Jump to content

cgrater

Members
  • Content Count

    29
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. All of the factions should be balanced so that on average, one deck playing a variety of decks/factions should on average win 50% of the time with the following assumptions: Identical skill of the players. A player making poor/unskilled plays when the opponent is playing a perfect game at Grandmaster level is not a fair match for other reasons. Identical levels of deckbuilding skill and no counter-decking. IE no "I built this deck specifically to crush yours" If you could somehow eliminate player skill and deck composition as variables: I think it will emerge that some factions are stronger in specific matchups (eg tau/SM has tons of AOE which can really complicate life for Dark Eldar since they rely on token swarm), but deck construction and player skill seems to make a much larger difference than faction advantage. If Tau/SM goes for 100 matches against dark eldar, Tau/SM may win 70% of games. If the same Tau/SM combo played 100 games against each other possible faction combo, then you should expect to see a 50% win rate (see assumptions above). Also bear in mind that there are a lot more "factions" than you see at first glance. Tau/SM is very different from SM/Tau, which is also very different than mono-Tau or mono-SM. There are really 21 "factions" when you include ally combos, which can significantly alter the function of a deck. Someone at some point on either this forum or BGG suggested that comparing factions for balance is actually not very effective. As the game progresses, each faction will have multiple warlords each with different abilities and signature squads. With that in mind, it may actually be better to consider balance in terms of Warlords instead of Factions. e.g. Dark Eldar has a strong reliance on Khymera tokens, creating a weakness to AoE effects. All of the token effects are tied to the current warlord and signatures. A future DE warlord might not have any reliance on tokens at all, thus no special weakness to AoE effects. The weaknesses/strengths of a specific faction may be more closely tied to the warlord than the faction.
  2. He certainly is an odd duck. He is exceptional when your opponent is running swarm-cap decks (lots of low cost 1 command units), but fails to perform if your opponent is dropping many 2 command (or more) units. I played one game where my opponent was having card-draw issues, and only one planet with much card draw was available. He dropped 3 void pirates hoping to get 5 card draw during command struggle. One Iron Hands completely shut it down. I have had my opponent unthinkingly continue to commit units to overcome a combined Techmarine/Promotion that I had down at a key planet. After he dropped multiple high-cost units, he cracked this smirk, thinking he had won. I was holding an Exterminatus in my hand - I think he cried a little inside. Key uses for Iron Hands Techmarine Trumps swarm decks in command struggle 2x Techmarines or 1 + Promotion is nearly unbeatable even if opponent has lots of high command units, and 1 can often win because your opponent will decide that contesting is just not worth it. Can draw opponent into over-comitting to a key planet for Exterminatus. Can give you a "free win" at another planet (If the techmarine is nailing down a planet key to your opponents strategy, you have an uncontested warlord deploy while your opponent sends his warlord after the techmarine). My judgment - situationally useful. If the rules at your tournament include sideboarding, he is definitely worth the sideboard. Depending on your deck, he may be worth it in your main as well.
  3. "Meta" refers to the play environment - ie what decks other people in your play area are using and what cards they are running. Tournament Meta - what decks/cards/combos get played in tournaments Local Meta - what decks/cards/combos show up in your FLGS/Game Nights/etc One of the reasons this gets discussed is because some cards are better or worse depending on the metagame they are being used in. Example: if everyone you play against uses first-planet snowball strategies, Exterminatus is less potent.
  4. Whether or not your opponent mulligans is a piece of information. How your opponent acts before deciding to/not to mulligan is a piece of information. Whether your opponent deploys a unit to the first planet is a piece of information. Whether your opponent passes his deploy phase with resources still in hand is a piece of information. Any or all of these could be a bluff. Different players will attach different weights and importance to certain pieces of information, but in a game where a large portion of the interactions are going to rely on accurately bluffing or reading your opponent, no piece of information is "useless".
  5. I think people get too hung up on the term "ally" when looking at the alignment wheel. To quote from some of the fluff: "An enemy of my enemy is a problem for later, for now they might be useful" - Inquisitor Quixos (attributed).
