Why some decks work but others do not

[Slizzl]

So this is a very broad topic but after months of trying to make my own original deck and actually being able to compete in the higher ranks with it I'm about to give up. Maybe I'm just awful at deckbuilding and need some advice. I admit excluding cards I consider not fun might be to my detriment namely scenarios and echo tutors, but I really feel like in theory these decks SHOULD work so I don't understand why they don't. Is the game really so linear now that I HAVE to include a scenario in order to compete?
If we take a look at Nilfgaard I think they look like a strong faction with many elements that synergize well, so why are they so weak?

Here is my latest attempt at a fairly basic Spy deck:

GWENT: The Witcher Card Game

Join in The Witcher universe’s favorite card game! In GWENT, you clash with your friends in fast-paced duels that combine bluffing, on-the-fly decision making and careful deck construction.

www.playgwent.com

It's a combo heavy deck with the main focus being the Operator+Mage Torturer which allows it to create a bunch of Assimilate units while giving Spying to the benefit of Enforcers and the big Aristocrat finishers. Each time you Informant on the Mage Torturer the rest of them are boosted.
It's a tough combo to pull off and things don't always work out, that's fair. But the thing is even when it works out perfectly it's STILL outvalued by all the usual suspects (Warriors, Shieldwall, Gord ST, anything scenario and so on). Why is this?

When I created it I was fairly excited imagining all the elements that synergize so well but in the end it gets easily beaten by the raw numbers of something like SK Warriors no synergy needed. It's just depressing to me when I look at Drummond Berserker and realize it has the same value on it's own as Enforcers+FOUR Spying. Shouldn't setups be rewarded more? Or better yet solo cards be rewarded less?

This deck is just an example and it's not intended to be the main focus of the thread, it's just an archetype I feel should have all the elements that make up a strong deck but it just doesn't for some reason. It's an archetype that absolutely dominated in the beta yet now it's not even in any tier list, this is fascinating to me.
I want to discuss what makes a strong deck in current Gwent.

 

[DRK3]

Regarding the spies deck, i have never tried or seen Operator+Mage Torturer, i have only experience with Operator+Diviner or Operator+Seditious Aristocrats, which did pretty well for me or my opponent on long rounds, depending on who was using it. In theory, the mage torturer should achieve the same values.

My main question is - are you being able to pull this combo on long rounds? Because decks with instant value (or at least faster tempo) like Nature's Gift or SK Warrior will likely push you on R2, and on a short R3 your spies deck, which works like an assimilate deck, wont have much chance. But on a long round it should be doing well, unless facing a lot of tall punishment.

The question on the thread's title its trickier to answer. But it leads to the triangle "engines-pointslam-control", which should bring balance to the game but i think for a long time now its a bit off.
Basically, there are a lot of decks now that combine pointslam and control, and those dominate the meta. The only engine deck that can compete is Shieldwall, for a few reasons - amazing protection for engines with leader and AA, and also amazing control with Anseis+Viraxas (and also Seltkirk).

You're running a spies/assimilate deck, its a pure engines deck, and you dont have the instant value of a shielded Anseis, so aggressive players (which there is no shortage of in Gwent, currently) will just feel the need to push and push, and there's too much control to let you do your thing freely.

My advice for that specific deck - you dont have any purify or good way to deal with defenders, include at least one diviner, it's another operator target and it will still trigger assimilate from all those informants you play.

Palmerin, specially without Milton, might be causing you more troubles than helping, there might be better options that arent as conditional. Cant say for sure though, as i havent used them since they were reworked.

Also you dont have any tall/scenario removal whatsoever, nor locks, your only control comes from a joust and enforcers (which are prime targets for opponent control), that's one of the main reasons you're having trouble - there's almost no deck that can be competitive without screwing with the opponent.

FInally, you're including defender, but just to protect enforcers and assimilate engines. I wont say that is bad but it might not be providing enough value (heatwave bait i guess), i will leave that assessment to you.

