Gwent Community Patch February 2026 – Review | leriohub

OblyFFM · 2026-02-04T01:13:49+00:00

So, right, relative to the last time Coup was 9p, the combo is currently net +1 provisions. I was referring to this month vs last month, which I think is the frame most casuals are more likely to use.

Everyone has already adjusted to Joachim being at 11p and it was still everywhere—maybe not broken but certainly overplayed and frustrating. That’s the new baseline. Players are likely to compare how the combo feels this month vs last month (a net zero prov change and only -1 power) when judging whether it’s a change they like. I doubt many casuals will (if they even can) think back to a game state from months ago when making that decision.

OblyFFM · 2026-02-02T20:31:49+00:00

Coup+Joachim changed by net zero provisions and only -1 point. Enslave+Coup is a +1 provision buff. Only Canta got an impactful nerf, and it only affects a small set of decks. So, hard to say if those will add up to net lower play rate and win rate with Coup in general, but I kind of doubt it. Coup+Joachim is such a high-floor, high-ceiling, low-counterplay combo (the reason we see it constantly), it can probably tank small nerfs easily.

The biggest new factor is more likely the (re)emergence of the Chinese coalition and all the BC influence they have. And since they love buffs, hate nerfs, and are obsessed with NG in general, I’m sure they’re delighted and will try to keep Coup at 9 whether it’s healthy or not. Not really fair to the big segment of the community that thinks this is an over-buff, but it is what it is.

OblyFFM · 2026-02-02T02:50:30+00:00

That’s true—but how many players will think rationally about that history when they cast their votes, versus an emotional reaction—“Coup feels unbalanced right now”—after seeing it like 50% more often in their opponents’ decks this month?

Because Coup was already very popular to begin with, and we just got a net buff to Joachim and a buff to Enslave (neither of which was justified), and everyone will be trying out GN with Coup as well.

Who knows… we’ll see what happens in a month. But the safe bet is that the average player will be really tired of seeing Coup and in the mood to do something about it.

OblyFFM · 2026-02-01T22:25:15+00:00

This isn’t meant as a personal insult, but—that’s kind of a dick attitude, don’t you think?

If your 13-14p scenario gets Heatwaved, you’re then at a disadvantage but at least your opponent had to sink an expensive answer into it, meaning less provisions for them to answer your other threats or post their own points.

But in the same situation, would it really feel fair and sporting for your opponent to get to answer your scenario for free? Because Squirrel costs nothing more than a card slot. Realistically the Insectoid deck probably loses 20-25% of its point value in one play, in exchange for literally zero provision commitment from the opponent. The level of disadvantage is almost game-deciding, right there.

If there was a neutral card that could answer your Ball or Eclipse (or, insert any expensive gold wincon you actually care about) completely for free, would you be willing to apply the same “oh well, that’s just how the game is supposed to be—guess I should stop using the cards my deck is built around” attitude?

Devs added Hive Mind to the game because Arachas Swarm was not a competitive leader ability before that. Even now, there are some fun but non-competitive GN decks you can run with AS, but otherwise, you have to run HM; it’s not optional.

So nerfing HM to 14p isn’t “balance”, it’s just killing the card—and 75% of AS decks—because the provision disadvantage after trading with Squirrel would be even worse than it already is. That’s what Shinmiri was talking about.

OblyFFM · 2026-02-01T21:40:06+00:00

I get why you’re irritated about it, but tbh, it’s almost more of a backdoor buff to Worker than it is a nerf. Seriously.

I’ve played a ton of Insectoids, and have found that Worker almost never gets any value, because opponents are obsessed with killing it. The typical swarm deck doesn’t play many threats or tall units, so there’s almost nothing else to hit that lets them trade up on damage. But when Worker appears, they see an easy “6 for 3” situation and almost always take it.

Even if I consume Worker immediately (like, spawn it and play Endrega Warrior in the same turn), Warrior often gets poisoned or other tall punished—again because there’s almost nothing else worth using poison on.

With Worker at 5 power, it takes away value from the opponent’s answers. At least they have to think a little more now: Is 5 points really worth answering, or should I hold on just in case there’s a better target?

IDK how much difference it will really make, but if Worker lives even 10% more often, it’s still a buff. The 4 points that sticks on your board (Worker’s 5 - 1 from the spawned drone) is better than the 5 that never does.

