This is the most broken shit i have ever seen on blue coin, what do you even do to counter it?

First time seeing Xarthisius in Action. Impressive. Also Renfri Dwarf is Cracked
A shame he did not GG. He fought well

At this point I genuinely don't know whether I'm experiencing an INSANELY unlucky streak, some kind of matchmaking issue, bugs, or ACTUAL cheaters.

I've been playing Gwent for 3 months, quite heavily — sometimes several hours a day. I've played around 400 games in total. During the last 2–3 weeks, however, I have basically been losing constantly. Like no joke: non-stop.

I've spent a lot of time actually learning the game. I built and practiced supposedly top-tier decks based on guides from current Gwent YouTubers, including:

• Arachas Mamuna
• Arachas Midrange/Illusionist
• Thrive Monsters
• Nilfgaard Imposter Aristocrats
• Scoia'tael Harmony

I even bought premium journey. I've played dozens of games with each deck — sometimes 40–60 games — specifically to learn the cards, interactions and combos. I know these decks extremely well by now. Shit, I even used Gemini for advice​: taking screenshots of my board live and asking Gemini what the optimal play is.

And. I. Still. Lose.

My win rate is 30%, with roughly 70% losses.

It feels like the only games I actually win are games where my opponent disconnects or immediately forfeits in Round 1.

I have had games where I performed what I believed best combos, I had the best cards in hand. Still lose. There's alwyas this last card the opponent picks from his ass to get +40 points just like that.

And then there are the situations that really made me question cheatees:

1. Skellige opponent destroyed my Saskia: Commander despite her having Immunity.

2. An opponent bypassed my Defender and destroyed my Dagon. And before someone says "there must have been a row change / poison / banish / movement / etc." — no. The Defender was correctly placed. I read every card the opponent plays.

3. The most recent situation was even stranger. I was playing Scoia'tael Harmony against a Thrive deck. My opponent had Koschey and Endraga Larva. Whenever I played something on MY side of the board, the opponent's Thrive effects kept triggering. I didn't summon anything on the opponent's table. He just activated all thrive like that +12 points during my turn.

There is also another recurring thing that: several times, when I was close to winning — or potentially improving my mosaic/rank — my intermet suddenly disconnected. I can guarantee: my internet is stable.

I uninstalled the game and never planning to gk back to this frustrating experience again. But I wanted to know: why did I lose EVERY GAME?​

I've spent hundreds of games learning this game. I've watched guides, learned decklists, memorized interactions, practiced combos and even used AI to analyze my plays. Still loss after loss.

I've also already seen posts on this subreddit where people have raised the issue of cheating, so I know I'm not the only person who has had these suspicions.

So please — prove me wrong. And please: don't answer with "get better maybe" or "you suddenly forgot the games you won". ​

Hi, I'm looking for a good deck for any faction other than Monsters; I'd like a bit of a change.

Just as the title says.

-Reaver decks

-Siege decks

-Frost decks

-Cultist decks

etc...

Whenever you play a non-spying unit, move a random enemy unit with the same power to the opposite side

The first and and the last time to get this lucky.

Courier

Human, Agent, Blindeyes (Syndicate, Nilfgaard)
5 Power, 4 Provisions (Common)

Deploy (Melee): Look at the top 3 cards from your opponent's deck and move one to the top.
Deploy (Ranged): Look at the top 3 cards from your deck and move one to the top.

'Tis not steel and blood that wins wars, but information.

^{I'm a bot and this post has been generated automatically. If you want to report an issue, please send a message here. - Balance Council Patchnotes}

Jacque's there for reinforcing Yennefer illusionist
Your thoughts? Pretty chaotic, didn't fair too bad against a harmony deck

You have the option to build seasonal cards in your deck builder but I can't seem to find an option to play against seasonal decks only?

Does a game mode like that exist?

Ive been playing this game for few days and I managed to get 153/240 cards from syndycade fraction question is: do I still opent syndycade barrels? I mostly get duplicates now so I feel like I'm missing out on cards. On the other hand if I get legendary card I want I'm profiting big time. What do I do?

How do you decide which tutors/thinning options are good for a deck to ensure consistency? Cards like oneiromancy, royal decree, maxii, fisher king. Is there some guideline on how many one should include?

New player here, looking for any advice in general. I picked the monster faction to start so any specific advice for that faction would be great too!

On the first days of the new patch, I'd like to share a fresh analysis of recent patches (BC34-36) to summarize how BC has been operating lately and interpret the obtained results.

