X amount of damage is ALWAYS (90% of the time) better then X amount of boost!

+
This is the main reason why the SK Warriors deck is so OP, he doesn't get any boosts but he does insane amounts of damage AND you can't actually take away that damage from him while boosts can be taken away! This is the reason why Yeaven (the elf dude who damages one enemy unit by the amount of elves in his row) is played so much more then Barclay Els (the dwarf dude who boosts one of your units by the amount of dwarves in his row).
Next point is how many 5 provision cards need several turns to play for like 5,6,7,8,9 points while some cards can play for 8 points in 2 turns (An Craite Veterans). BUT then damage comes in and kills the slower unit so now he will end up being a 3-4 point unit.
Fix bloody SK warrior shit by simply diverting some of their effects into boosts instead of damage, OR reduce the damage output.
The logic of "oh This card damages by 3 is the same weight as this which boosts by 3" is just false, as damage is proactive and gives control (allows you to destroy cards), while boosts are just waiting to be lost. Some decks have too much boost, yes but SK warrior deck has too much damage.
 
Last edited:
Actually damage is NOT the problem. Three points of boost is undone by three points of damage; three points of damage is undone by three points of boost or healing.

The real problem is removal or damage so substantial it virtually guarantees removal. The SK warrior cards that are real problems are those that do 5+ damage and put points on the board, and those that repeatedly do small damage but allow units that do two or three point to easily remove units.
 

rrc

Forum veteran
...
This is the reason why Yeaven (the elf dude who damages one enemy unit by the amount of elves in his row) is played so much more then Barclay Els (the dwarf dude who boosts one of your units by the amount of dwarves in his row).
...
While I agree with the topic, this example is wrong IMHO. Yaeven is one of the two Elves that carry Elves archetype. Yeaven and Isengrim. Without them the Elves fall flat. So, if you are going to see an elf deck, Yeaven will be there 100% of the time. But Dwarfs have really good cards and there is a bronze card which is as good as Barclay who will be in dwarf decks 100% of the time. Since Barclay is (kind of) replaceable with the dwarf, people choose to go with other cards like Xavier or some tech cards. If the bronze Barclay is not there, I am 100% sure Barclay will become auto-included and be in 100% of the dwarf decks.
 

DRK3

Forum veteran
Well, i cant count how many times ive said and repeated what OP is saying, in the last few years, on this very forum. But i will say it again:

Damaging is BETTER than boosting.

In theory, they're the same value. But the risk associated with boosting should be taken into account and it isnt. Almost all cards that are parallels - have same base strength, one does x damage, the other does x boost, cost the same provisions.

So, they're not 1:1. Finding a reasonable rate is what's hard. 2:1 (boost:damage) is too much obviously. I would say 4:3 is a good proportion, but this would be a nightmare to implement, since we dont want decimals, only whole numbers.
But the devs had plenty of time, over 2 years of HC and we still have this problem, one of the biggest that afflicts Gwent and its balance.
 
While I agree with the topic, this example is wrong IMHO. Yaeven is one of the two Elves that carry Elves archetype. Yeaven and Isengrim. Without them the Elves fall flat. So, if you are going to see an elf deck, Yeaven will be there 100% of the time. But Dwarfs have really good cards and there is a bronze card which is as good as Barclay who will be in dwarf decks 100% of the time. Since Barclay is (kind of) replaceable with the dwarf, people choose to go with other cards like Xavier or some tech cards. If the bronze Barclay is not there, I am 100% sure Barclay will become auto-included and be in 100% of the dwarf decks.
Yeah... The truth is that the 4 provision Mahakam guard is actually just too good lol. But really, I think Yeaven is a fair enough card fitting into the ST deck and Dwarves are actually already strong enough as they are, they've got great value and synergy on most of their cards, stronger then Elves I believe. But this was not a Dwarf vs Elf deck thread, the point is if you had to chose between 2 versions of Yeaven for your Elf deck, one doing damage and the other giving the same amount of points but in a boost, you'd always pick the damage version (which is what makes the boost version underwhelming).
 
Last edited:
Things are not as simple as many posts make out. The value of boost vs. damage is highly conditional. Damage can be wasted, or healed while boost can be tall punished. Damage requires an enemy target to apply it to; boost requires a friendly target (which is more within your control). Which has the most value is dependent upon the decks and the board state. I don’t think it accurate to state damage is universally 90% of the time 1.4 times better than boost; that is not at all obvious.
 
Barclay Els is in all Dwarf decks and Yaveinn is in all Elf decks, sure the damage is obviously better but they're both autoincludes.
Anyways random damage can hit armor, shields, units with less power than the damage it's dealing (like a 2-damage ping hitting a 1 power unit). It's less reliable.
 

ya1

Forum regular
Not always. Boost is better vs non-interactive decks, armor, shield and many other board states. Also, NR boost payoffs.
 
The only time when boosting is more important then having the exact same amount of damage is with the Inspired bonuses that NR has on some units. In all other cases doing damage is better, that's why SK is so easy to play (unless you try to be a chad a play the druid archetype with Gedineth and Drakoturtle and stuff like that), you do a lot of damage and can kill most of the stuff that the other player puts down in a rather tiny amount of time while also putting down cards that have pretty high power for the damage they do. On average, most SK units should have less base power for all the damage they are able to do. I mean compare the 4 provision Brokvar Hunter with something like the pathetic 5 provision Nekurat of MO or even the 5 provision Dimun Corsair of SK!!
The Corsair is actually balanced with other factions in mind while the Brokvar Hunter (4 power, zeal can also damage your own units, + synergy with beasts) is balanced around a completely separate balance standard that I like to call "Skellige Standard" - SK standard basically says that "To fit this standard, a card HAS to be better then what other factions can use for the same amount of provisions".
That's why no one EVER uses Dimun Corsairs, cause they are in balance with other factions and thus way below "SK standard". -_-
Gwent Standard = completely different from SK Standard.

Tip on how to fix Brokvar hunter: Make him 3 power (and mayyybe 1 armor?) and make him row locked so that on ranged he can only damage friendly units and on front row he can only damage enemies. (this is just one card though, I don't want this to seem like it's the only possible thing that needs to be changed! It's just the easiest one I can point out, the other ones would be Kaern Caduch, Bear Witcher Mentor pointslamming and Cerys pointslamming, Gutting Slash which at 4 provision can deal 6 dmg (with 2 bloodthirst, laughing at MO's 6 prov gold Parasite's face lol) are also good examples of this).
 
Last edited:
Behold the anti-damage version of Yirden:

lol and I didn't even make this, this is Isbel from Thronebreaker.
Obviously in Gwent she wouldn't be 19 provisions lol.
Oh and there is also a damage-dealing (or board-wiping) version:
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom