiple finishers without even drawing Ciri.

You won't address Hjalmar because you know that. You won't address Geralt (only competitive when used alongside G:Igni/TotG), Saskia: Destroyer (requires a full board of dwarves, elves or both) and the myriad of other potential high value golds that either do not touch Ciri, or have extreme drawbacks and/or pre-requisites. Those drawbacks and pre-requisites exist for a damn good reason, and you know why that is, but admitting fundamentally shatters your defence of Ciri: Nova.

Hammer down, I rest my case. We're done.

 

[Jeydra]

My God I'm tempted to violate forum rules.

Just answer me this. Did you win round 1 or not? This is a yes / no question and I expect a yes / no answer: either "I won round one down a card" or "I lost round one up a card" (any other non-draw result is a blowout and I will not consider them). If you answer with anything else, I'm done with the argument.

 

[Karajorma]

Karfuss, you're not making any sense. Stop declaring victory when you haven't proven anything. If you're going to rest your case here, as someone independent who is simply reading this conversation and doesn't have any strong opinions in either direction about the Ciri:Nova, you've lost. Based on the arguments the two of you presented, I'd have no issue with Ciri:Nova being in the game. Either stop strutting and actually make a better argument against Ciri:Nova, or admit defeat.

Jeydra is 100% correct that you can't bleed your opponent unless you won R1. If you won R1 you have a few choices. You can dry pass and try to go into the next round with card advantage. Or you can play and try to get your opponent to waste their good cards so that in R3 your finishers have an advantage. This is called bleeding your opponent. Your opponent MUST win the round or else they've lost the entire match.

You literally cannot bleed an opponent if you lost. You don't have your opponent at a disadvantage. At any point they can pass and just take their chances in round 3. Bleeding requires your opponent to have to stick around and be bled.

As for the argument that it's the coinflip, not the victor in R1 that determines things, I have no idea how you've managed to conflate the two, but they're obviously not the same thing.

 

[hydra66]

It's the uncounterable nature of this in a CA tuned deck that makes it frustrating. Other than that I have no issues with it.

Just slap truce on the card. Opponent then always has the opportunity to counter or hold the threat of passing on you. Adds a skill element to the card. Even meditation and igni have instances where they're useless

 

[balKilen]

What the hell are you talking about?

1) The Ciri: Nova deck can only try to bleed you if it wins round 1. Going first does not mean you lose round 1.
2) If you lose round 1 you should have card advantage in round 2 (i.e. the compensation you got for losing round 1 is that you're up a card). If not you lost round 1 on equal cards or worse, i.e. got massively outplayed in round 1. Don't believe me - next time you lose the coin flip, drypass round 1, and boom you're in round 2 up a card.
3) Bonus tidbit: you're in round 2, opponent is going first (i.e. "lost the coinflip"), and you're up a card, and somehow you couldn't preserve your CA (opponent didn't drypass since they're trying to bleed you, remember?) to round 3 since if you had managed to preserve it, you would have the last play.
4) You don't use 6 silvers because they're necessary. You use 6 silvers + 15 bronzes because they're better than 5 silvers + 16 bronzes.

I strongly suspect you don't understand what you're talking about. If nothing else it proves you're losing because you don't understand the game, and are now complaining about balance instead. RIP.

if you have to start round 1 you will most often loose with equal cards or win with one card down. then you drypass to even it out again (doesn't work when the enemy has this disgusting elf card).
if you win the coin flip you will always just have to react to your opponents moves which means you will often win with equal cards or loose with one card more.
so if you have card advantage in round 2 after loosing is depending on the coin flip very often.

 

[Karfuss]

Your opponent MUST win the round or else they've lost the entire match.

That was the entire point. I've said that all along, I don't understand why you have an issue with that.

By having more value in hand than opponent and an equal (sometimes less) number of cards. As mentioned. Never had a game where you've won both Round 1 and 2?

As for the argument that it's the coinflip, not the victor in R1 that determines things

Coinflip determines who wins Round 1. Round 1 determines who wins game, most of the time, see Wardancers, Yaevin, spies etc. This is already an established fact.

And a final note, I love how nobody defending Ciri: Nova will even address;

You won't address Hjalmar because you know that. You won't address Geralt (only competitive when used alongside G:Igni/TotG), Saskia: Destroyer (requires a full board of dwarves, elves or both) and the myriad of other potential high value golds that either do not touch Ciri, or have extreme drawbacks and/or pre-requisites. Those drawbacks and pre-requisites exist for a damn good reason, and you know why that is, but admitting fundamentally shatters your defence of Ciri: Nova.

That's where I declare victory. If you cannot explain why those similar value cards have pre-requisites and drawbacks when played, you cannot defend Ciri: Nova. Except you can explain it, they'd be OP, but you'll never admit that. Saskia: Destroyer would be OP if she didn't need a full board of Dwarves/Elves, Geralt would be OP if he played TotG/G:Igni alongside, Hjalmar would be OP if he spawned as a 26.

Now justify Ciri: Nova, and remember. 2 bronzes of each type doesn't make a deck innately bad, proven by Ciri: Nova in pre-existing decks that perform well without even drawing her. You can't. And then it defaults back to what I've already alluded to, not realising how OP she is because you're countering Ciri: Nova with your own, or you're acting out of self-preservation.