  6. Deck construction will also be a big issue. An event-heavy low-unit-cost deck (Eldar?) might favor mines even more heavily, whereas a "fatty" deck (chaos?) might favor the cost-reducer a bit more. Monofaction decks will also be able to make better use of the cost-reducer than decks with allies, since you cannot use the cost reducer for the allied faction units, or you would need to get 1 of each out. Mines are less likely to be a "dead draw". Even late-game, it can sometimes be desirable to play a 0 or 1 cost card (like mines) to bait out your opponents deployments. If you already have a cost-reducer in play, then you can't play another. You could, however, play another mine to delay your heavier deployments, making running 3 mines somewhat more strategically viable than running 3 cost-reducers. Some factions also can (or may gain the ability to in future expansions) make alternate use of the Mines. Infantry Conscripts is the first example. However, there may be more in the future. I posted this originally on another thread, but it is relevant here:
  7. A limited number of sets were sold at Gencon Also, some people are playing it using OCTGN
  8. Just for funsies, I did some "ideal situation" math comparisons between Mines and the Unique Supports. Assuming that games last a full 7 turns (not always, but it certainly can happen), in order to look at maximum output. Also assuming that you draw all of your mines fast enough to play them on turns 1,2,3 Pay 1 to drop (Mine or Unique). Mine - 0 collected, Unique - 1 collected Pay 1 to drop second mine. Mine - 1 collected (1 total). Unique - 1 collected (2 total) Pay 1 to drop third mine. Mine - 2 collected (3 total). Unique - 1 collected (3 total) Mine - 3 collected (6 total). Unique - 1 collected (4 total) Mine - 3 collected (9 total). Unique - 1 collected (5 total) Mine - 2 collected (11 total). Unique - 1 collected (6 total) Mine - 1 collected (12 total). Unique - 1 collected (7 total) In a 7 round game with perfect deploys, the Unique is worth a net of 6 resources, while a full set of mines is worth 9 net. With a turn 1 play, the unique is actually better than a single mine (which nets 3), equal to 2 (net 6). A Turn 1 Unique is only less efficient than Mines if all three mines are dropped by round 3 and the game lasts longer than 5 rounds. I think, for high-cost decks, it might be worth it to run both mines *and* the unique, because the amount of potential resource acceleration is pretty dang nice. For decks that have a lower cost curve, it might be better to run Rogue Trader and focus on command struggles, because they can also use the heavier card-draw from the struggle.
  9. My only disagreement is whether you should only run 1-of uniques. Yes, they are unique, but they are also potent. The resource-reducers are the *fastest* resource payoff (if you use them the turn you drop them, they are essentially free to play). Getting one out early means that later pulls are "dead" draws, but it may still be worth it to have them in your decks.
  10. Mines may have a much better place in an AM deck because of the Conscripts. Not sure whether that +1 attack for 3 units is worth the card slots, though. Booored is *partially* correct on the math. A late game mine is *not* worth it because it does not have time to pay out. However, since they break even after one turn, there are several viable strategies with the Mine that makes it less awful than Booooored paints it as. As a 1-cost unit that will repay itself next turn, you can use it to delay your actual deploys, forcing your opponent to deploy more units or pass, revealing his plans to you so you can plan the rest of your deploy phase better - this could even be viable late game. Deploying after your opponent is pretty valuable, since you can better guess which planets he is going to contest. Early game, the resource boost can be very helpful. Mid-game is debatable, based on planet lineup. Pumping conscripts The "paying for itself" problem is not that dissimilar from Rogue Trader. Trader *may* pay for itself on the same turn, but if the opponent drops a unit at the same planet, Rogue Trader may *never* pay for itself. Given at least one turn, Mines will almost always pay for itself (at least until there is support destruction in the card pool). Topdecking a Mines late game when you needed an answer to an opponents huge 8/8 basher is going to be frustrating, but no more frustrating than topdecking a 10th company scout / rogue trader / void pirate would be in that situation. Running mines in your deck does mean that they will almost certainly be a mulligan condition. No mines in opening hand? Mulligan. Mines are not a fantastic card, but they are at least on par with Rogue Trader right now. There are just not enough Limited cards in the card pool to cause that particular restriction to be much of a problem yet. The payout vs rogue trader is slightly slower, but is guaranteed, whereas the