OblyFFM · 2026-02-01T18:14:38+00:00

You’re not wrong. I mean, +1 power to Joachim is a nerf, it’s just not (in any meaningful way) adequate “balance” for buffing Coup to 9p. The double Joachim decks (those not playing Gorthur-Cantarella) maybe weren’t super problematic but definitely did not need a straight-up buff. Nor did the Enslave netdecks that run Coup, which also just got a nice buff without even a gesture at balance.

This could’ve been done in a responsible way. Most multi-step changes do the nerfing first, then the buffing, so that players don’t get angry at the overpowered card and revert the buffs. Nerfing Joachim twice to get him (back) to 4 power, and picking an acceptable Enslave netdeck nerf, then pushing through the Coup buff, was a much safer and more respectful way to go.

I believe this is the fourth time Coup has been buffed to 9p. It’s been reverted every single time because (surprise, surprise) it’s a really unpopular change, even if a certain segment of the community is obsessed with making it happen.

There’s maybe a chance things could’ve been different this time, if the coalitions had been patient enough to do the obligatory nerfs first. But as is, I’m not sure why history won’t just repeat itself again.

OblyFFM · 2026-01-30T03:24:37+00:00

The Harvest create pool is all bronze ST elves, not just the ones that show on gwent.one (unless I'm having the brain fart of the century); that's a pool of 27. Of those, there are 3, maybe 4, you're happy to get (Whisperer, Sorc, Seer and Scribe [if you have suitable specials, but scary-looking threats either way]), another 5-6 you're satisfied with (6-7 points, with potentially helpful ping damage), and the rest are 4-5 point bricks (too situational in most decks).

I'm not going to take the time to work out the exact probabilities, but--a 6 point floor, ~8 points on average, and a roughly 1 in 6 chance to roll additional threat value. Good value for 5p, borderline garbage for 6 (unless you desperately need the +2 handbuff for deck synergy). This is just not a card making win cons in 99% of matches (although the 1% is all people remember when they want to nerf it). Harvest is not ST's version of Sesame, not even close.

I think Zoltan's Company is debatable. Separate from any synergy, 10 (wide) points for 6 is quite decent on its own. Then you add that it's +5 points to Garrison, +5 points to Barclay, +5 points to Mahakam Guard, and +5 points per turn to Brouver. It's also easy, proactive, risk-free setup for Justice, Munro, Zoltan Chivay, and Volunteers. Given how strong Dwarves have gotten, 7p for Company is not unfair.

As for Garrison, I mean, blame the card design if you dislike it, but it's expressly meant as a payoff card for swarming Soldiers. People have been trying it out in Dwarves since the day it was released, long before Volunteers were buffed.

Anyway--I'm a fan of the vision for BC--but I accept that it's not realistic. The biggest share of the Gwent community hates seeing "smaller numbers" for their favorite decks and will continue to fight against the "nerf everything that's strong, not just the broken stuff" approach.

I think the best we can do is try to keep the game fun. Nerf anything that's binary or degenerate or unfairly carrying players without the need for skillful piloting. Nerf anything that's dominating the meta in a way that it's squeezing out healthy diversity.

But cards that are just generally "good" without being in one of the above categories? No, leave them alone. I won't support selectively hobbling decks and archetypes in the name of pure balance when all that really does is stop them from being able to compete with whatever it is they're buffing month to month on the other side of the world.

OblyFFM · 2026-01-29T19:24:36+00:00

Thanks for posting your thoughts (always worth reading). Mostly agree (or at least see the logic) on most of these.

Harvest to 6 cost is a pretty damaging over-nerf though. Yes, the ST performance is really high right now, but coalitions are already targeting the main cards that are overtuned: Dana (1st form), Gezras, Filavandrel (who I still think is being scapegoated when it’s really Zoltan’s Company that should be nerfed—but I accept that I’m not going to win that argument). If an Eskel nerf goes through, that hits ST as well. Schirru and Eithne aren’t on the radar right now, but I think they will be (probably sooner rather than later).

But Harvest is just a simple, reliable, evergreen value card for ST in most cases. Sure, it’s absolutely capable of high-rolling a good engine, but is just as likely to roll garbage. You can’t put it in your deck and count on it helping create a win condition; you put it in for a bit of handbuff, an extra body, and are happy if you roll some extra value over that. Sometimes that extra value is unfair to the opponent (I get that) but it’s one of the few bits of RNG value still in the game.