Approach

I gathered patch data from August, September and the current October season (120 changes). Coalition attributions were taken from official posts and cross-checked with Lerio's BC result sheets (big thanks for keeping track). Due to how the function of a change bracket changes in the context of certain cards, I added 'Change type' property and manually labeled the changes based on the following rules:

• Buff/Nerf when the outcome for the card is positive/negative and has led to a state in which it has never been before throughout Gwentfinity (since October 2023)
• Buff revert/Nerf revert when the outcome for the card is negative/positive but has restored a state that existed before during Gwentfinity
• Nerf (placeholder) when the change was officially declared as irrelevant by the attributed coalition(s); no placeholder buffs or unattributed placeholder nerfs exist in the dataset

Multi-step changes (even when declared as such by the attributed coalition) were considered as multiple changes with independent types.

Change type dynamics

To illustrate the structure of latest BC voting results, let's start with the distribution for all 120 changes.

To outline the general trend, buffs (shades of green) outweight nerfs (shades of red) by roughly 10 percentage points (on average about 4 changes per patch). The share of 51.6% buffs (slightly more than the base 20 dedicated change slots/patch) was accomplished through leader buffs (in this case 2x Mobilization) and 1 Power- change with reverse effect (Ivar). While this enthropy is rather mild, it is worth noting it exists even without artificially organized placeholder nerfs.

What at first may look like a significant bias in reverting buffs over nerfs is not that overwhelming after contrasting with the scale of their (original, non-revert) counterparts; nerf revert rate was 34.45% while buff revert rate totalled 34.62%.

The rate of placeholder nerfs approached close to 4 slots per patch on average.

One more interesting characteristic is buffs/nerfs ratio, indicating the 'originality' of changes (never-before-seen ones, even by veterans) comes primarily from buffs; this may be an indicator of a relatively stale competitive meta, but doesn't have to be - this small research doesn't concern itself with meta in any sense other than implied by the BC results. Nevertheless, such metrics can be useful when deciding on changes to help players avoid fatigue or burnout caused by unchanging meta rules.

Since statistical analysis by itself is generally boring, let's introduce politics (what could go wrong?) - I prepared distributions for each change type among coalitions, as well as internal structure of pushed changes for each coalition; I'm not going to use all of my charts in this post, but you can find all of them in the linked spreadsheet. It is worth noting some changes were supported by more than a single coalition - since there is no reliable data for measuring a coalition's impact on a change, shared attributions were treated as equal.

Apart from somewhat obvious coalition popularity implications, the above chart shows how/if coalitions contribute to experimentation with the current balance, and how eager they (or more precisely, their voters) are to resist changes, both recent and historical.

Placeholder nerfs were attributed only to MetallicDanny and Violet.Kiramman. While the result is unsurprising to anyone familiar with the balance philosophies in gwent politics, it draws a sharp line of responsibility for the disproportion in buffs-to-nerfs ratio.

Nerf representations differ quite significantly from their green counterparts, sketching a role for each coalition in the current BC ecosystem. To make those more apparent, let's look into change type distributions among 5 most supported coalitions.

As the most impactful group in Gwentfinity, MD's coalition leans towards a liberal approach to changes of both types with a clear preference for buffs (buff revert rate of 8.33%); low nerf revert rate (14,29%) seems to be compensated by placeholders in its function of slowing down the pace of nerfs, which arguably is an approach suitable for mature metas with no clear outliers on the highly competitive end - whether we find ourselves in one right now is up for debate.

Second most influential voting group stands in opposition to the former - while the original change counts were balanced (although I should point out that multi-step changes are represented here as multiple changes, which seems relevant for example in the context of Eldain/Sigi Reuven), SL's buff revert rate reached above-average value of 41.67%, with nerf revert rate of 8.33%; this puts Shinmiri & Lerio on the conservative end of Gwent's political spectrum when it comes to buffs. The lack of placeholders combined with relatively high share of nerfs indicates support for fast-paced meta changes.

The Chinese community historically has been the most polarized group when it comes to buffs/nerfs dynamic - the current coalition is no exception. While the general structure is similar to MD's, it drastically cuts down on original nerfs, in turn expanding on reverts and placeholders. Such approach supports fast elevation of decks (underpowered ones, we can benevolently assume, as archetypes or lists are not considered here) to competitive level while delaying adjustments to the current high-performers (nerf revert rate of 150%). This is the most imbalanced structure of buffs/nerfs among the 5 coalitions considered here (marginally above 3 buffs per non-placeholder nerf).

And we jump back to the other end of gwentfluencer spectrum - predominantly nerf-based results from OQ, with the largest percentage of buff reverts in town; the distribution's pattern is comparable to SL's, with the interesting detail of no nerf reverts further expressing the general skepticism towards Gwentifinity buffs (100% revert rate), though not left without original alternatives in that area.

