Jump to content

Welcome to Card Game DB
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Newbie question - start with the game at casual level


  • Please log in to reply
26 replies to this topic

#1
Libor

Libor

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 248 posts

Hi,

sorry for really beginner question in this state of game but your help would be really appreciated.

 

I buy 1 core just for casual game with my son and we enjoyed the starter decks out of it. Later we purchased 1st cycle and we (I) wanted to build some legal decks. As a beginner in deckbuilding in this game (I have AGoT and cooperative LCG background though) I´m not sure how things work here, mainly economy. Are there any core set neutral cards I need more copies in deck? For example Roseroads or Kingsroad for those of you familiar with AGoT. It seems that the economy is not so sorely needed when you get "money" each round and can profit of planets but I don´t know what increasing the card numbers to full range will do with economy and deck consistency. Is 1 in-house reducing location and 1 neutral economy card enough or do I need to proxy them? I don´t want another core set, not even for 1 copy staples, we have enough cards from expansions. 

 

Thanks a lot for any reply.


  • Eu8L1ch, phillosmaster, Ultramarines and 1 other like this

#2
Austine

Austine

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 69 posts
Hello there!
 
The 1s in-house reducing locations aren't really good.
The only real very important economy neutral card is:
 
A few others exist, but not neutral:
 
All those cards aren't from the coreset but from expansions, so if you get the warpacks, you'll get those supports eventually.
 
And back to neutral + coreset + economy subjet:
You are right, the economy in Conquest is based on planets. "Command" as we call it (because you get the cash during the command phase).
In that regard the deck's economy comes from small cheap units with command bonus.
 
Those are the two main command unit which are neutral and coreset, you may need to do proxies for those:
 
This cover the basics,
Have fun playing Conquest ^^

  • Libor, Eu8L1ch and phillosmaster like this

#3
Eu8L1ch

Eu8L1ch

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 537 posts

If you're playing with a limited set of cards with no later expansions, the must-haves are Void Pirates, Rogue Traders and Promotions.

If you're playing with regular 50-cards decks, it might be very difficult to have decent decks without those extra neutrals, but if having fun is your main aim you shouldn't have trouble anyway: just try to focus on having many low (1-2) cost units in your deck, with a few high costers you like to round out the curve.

As Austine said, reducers are generally not worth it even with your limited card pool, you're better off adding more 1 cost 1 command units instead. :)


  • Libor and phillosmaster like this

#4
Libor

Libor

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 248 posts

Thanks for your replies!

It seems strange to me that the basic reducing locations are not so good because they pay for themselves the round they come into play, but that´s ok, as I said I have no experience with W40000 deckbuilding yet.

 

For Void pirate - it´s good to keep number of cards in hands for both players a bit limited cause a lot of events on hand makes the game too complicated for my son :) so I think we don´t need him more than one per deck and maybe we cut him completely:) 

 

But it seems that´s as I thought - there is no need to proxy tens of neutrals and in house economy cards fpr factions with one core set, only a few ones. That´s good. Thank you one more time.


  • phillosmaster likes this

#5
Skyknight

Skyknight

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 631 posts

 

... the basic reducing locations are not so good because they pay for themselves the round they come into play ...

This is true, they do pay for themselves the same round they are deployed (unless you don't have a similar-faction unit in hand, of course), but the problem with the £1-reducers is mainly that they take up much needed deck space - from an optimizing point of view - in a fifty-card setup. Their ability simply doesn't make the cut compared to other options because they risk being useless cards in your hand.

 

Now regarding the "from an optimizing point of view-business" - this is obviously not that relevant according to your particular enjoyment of the game, so there's no problem for you in including these basic reducers as I see it. If anything they may also serve to teach a basic mechanic as well as provide a healthy way of thinking about deck construction.

 

Welcome to the game! It's great to see new people discover the finer thing in life that is Conquest :)


  • Libor and phillosmaster like this

#6
dnapolitano

dnapolitano

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 509 posts
One issue with the support reducer is that it is limited. Promotion is limited also and has more uses and a higher benefit (winning command, no cost, shield, taking command wins away from opponent). Reducers are also unique, so packing a deck with 3 in order to get consistency means you may jam up your hand. I have seen some people run 1 in a deck that needs reducers to function and has redundancy in that area.
  • Libor and phillosmaster like this

#7
Kaloo

Kaloo

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 941 posts

Thing is, the argument that the core set faction reducers are weak mostly applies to the fact that they generally aren't worth the deck space, however if you're only using 1 core set you're not able to maximise on the key strong cards for each faction and therefore have more space. As a result, I'd recommend that you put the faction reducer into each deck you make since in the environment that you're building in it's a decent choice.

 

Regarding the economic game generally, there's 2 main way to increase your holdings in Conquest: command wins during the command phase and the end-of-round automatic 4 resources and 2 cards. To maximise the former, the best way to do so is to have a presence on as many planets as possible so that you can either win command at all of them, or at the very least tie your command with your opponent to prevent them from winning command (denial is quite important in this game). As such, especially in the card pool you have access to, you want to take a lot of cheap units with command hammers so that you can maximise your ability to contest command. Cards that have an equivalent number of hammers to their cost are great for this (1 cost for 1 command, 2 cost for 2 command especially. Beyond the 2 cost mark they start to become inefficient as command units).