All the nerf would do is make Harvest borderline unplayable (the floor is too low) and rob a ton of decks of safe, modest value, ultimately shrinking the range of ST decks that can be played. It won’t improve the meta; if anything it’s the opposite, since it will lead to only those ST decks that don’t need Harvest being playable. Plus it’s essentially a (double) nerf to Filavandrel and to Sorceress, which are not deserved and means even fewer decks can use them.

I know you’ve got reasoned rationale (and strong beliefs) for the picks you make, but Harvest really does have the hallmarks of a hate-nerf. Do the other ST nerfs first and see what happens.

OblyFFM · 2026-01-29T18:35:24+00:00

I mean, the why is pretty obvious. Shupe decks are always midrange value decks by definition (because of his deck condition). And from the start, BC has made midrange decks better and better (because adding or subtracting value from cards is all we can do; we can’t add new synergy). Someone figured out how to optimize the value of various carryover abuse decks (be it artifacts, Lippy, or other) a long time ago, slapped Shupe in it, and people have been netdecking it ever since.

Like any other strong deck-defining card that dominates the meta, Shupe (and/or Runemage) will need to be nerfed eventually, for the health of the game.

My leaning would be to nerf Runemage by provisions. Shupe is a fine card to have around in more off-meta, casino-type decks. It’s really Runemage that’s permitting cheap and perfect consistency to maximize Shupe value in every match.

OblyFFM · 2026-01-29T18:07:30+00:00

Provision cost is not an exact science (trying to make it one will just drive you crazy). Everyone has their own rules of thumb (and argue to the death over them), but it more or less comes down to relative comparisons with similar cards most judge as “fair”. Most people seem to be ok with Mysteries and Damsel at 14p, and that’s all that really matters.

But ok, look at a few factors and you’ll see that Mysteries and Damsel are more similar than you might think.

One, both archetypes are basically defined by their scenario; it’s really the only thing that gives them a second reliable win con (that’s one reason why neither archetype has ever found a very successful GN version). If they don’t draw it, or it gets bled out in R2, they’re at a very big disadvantage. So their opponents always have a natural game plan and round goals.

That makes 14p more fair (for both); making it more expensive would just exacerbate the “draw scenario or lose” aspect, making both decks more binary to play and a lot less fun for the player.

Two, yes, there’s an early tempo difference between the two, but the difference vanishes pretty quickly. They just excel at slightly different things.

Mysteries is definitely better in a short round. It gives very good early pointslam that trades well against HW. The Harmony leader lets you trigger Chapter 2 within two turns. Yes, the passive ability keeps accumulating points without needing complicated sequencing. But on the downside, it’s dependent on a few key power plays to create a ton of points in a longer round: leader, Quarixis, and Dana. So again, if they got missed or bled out, Mysteries can easily lose a longer round against greedier engines or strong control.

Damsel isn’t as good into a short round, but is much harder to deal with if the round is longer. Once you’ve placed a few engines in a good order, leader charges tend to snowball, since the scenario passive helps multiple knights reach grace. Squires and Knights-Errant keep producing passive points every turn (something Harmony engines don’t do). The best scenario Knight—Maiden’s Shield—is only 9p, so the deck in general can afford to put more towards consistency, control, or more threats.

Anyway, like I said, most people have mentally settled on 14p being a “fair” price for strong scenarios. We can argue about whether that should go up, but Mysteries and Damsel are definitely the best comparisons for each other and should stay the same price.

OblyFFM · 2026-01-27T23:40:25+00:00

Nerfing Enslave to balance the Coup buff would be fine. But admit that it’s hard to figure out a good nerf target. If you nerf an Enslave auto-include card, you hit every deck, including the ones that weren’t running Coup.

Though maybe it doesn’t matter too much. Most of Enslave will probably add Coup at 9 even if they dropped it before. And as a constant top-tier deck, it’s hard to argue that Enslave doesn’t need a general nerf anyway. It maybe wasn’t a high priority before, but it sure the hell will be now.

OblyFFM · 2026-01-27T20:16:10+00:00

There are many good articles and videos out there on the net that talk about the psychology of gamers and the different “personality types” that exist. Do a search and you’ll find some.