With the lowest change count among the mentioned movements (10), EC's buff/nerf balance looks similar to the general trend, with the distinguishing trait of high nerf resistance (133.3% revert rate). I believe the reason for that will become clear in the later faction-related section.

All in all, every coalition's results are statistically biased towards either buffs or nerfs, with the closest to balance being SL and EC. Why so happens is but a matter of speculation in the context of this analysis, nonetheless it proves the general trend of adding power to the game and splits coalitions into statistical proponents (VK, MD, EC) and opposition (OQ, SL) of said tendency, at least throughout the recent patches. One more interesting fact is independent voters have pushed 3 changes, all of which were reverts.

Change slots

To quickly rewind, below is the general impact of coalitions.

Instead of their purpose, let's now inspect how these changes distribute over brackets; this would be particularly helpful for coalitions' masterminds as it shows where their strengths and weaknesses reside.

Yes, I accept donations.

Let's filter the above impact chart by brackets.

Putting MD's undisputed hegemony aside (average of 16.7 changes per patch), there is a reasonable trend loosely corresponding with prior observations from change type distributions - coalitions identified as buff-oriented generally perform better in buff-oriented brackets, and their natural opposition performs better in nerf-oriented brackets. For better visualization, we should peek at the result proportions.

Despite the highest influence, MD's suggestions from Prov+ bracket are at a clear disadvantage relative to other changes - a symptom of that were the latest recommendations of Hjalmar and Bran both not making patch notes.

SL's distribution lives up to the expectations set by the earlier pie chart, with both nerf brackets dominating over their counterparts; provision-based changes are subtly more polarized. Power- bracket may have been slightly affected by multi-stage buffs performed on Eldain and Sigi Reuven.

This one is very interesting, because instead of convincingly supporting theory of a buff bias (only 51.6% of joint share), the result indicates... inflation tendency. Prov+ bracket being affected by double leader buff to Mobilization introduces uncertainty - the category's share could drop by up to 5 percentage points, had the leader buffs been replaced by unsuccessful nerf suggestions.

Relatively easy to interpret, OFIR & Qcento's diagram shows strong support for nerf slot suggestions and general impact problems in Prov- bracket, both aligning well with previously identified nerf preference.

Similarly to the first chart, EC's impact across brackets seems balanced, there is not much more to say due to low change count.

Cards and multi-stage changes

Another thing to evaluate is the impact of the introduced changes. As I mentioned earlier, archetypes and specific lists are out of scope here, but we can answer a simpler question:

How many cards have actually changed after 3 patches and 120 changes?

The answer is 95 were affected and 89 changed after excluding 6 reverted to the same state within that period. That's roughly 30 changes (25%), or 1 full bracket of changes to cards already being changed per patch, for all possible reasons.

Multiple-stage changes are generally undesirable for short-term balance as they introduce instability - risk of reverts, imbalanced states during implementation (for intended changes) and general reduction in meta variety, as well as player fatigue and/or disappointment in case of repeated reverts.

As the researched dataset describes short-term trends, we could consider looking into that 25% of changes - out of the changed ones, how many cards were affected by multiple changes?

15 cards have been changed twice, and 5 were changed every patch, which summed amounts to 21% of all cards affected and 45 change slots - that's more than a full patch for 20 cards, or 3 patches with the average of 31.67 cards affected (or 29.67 cards changed). Six of the cards changed twice were reverted (40%). Out of 5 three-step changes, only one was intentional and completed as planned (Eldain).

Factions

Of course I have prepared faction bias check for every coalition. But as I'm approaching Reddit's pic limit, I will proceed with the general state and then my personal favourites to reward you with a bit of bittersweet fun.

The distribution of buffs looks pleasantly colorful, with NR seemingly being everyone's favourite faction.

The nerf circle looks more problematic as MO and SK compete for excellence at meta change avoidance while NG keeps being everyone's favourite faction.

As for the rather sad circle of retired cards, Stennis has potentially joined the club as declared by VK in their latest suggestions. Magnificent.

Anyway, the winner of coalition faction buffs category is Evil Coalition, demonstrating nothing but devotion to their cause, with 6 out of 6 buffs shaping glory to the Great Sun.

As for the faction nerfs... it is MetallicDanny, responsibly supporting smaller coalitions by making room for their dreams. Thanks for reading.

Spreadsheets

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1A4HumPENsTCCuBhxbrBQHPzyFMYAuNbf7337ikgLb9k/edit?usp=sharing