[HoriaC]

I see a lot of mentions about Cantarella's randomness, but you are really not forced to play her as a dice roll card. One might argue that the extra setup is not worth it, but why not combine her with Gorthur Gvaed's order ability to make her completely deterministic and pick something strong from the opponent's graveyard instead? Also Courier could be used to decide when to play Cantarella.

Thus, I think Gwent is very flexible and allows for as much randomness as you want to include, when it comes to your play style. All is fine.

As for losing to players reliant on luck/randomness, just deal with it, since their dice rolls also have a cost and risk associated: the higher the risk, the higher the reward, so I see nothing wrong with this. If they gamble too much, they won't have any winning streaks/consistency.

[Gusgg25]

I made a nice well tought comment on this tread and cant find it. It was the definite answer and any discussion after my comment waould be a waste of time. too bad that it was not saved. Anyway, thanks for your great vids Beasty

[LeenOne]

I believe a good player should be able to win 75% of the time regardless of RNG. The level of rng as of now is good imo.

[scrubbles]

The sample pool of the RNG card is where things matter. Runeword--small pool of similar prov. cards--good. Uma's curse--large pool of range of high end--not great. Cantarella--pool of oppo cards that can really sting--iffy. I prefer the smaller pool cards, like Runeword or the new ST card that gets the Dol Blathanna elves, Bountiful Harvest. I don't like the idea that a RNG card with a large pool swings the game over strategy/skill. But, if that's a very small percentage of the case, not as big of an issue. And to that point: it'd be interesting to see data on effectiveness of RNG cards in various settings, either on the ladder or in tournaments.

[Qzman]

As someone who played Hearthstone for years I can say that Gwent does have a really healthy dose of RNG. As in, it's there to make things fun but unlike in Hearthstone you can't really ride a lucky wave of turns and win.

Bribery is fine because if the opponent plays it, you already assume he gets the best card and cope with it, but often times your best card does nothing for his deck if it's a synergistic one. Viper Alchemist (now Spotter) was a menace mostly because of Gorthur Gvaed which was auto-include in annoying Kolgrim decks. But Cantarella really is annoying, not just because it wrecks your own strategy but also because its swings are massive so in any case someone will be pissed.

tl;dr: RNG is really cool if the outcomes aren't too polarized and don't mean the difference between winning and losing

[Moonsault]

I personally think that there is not enough RNG in Gwent. Cards like John Natalis, finding a tutor with echo basically creates the same game state over and over again.

[MonsterMagnet]

I agree with the poster above that there's perhaps (a bit?) too much tutoring available in Gwent, but I wouldn't want to counter that with more RNG at all, but rather make tutoring more expensive or more rare. Then again, Gwent decks often require a fair bit of setup and it's frustrating to miss than one piece, which is now often covered by some kind of tutoring.

Regarding RNG, I'm fine with the current state, drawing is obviously RNG, and I really like the 'create' keyword where may or may not get the exact card you want, but most of the time have a fair idea of what to expect and have a limited choice anyway. Canterella is cool if played after deck manipulation (hello Gorthur Gvaed), but I never really liked the swing randomness of Alchemist.

[Mortimer41]

The current state of RNG in Gwent seems about right to me. Certainly it is far better than in the past where the game could come down to: I drew my scenario - did you draw your artifact removal? When deck building I like the fact that you have a tension between consistency and power.

[RXCAs]

I think that is true that sometimes we might get frustrated with the RNG running our games but if your strategy only relies on the cards that you might get you already lost.

When talking about RNG it’s inevitable to talk about statistics and probability, we all know that if you have 25 cards in your deck you have the most likely chance to draw something that you might need and in each draw that we do the probability of having a good draw increases but if you added to that the probability of some effect of a card that depends on the generation of another card you are decreasing your odds of that specific set up.

For example if you are playing Scoia'tael and your opponent has Keltullis and Defender and you are trying to get out of that situation by playing Simlas in to the new card Bountiful Harvest for maybe generate Sorceress (3/7) and with that generate Making a bomb (3/4) twice your probabilities of obtain that specific combination are low and that its not the problem of RNG more than its your problem to play for playing in that way, relying on probability. Other example of this is when you play Alzur expecting to generate a good card, relying on probability and your strategy becomes only luck.

If you instead build a deck that does not rely on this conditions, RNG will not be such a bummer.

[WitcherRemy]

I think Gwent is very flexible and allows for as much randomness as you want to include, when it comes to your play style. All is fine!