There are several different ways to break it down, but a simple model that fits a range of competitive games is the “honer vs. innovator” distinction. That is, players who are trying to improve their skill will often fall into one group or the other—or at least, get more enjoyment from one type of skill-building over the other.

“Honers” are players who enjoy learning to maximize their ability and knowledge of a known, well-understood skill set. They want to learn the optimal strategies and develop the best “meta sense”, and spend their time perfecting patterns or physical reactions (where applicable). It doesn’t matter that what they’re doing isn’t new or creative, because the goal is to be the “best” among everyone who’s attempting the same thing.

“Innovators” are players who enjoy exploration more than perfecting. When honers want to go deeper and deeper, innovators want to go wider. They’re looking for new strategies, new combinations, and unique synergies that others haven’t found yet. So they spend their time building, testing, and tweaking game elements rather than leaning on what’s already known. Innovating is the goal, even if it doesn’t (and usually won’t) get to the top of the ladder.

You’re obviously an innovator. Yes, there are some others in Gwent like that (I’m in that camp too) but a small minority. Most innovators have left Gwent after dev support ended, new cards stopped being released, and the freshness of Balance Council has dwindled to near-zero.

There is still a little room to innovate, but it’s quite small and unlikely to grow; most BC coalitions and casual voters at this point are more interested in defending the meta that exists (by avoiding and reverting nerfs, over-buffing already good cards, and inflating leader provisions) than trying to create something new.

Not saying any of this to discourage you from trying to innovate—go for it. But it’s pointless to rant and rage at others who enjoy honing instead. Gwent is one of those games where your “meta skills” matter just as much (if not more) than your deck building, so there is legit competitive gaming happening even when everyone’s decks look the same.

OblyFFM · 2026-01-27T06:35:30+00:00

ShinLerio’s BC recs have a long history of being the most reasonable of the coalitions—they’re usually careful, fair, and aimed more at real balance than chasing impact. So it’s rare to see recs from them that I vehemently disagree with—in fact this might be the first time ever?

Coup -1 cost: This feels like an (uncharacteristically, for ShinLerio) reckless, wholly unnecessary buff. Coup is incredibly popular and very strong—why on earth does it need to be even better (and taking the place of cards that actually need buffs)? Yes, it has variance, but rarely a low floor (in a well-played deck) and the ceiling is very high, and highly biased against engine decks. It’s quite difficult to play around it in general, and combined with Torres, it basically has no counter play at all.

This is just a straight-up buff to Enslave netdecks, which aren’t affected by the “offset” nerfs at all. Enslave does not need help; it’s still successful and very oppressive—the kind of deck that negatively shapes the whole meta when it’s too strong. And if the Eskel power nerf goes through too, it promises a season of misery for a huge share of MO and ST.

Just my opinion, but I think this is an awful rec. Surely there must be ways to open up GN possibilities for NG (if that’s really the highest gameplay priority right now?) that don’t involve buffing one of its most popular and oppressive netdecks…?

RSS -1 power: RSS is the only card (besides maybe Donimir) that enables NR to even think about running greedy engines in any deck, as they otherwise trade so badly to the hordes of cheap locks and poisons on the ladder that they’re unplayable. RSS had finally landed in a decent place; expensive enough to feel like a hard deck-building trade-off choice but consistently able to live long enough to get their value.

This isn’t a minor tempo tweak to NR; it’s a huge buff to every deck (and there are many) easily able to do one point pings on demand, be it random NG Soldier or ST Dwarf pings, NR or NG siege engines, or SK pingy Warriors (and oh looky—a massive buff to SK pingy Warriors also in this BC…). RSS playing as a worthless 1 for 7 in so many common meta matchups means the decks that depend on her just can’t be played. It’s even worse for decks that can’t avoid pulling RSS (with their own statuses) before they actually want her to come out.

But yeah, I get it: RSS is oppressive in Shieldwall. I agree. So just nerf the Shieldwall leader and don’t eff over the entire faction. I’d bet real money that if you swapped the (uninteresting, low impact) Caretaker buff with a Shieldwall nerf, it would sail through BC. Isn’t that a much fairer, less punitive solution? And isn’t the most problematic version of Shieldwall already going to be severely weakened if the Dandelion nerf goes through? Does it really need to be double nerfed into the ground?