trader can be contested or killed off before he pays out. B(o3)red argues in favor of Promotion over either card. This idea actually may have some merit. Promotion is 0 cost, and provides better Command presence. However, "fattie" decks (like the current Chaos) have a shortage of units that are really useful to drop at distant planets solely for the purpose of command struggles. It is also possible to have a bad command layout. I played one game last night where 3 of the 5 available planets were card draw with no resource and the other 2 were 1/1 (one of these was first planet). Winning all 5 command struggles would only net 2 resources in a board like that. Promotion could have helped win command struggles, but it would not have significantly alleviated the resource starvation. Rogue Trader - resource acceleration, dependent on unopposed command struggle, vulnerable to destruction Promotion - possible resource or card acceleration, depends on unopposed command struggle, planet with resources being available, costs 2 cards per use (1 unit plus promotion), attached unit is vulnerable to destruction Mines - Safest, most reliable resource acceleration, takes slightly longer to pay off, nigh-invulnerable with current cardpool I don't agree that mines are "terrible". I think that your deck construction will determine which of the 3 is best to run. A deck with a lot of high-cost units that plans on a "slow-roll" may be best off with the slightly slower, but more reliable Mines.
  11. ... actually, no it isn't. Diminishing returns are something different financially. Diminishing returns example: Invest $100, your investment is worth $100. Invest $200, your investment is worth $150. Invest $300, your investment is worth $175. Each dollar invested increases the value of your investment by a smaller amount than the previous dollar invested. The LCG model does have a form of diminishing returns in the core box. The first core box you purchase contains 100% useful cards. The second core box contains some useless (duplicate) cards. The third core box contains more unusable (more than a full playset) cards than the second did. The fourth core box purchased would be entirely composed of excess cards. Each successive core box provides "less" than the one before it. The LCG model does not necessarily display diminishing returns in a financial sense. You may not be able to recoup your investment, but this is not a DR function. What you are referring to is "unrecoverable expense". I also fail to see how this is different from any other non-collectible board or card game. I could not resell my Sentinels of the Multiverse set for even half much as I paid for it (about 45% of new cost on the secondary market). My Summoner Wars collection will fetch 35-40% of its "new" price on the secondary market on a good day. Talisman + expansions is maybe worth 75% of its "new" price (minis help a board game hold a little more secondary market value). LCGs are more of a "board game with lots of expansions" than they are an "investment". They share a secondary market with other board games, and expecting them to perform differently than the rest of the market would be financially inadvisable. (Out of Print board games are a different secondary market. Space Hulk is pretty $$$ now. If an LCG ever goes out of print - Warhammer:Invasion is the likely first candidate - full playset collections will eventually probably be worth more than the initial cost.)
  12. I wish I had an English degree just to pick your post apart to see if there's any corrections I could make XD There actually is a minor error. The first sentence should read "...different discussion than originally intended." The "it was" is unnecessary (you could get away with "than was originally", but the "it" needs to go.) EDIT: On consideration, the word "originally" should also be excised. In "different...than intended", the idea of original intent is implicit. Unless there are multiple possible intended items and you are specifying one, "than originally intended" is redundant. "Originally" is implied by the context.
  13. I think this will be especially true the smaller the card pool. With 3x cores, the first deluxe expansion, and 1-2 sets of cycle packs, mono might be a lot more balanced and viable.
  14. Just don't do it in public, or at least make sure it's a private beach. Or that the water is more than waist-deep
  15. I don't know how you got to the conclusion that the game is not for him, when his question was how to put together the best demo decks to ensure that the game makes a favorable first impression with a gaming group? My recommendation, Dozer, would be to use the "starter" SM and Ork decks. (All SM cards, and one each of the 6 neutrals. All Ork cards plus the other set of 6 neutrals.) These starter decks do not meet the deck size minimum per the rules, but are surprisingly well balanced for the purposes of a demo game.
×
×
  • Create New...