 

[Slizzl]

Regarding the spies deck, i have never tried or seen Operator+Mage Torturer, i have only experience with Operator+Diviner or Operator+Seditious Aristocrats, which did pretty well for me or my opponent on long rounds, depending on who was using it. In theory, the mage torturer should achieve the same values.

My main question is - are you being able to pull this combo on long rounds? Because decks with instant value (or at least faster tempo) like Nature's Gift or SK Warrior will likely push you on R2, and on a short R3 your spies deck, which works like an assimilate deck, wont have much chance. But on a long round it should be doing well, unless facing a lot of tall punishment.

The question on the thread's title its trickier to answer. But it leads to the triangle "engines-pointslam-control", which should bring balance to the game but i think for a long time now its a bit off.
Basically, there are a lot of decks now that combine pointslam and control, and those dominate the meta. The only engine deck that can compete is Shieldwall, for a few reasons - amazing protection for engines with leader and AA, and also amazing control with Anseis+Viraxas (and also Seltkirk).

You're running a spies/assimilate deck, its a pure engines deck, and you dont have the instant value of a shielded Anseis, so aggressive players (which there is no shortage of in Gwent, currently) will just feel the need to push and push, and there's too much control to let you do your thing freely.

My advice for that specific deck - you dont have any purify or good way to deal with defenders, include at least one diviner, it's another operator target and it will still trigger assimilate from all those informants you play.

Palmerin, specially without Milton, might be causing you more troubles than helping, there might be better options that arent as conditional. Cant say for sure though, as i havent used them since they were reworked.

Also you dont have any tall/scenario removal whatsoever, nor locks, your only control comes from a joust and enforcers (which are prime targets for opponent control), that's one of the main reasons you're having trouble - there's almost no deck that can be competitive without screwing with the opponent.

FInally, you're including defender, but just to protect enforcers and assimilate engines. I wont say that is bad but it might not be providing enough value (heatwave bait i guess), i will leave that assessment to you.

Thanks for taking the time to write this, very insightful. The triangle system is a good way of looking at it.
I tweaked the deck a bit. I removed defender and Palmerin and instead added Menno and Cantarella and also added a cheeky poison package for tall removal. The Cupbearer provides some nice insurance in case of defenders. I'm way happier with it now. Now the deck is pure synergy. I might have to consider sacrificing Ramon for Heatwave as well we'll see how it goes.
I sometimes go for the Operator+Aristocrats instead depending on the situation, I'm kinda on the fence whether I prefer that or using it on Mage Torturer in a Double Cross list.

It's still nowhere near the top tiers though and after tonight I'm giving up on pro-rank this season keys be damned.
The pointslam and control decks you refer to dominate me still. It amazes me how these decks can play for so many points with zero setup. Engine based decks are faced with many risks (unless you make them unkilleable like SW), not only surrounding removal but the low tempo as well. And they're not even rewarded for it. Not that I consider just spamming a bunch of engines to be good game design either, but it's certainly preferable to the tutorial level decks dominating the game right now.
Judging by some comments by the devs it seems they make a conscious effort to have these pointslam decks be as simple as possible because "beginner decks". I've got to wonder whether they consider SW an "advanced deck".

Anyway, this is turning more into a rant and I'm struggling a bit to express what I truly intended with this thread. It might be a bit too broad to cover in one topic. It all boils down to points in the end and it seems some archetypes just aren't worthy of having them.

 

[G3nome]

thew main problem comes how restrictive this new Gwent is , Rembmer the 40 cards foltest deck in beta? and that was actually possible to reach level 20 with it? there is no of that anymore here , if you dont have a 25 card deck you are doomed

its a big problem that comes with the fouindation base of gwent , they kinda removed the fun of creating decks

 

[EduFerraz]

Well, in addition of what DRK3 sayd, i can say there is no reason to you to use double Cross.