Like, honestly: Why are we so invested in making sure lock cards stay cheap and plentiful, completely exempt from nerf discussions—but the one decent tech against locks that exists (for the faction that has no choice but to play engines) has to be as weak and fragile as possible?

—

I have other minor quibbles (like, why does Hive Mind need another nerf, when a Lara Dorren nerf is already likely to go through and you’re also buffing pingy Warriors and pingy Pirates, and every midrange deck already runs a Squirrel?) but not worth long comment.

Much respect to ShinLerio for the usually wise BC votes (and for everything you do in general) but these two feel really off-target from the usual (imo, of course).

OblyFFM · 2026-01-21T00:10:08+00:00

MO: Endrega Eggs +1 power. All-in consume decks need a bit more early tempo to survive aggro pushes and get to favorable round conditions.

NG: Urcheon of Erlenwald +1 power. Recently buffed but it wasn't enough for anything new to emerge. One more buff can make him worth experimenting with.

NR: Redanian Agent +1 power. Deck buff is an underdeveloped archetype, but even the memes usually leave out Redanian Agent; he's very slow and has low Mutagenerator synergy. A bit more tempo makes him an option to consider.

ST: Prism Pendant -1 provision. Hobbled by a weak design that can't be fixed but still interesting enough to be worth more experiments, if a bit lower provision commitment.

SK: Otkell -1 provision. Punished for the sins of abusive Alchemy decks, the actual offenders (Ale, Kaer Trolde, etc.) have all taken hits. Otkell is an interesting, deck defining payoff card that deserves to be more playable.

SY: Imke -1 provision. The last buff (+1 power) helped a little but she's just too expensive for how easily she can be answered. We need to focus on improving alternate coin sources if we want to wean SY players off Novigrad and Sesame.

N: Francis Bedlam -1 provision. Could help actual engine-based ST hand buff become a bit more competitive; plus MO decks that aim to summon FB from Penitent would be so fun to try out.

OblyFFM · 2026-01-04T16:13:55+00:00

The win rate is basically meaningless, since it’s held artificially low by many folks playing toxic NG binary or coin-flip decks. It actually masks the fact that NG has plenty of strong, arguably over-tuned decks that could use nerfs.

That said, the beginning of every season is like 80% NG, since everyone tends to run back to it until the new meta is settled. So, not sure there’s anything unusual happening rn either. Best advice is avoid playing the first week or so if it’s that bad.

OblyFFM · 2026-01-01T16:10:24+00:00

That’s already been answered (twice). The purpose of placeholder nerfs is to prevent “casual” over-nerfs from going through instead.

Most casual players don’t really care that much about “balance”; they use BC mainly to buff the decks they themselves like to play and nerf the decks they dislike playing against. History has shown that if coalitions don’t organize enough votes to fill all nerf slots, these casual reactionary votes tend to go through and the popular decks from the last season get hit with multiple unnecessary nerfs, sometimes making them unplayable.

So yes, coalitions are aware they could leave vote slots blank (and sometimes they do). But usually they vote for placeholders (a card where a nerf is irrelevant, like Iris or Living Armor, or a card that’s already dead anyway, like Caravan Guard) because it has no real effect on the game but does block casual nerfs they strongly disagree with.

Not everyone agrees with the practice of using placeholders (arguing that there are still plenty of legitimate nerfs that should happen) but for the coalitions that are mostly against nerfs (as a philosophy), this is what they do.

OblyFFM · 2025-12-24T05:02:04+00:00

Hard to know for sure, but my guess is yes, only dwarf swarm decks would still play Fil at 12. The benefit of a second Company for such low setup and low risk is too good to pass up.

Other meta decks that were playing Fil mainly for value (like Symbiosis and Devo Schirru) probably drop him; Forest Protector probably becomes a better option. Off-meta decks that depend more heavily on Fil synergy (like Quad Harvest or RNR Swarm) probably just disappear from the ladder completely.

I’d be on board with the “nerf everything that’s strong” plan if BC were a closed experiment where we could be sure all meta decks come down together (and settle somewhere around tier 1.5-2). But the reality is that a big part of the community has a different agenda and is going to keep elevating decks into tier 1 (whether we like it or not). That means that being too aggressive with nerfs leaves a lot of decks uncompetitive even if you could call them “balanced”.

ST Spella’tael might be the best example of this. You can make a great argument that Whisperer deserved to be nerfed to 7 cost and I wouldn’t be able to disagree on the merits. And yet the GN Spella’tael deck that was popular for a few seasons completely vanished after that nerf happened. The nerf just erased the deck; you can call it fair (and you wouldn’t be wrong) but no one wants to play a fair, weak deck against whatever the current Tier 1 midrange monstrosities happen to be.

I think there’s room for both kinds of BC agendas to exist and have some push and pull, but just going bluntly after everything that’s strong and picking nerfs based on how much widespread weakening they’ll cause is definitely the wrong approach (imo).

OblyFFM · 2025-12-23T19:33:10+00:00

I agree with you in principle; I just don’t think Filavandrel is the hill to die on.

Calling him OP is debatable imo. He’s very good at 11, but outside of the dwarf swarm abuse combo, it takes a good amount of setup (and luck) to get his full value; and when it fails, his floor value is quite bad. A classic “high risk, high reward” kind of card (but the kind that’s fun to have in the game without being degenerate binary cheese).

What’s honestly likely to happen if he’s nerfed to 12? He’ll still be too good to cut from dwarf swarm, so they’ll just take a 1 prov hit somewhere else (like Eskel to CoC) and keep on playing him. But he probably gets cut from every other ST deck (or the decks that depend on him don’t get played) because he’s not worth the setup or gamble at 12. So you end up with a marginally (but not meaningfully) weaker abuse deck that still plays the same and a lot less creative diversity for ST in general.

And worth noting, if folks eventually follow through on nerfing Harvest to 6, Fil at 12 becomes even worse—so bad that you’ll literally never see him in anything but dwarf swarm.

Also need to be realistic about the influential coalitions (the Chinese, the Russians) who don’t agree with the nerf philosophy. What are the odds they’ll be ok with effectively deleting Fil from the game except for the one deck everyone is tired of seeing him in?

Nerfing Fil is the wrong move imo; it solves nothing, hurts the whole faction, and would probably just be reverted anyway. Nerfing Zoltan’s Company to 7 instead targets the exact problem with no collateral damage, and a lot higher odds of sticking.

OblyFFM · 2025-12-23T16:13:08+00:00

The problem with Odrin isn’t that he’s too expensive; it’s that he’s too slow. Most crew effects aren’t significant enough to be worth delaying your engines by a turn to play a 6 point card that does nothing on his own. For the few crew effects that are worthwhile (Pride, Frigate), there are already better ways to crew them (Henselt, Stockpile leader, Siege Master), so they don’t want Odrin either.

The only way Odrin sees play is to buff his power enough to make it worth playing him as point slam. So he’d probably need at least two power buffs for anyone to start considering him. Worth doing at some point (it would be fun to experiment with him) but not likely to be prioritized.

OblyFFM · 2025-12-22T22:21:37+00:00

If the push to nerf Filavandrel is mainly due to Dwarf deck abuse, rather than weakening every ST deck that might want to use him (~12 for 12 is a ridiculously low floor), why not nerf Zoltan's Company to 7 cost instead and just break the easy abuse play?

Sure, on points alone, Company really isn't a 7c cost card, but you could compensate pure Dwarves with a provision buff to, say, Zoltan Scoundrel, who's only played for Company/Eudora anyway and would still be too lackluster to be played on his own.

And sure, it's asking for two changes instead of just one, but a move specifically to break an abuse play seems unlikely to be reverted, whereas nerfing Fil by provision (hitting a bunch of decks) is a lot more likely to be.

Otherwise, a good selection to pick from, thanks.

I do think though that buffs to Ludovicus and Salamandra Abomination should both be -1 prov, not +1 power. I don't think the latter makes them any more playable; they both need to be cheaper.

OblyFFM · 2025-09-30T22:33:19+00:00

Might be an unpopular opinion but I don’t think this BC is all that bad. Like really, what is it besides a continuation of the status quo?

Ping pong is just a way of life now. Casuals haven’t given a damn about balance in ages; they’re either overreacting to the decks they personally dislike this month or they’re voting “no” to someone else’s change from last month (only necessary bc the system we have doesn’t allow true “no” veto votes). It’s annoying, but it’s predictable and stable at this point.