I mean, i know your leader hability Will process mage turtores, but only that.

And Also i know you have more provision.

BUt i think you can change to imposter, change some cards because of the provision lost but in additicion you gain One really Good lock.

Also, double Cross everyone thinks its an assimilate deck, so they will push you to short rounds.

For The last, as far as i can see you have a Good round using your bronze cards and being buffed with some golds, but I cant see you winning two rounds with that.

So maybe you need another stratagema to win another round

 

[Kessman]

NG just has no points. Damn raw tempo points. They have the weakest and the most outdated bronzes in the game. So, it is easy for them to lose R1 and get bled to 0-2. Basically, the whole faction is torn apart, its bronzes are outdated, its golds get nerfed into an abyss.

On paper, your concept might look awesome, but in reality, just lacks points.

Remember a moment from Indiana Jones, when some dude jumps around and then bored Indiana just shoots him. This is how all these wombo combo decks end up.

As for Assimilate, it is too slow, its engines easy to counter since you have to place a bunch of them first before triggering them. It has no control and is super weak in a short round.

 

[Bleach25]

Well the obvious answer is that top decks are extremely well optimised, i.e. there was quite a lot of work involved from the best players to build them.

Nilfgaard is a particularly unfortunate factions, because it has weaknessess that range from Leaders, to archetypes, to individual cards (bronzes and golds), which is why noone has been able to find a decent combination. Furthermore:

- most concepts work well on paper, but not practically

- This game wasn't made to pull off complicated combos. The more cards are required, the easier it is going to fail.
Quite often the payoff isn't great either.

- Rule Number 0 of deckbuilding is: operator decks are meme decks.
Ok this is more something I made up, though have you seen any meta deck using operator? Me neither.

My suggestion is that before you even begin Building a deck you write down the cards you want to include and then assess their merits under the parameters of consistency and points/provisions. You'll dee that quite a lot of cards are actually too bad under either or both to be played.

 

[DRK3]

- This game wasn't made to pull off complicated combos. The more cards are required, the easier it is going to fail.
Quite often the payoff isn't great either.

Unfortunately, this is very true. And its why for me and many others, Gwent HC will never be as good as Gwent beta, when its dumbed down to favour instant value cards instead of combos.
It's also because of this that pushing R2 and going for 2-0 is so popular instead of being risky and punishable, since it can either be successful by the opponent had bad card draws or you disrupt their combo and they're left with nothing for R3.

If you check the meta decks, you will notice almost no card are combos or require setup, the ones that do are simple, powerful and have backup options (like Viraxas+Anseis or GS+ any of the 500 SK cards that does pings)

If you want to build a combo deck, like pretty much any engine deck, you should deckbuild having in mind you either need to win R1 or be prepared to survive a bleed R2, since most netdeckers push R2 regardless of matchup.

Note: this post is meant for users in general and the OP, and not as much to the user im replying to, since he probably already knows this.

 

[fil_faniki]

The problem with NG decks is that they're all a one-round wonder. If NG manages to get to R3 with all its combo pieces together it's going to be a really tough fight for the opponent. But what do you do in R1? What are your R1 plays? Just an early pass to then split up your combo in R2 to resist the bleed?
That goes for all NG decks but yours in particular seems very greedy. You basically went all-in on that R3 combo, you don't even have a single Magne! That's just asking for trouble imo.
Best way to go about deckbuilding should be first figuring out how to win R1, and THEN using the leftover provisions to make up a R3 plan. Starting from planning R3 (even worse, going all-in on it) is way too greedy.

IMO here's how you do an off-meta more creative NG deck: masq ball, aristocrats, and some tutors for them that you just jam in R1 to secure the win. Then once you have round control you decide what you want to do: bleed a little if the rest of the deck is good in a short round, or go for long R3 otherwise.
That's my take on deckbuilding, I dont know if it has any merit but it's been working alright for me so far.