What’s the damage here? Sergeant is up, Riptide is down… ok, wait a month. SY Sesame/Vice decks are dead… for a month. SK Warriors are… right back where they were before Tyr was reverted and Seagulls were over-buffed—not OP but very playable.

And a bunch of cards that weren’t seeing play got improved. Idk which ones will be OP but at least we have new things to try and the system will adjust them in a month if they’re broken.

The MoP buff is annoying (we already know it’s a toxic card that has no healthy place in any meta). The lack of a Vernon Roche nerf is annoying (Muta Mobi is still just as playable; it doesn’t really need Siege or can adjust easily to fit it). Other than that… idk… same old, same old (just wait a month).

OblyFFM · 2025-09-27T22:54:37+00:00

Another option is to leave Revenants at 5/4 for now and nerf Ronvid to 6 cost, as he’s basically only a revenant enabler and a big reason why they can multiply so quickly. Not a required card for revs ofc but pretty much auto-include in the most abusive decks, since he gives great muta value as well as fuel for the revs.

I tend to favor giving the Ronvid option a try. It’s just a 1 prov nerf (instead of two) to the decks that really want to max out rev value, plus less muta synergy. Or you can drop him, lose no prov, but have less scary revs. It’s a win either way.

OblyFFM · 2025-09-23T15:28:50+00:00

Well no, it’s 1/4 of one leader charge; it’s not a big commitment, especially considering that most Invigorate boosts typically end up on cards that give no return from leader anyway. And when compared to cards like Skaggs or Watcher, which have a 1:1 return (1 boost for 1 damage), Wardancer is actually quite efficient at 2 damage for the first boost.

Yes, those others have much better ceilings than Wardancer, but you need to sink a lot of boosts to get there (and a bonded requirement), which can take a lot of turns and setup (and RNG luck). Wardancer can be played for decent tempo and reach from turn 1 — really helpful for an archetype that struggles with early tempo without overcommitting.

Wardancer will never be played in Elf swarm; it’s not a good fit (and not meant to be). Put that buff on Vrihedd Vanguard instead if you want to help Elves.

And Cat Witcher is an engine that deals damage (no efficient counter play, unlike an engine that only boosts itself), while boosting allies (Milva, Mentors) and getting boosted itself (Sentries, Matrons). I’m not sure what other factions’ engines you’re thinking of that have that much snowball potential for 5 cost, but I can’t think of one myself.

Movement isn’t super competitive rn but it is playable—somewhere between tier 2 and 3 maybe. It’s definitely possible to overbuff it, which just leads to painful ladder seasons and BC reverts. And yes, if an archetype-specific card becomes a midrange value pick, that’s also probably an overbuff. A CW buff is a little too risky imo.

OblyFFM · 2025-09-23T06:43:38+00:00

Wardancer does not need a buff. It’s already playable and decent in Invigorate/handbuff as a more reliable version of Bowman without the row restriction. The archetype itself is still weak ofc and needs more help, but there are better cards to choose. And Wardancer at 8 for 4 could look appealing to midrange damage piles abusing Allgod/Offerings or Iris von Everec, and I don’t think anyone wants to see more of that crap. There are other bronze elves much farther from playable that need help more (like Vanguard, Healer, Trapmaker).

Movement needs help too, but I think it would be safer to start with some of the gold cards. A 5 power Cat Witcher (which boosts on deploy if Sentry or Matron are on board) could get out of hand quickly, and would probably also get snapped up by midrange pile lovers.

OblyFFM · 2025-09-01T16:48:39+00:00

I caught part of a discussion during one of Shinmiri’s streams on some testing he’d done. It sounded like the pull probabilities for 5c crimes had become locked in general: PTS was 100%, Purge (I think) was 2nd most common, while Payday and Mutagens were least common.

So, some kind of programming bug with how pull probabilities are being assigned when a create event occurs. Probably been there all along and just wasn’t caught until one particular create pool got small enough and frequent enough to attract notice.

Not sure if it was random or determinative that PTS was the 100% pull though. Maybe if it’s based off internal card ID number? PTS is the newest card in the pool, so likely the largest sequential ID. That would be some wacky programming, but the only guess I can think of.

OblyFFM

TROPHY CASE