 

The other way is to use cards that give you economic advantages outside of the command game. Promise of Glory is a good example of this, since it effectively gives you 2 resources given that the cultists it generates can be sacrificed to reduce the cost of a daemon (assuming you have a daemon to play), whilst the Piranha Hunter gives you another way to gain cards. 

med_WHK02_19.jpgmed_WHK01_95.jpg

 

 

To give you an idea of a deck that cheats the economic game by using a form of alternate economy, here's a Baharroth deck built with your card pool in mind. Note that Death from Above can be used to effectively reduce the cost of a Mobile unit to 1, with the restriction of placing it at the last planet. With clever plays, you can use it to place units to win command at the later planets cheaply whilst then having more resources to place units to win command or fight at earlier planets. It's not the best deck by any means, but it's quite thematic and should be fun to play.

 

If you need to use the Void Pirates or Rouge Traders in another deck, you can switch them out for Eldar Survivalists

 

Total Cards: (50)
 
Warlord: 
1x Baharroth (Descendants of Isha) 
 
 
Army Unit: (30)
4x Baharroth’s Hawks (Descendants of Isha)
1x Biel-Tan Guardians (Core Set)
3x Piranha Hunter (The Howl of Blackmane)
1x Soaring Falcon (Core Set)
1x Vash’ya Trailblazer (Core Set)
2x Earth Caste Technician (Core Set)
1x Fire Warrior Elite (Core Set)
1x Iyanden Wraithguard (Core Set)
2x Rogue Trader (Core Set)
1x Vior’la Marksman (Core Set)
2x Void Pirate (Core Set)
3x Warlock Destructor (Gift of the Ethereals)
3x Wildrider Squadron (Core Set)
3x Bork’an Recruits (The Scourge)
2x Eldritch Corsair (Gift of the Ethereals)
 
Attachment: (5)
1x The Shining Blade (Descendants of Isha)
1x Ion Rifle (Core Set)
2x Promotion (Core Set)
1x Starcannon (The Howl of Blackmane)
 
Event: (13)
2x Cry of the Wind (Descendants of Isha)
3x Death from Above (The Scourge)
1x Calamity (The Howl of Blackmane)
2x Empower (The Howl of Blackmane)
1x Gift of Isha (Core Set)
1x Nullify (Core Set)
1x Superiority (Core Set)
2x Foretell (Gift of the Ethereals)
 
Support: (2)
1x Banner of the Ashen Sky (Descendants of Isha)
1x Corsair Trading Port (Core Set)
 
 
Hope this all helps :)

  • Libor, SlaaneshDevotee and phillosmaster like this

#8
Austine

Austine

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 69 posts

It seems strange to me that the basic reducing locations are not so good because they pay for themselves the round they come into play.

 

They don't. :)

 

Turn 1

You put 1C (Card) and 1R (Resource) on the table. (The reduction support)

Then you deploy a card and reduce the cost by 1 Resource.

 

Result: you spent 1C and refunded 1R. So your balance is -1C.

 

Turn 2

You deploy a card and reduce the cost by 1.

 

Result: Your balance is -1C +1R = 0. (IF 1R = 1C, which isn't even true)

 

Turn 3

You deploy a card and reduce the cost by 1.

 

Result: Your balance is 0 +1R = +1R!! Profit!

 

At last, your play is giving you real profit. But in Conquest 3 turns is an infinite amount of time. 70% of the games are settled (if not finished) by the end of turn 3.

 

That's why Reduction supports aren't good. ^^


  • Eu8L1ch and phillosmaster like this

#9
Skyknight

Skyknight

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 631 posts

@Austine, while this is essentially a very old discussion dating back to the early days of the game, I respectfully disagree with your calculations above. Normally, I wouldn't bring this up at all because players think on the game differently, but seeing as Libor and son are new to the game and all its many complexities I think this is important for them. Your calculations are actually rather dicey and in the following I will outline why.

 

You correctly state that the player's economic balance turn 1 is 0R and -1C in your example. So far so good. Things, however, get a little sketchy with the calculations (and thus the conclusion too) listed above from here on. It is quite difficult to predict the player's economic balance from a theoretical point of view after turn 1. And describing said balance as done in the above is actually impossible. This is due to the more brilliant aspect of Conquest and what sets it apart from most others, the command game.

     Everything that happens after turn 1 is more or less a result of the outcome of the first round. How many cards and resources are available to each player at the start of turn 2, who won the first planet during first round combat, what needs to be done etc. This is where the calculations above become too uncertain to be credible. You can't assume that the player's economic balance by the end of the deploy phase turn 2 is -1C and +1R - that all depends on the outcome of the first round command game and other factors such as the triggering of battle abilities. So, the certainty about the result is in this way wrong and this error then caries on all the way to your conclusion, that "reduction supports aren't good".

     Deploying the reducer turn one is also a 1R deploy stall. If this stall enables the player to win more command, either by winning command on more planets than otherwise or avoid being blocked due to the stall, the economic balance in question turn 2 may be much better than you describe, essentially (though perhaps indirectly so) due to the reducer. Turn 2, the player can then reuse the reducer to get a discount on another unit, command- or combat unit, potentially being able to afford one additional unit and get ahead here as well. This is not guaranteed, of course, since it depends on oodles of other factors such as what you draw, how you build your deck, what your opponent draws, how they build their deck etc. etc. (The complexities are almost endless).

 

To sum up, the basic support reducers are not bad per default. Certainly, they are far from optimal in competitive play due to other cards meriting the card slots more (provided you own or have access to all the official cards), but they are not bad per default. And the economic 'profit' from the reducers in question may come as early as the second phase during the first round. Or you may draw them late game or all at once making them virtually useless depending on how your deck is arranged after you finished shuffling it. That is probably the most problematic aspect of all the reducers with the possible exclusion of the Necrons' - their risk of failing you is not exactly insignificant. :)


  • dnapolitano and phillosmaster like this

#10
dnapolitano

dnapolitano

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 509 posts
Agree with Skyknight. Reducers round 1 are actually really good imo due to the deploy stall and how important round 1 deploy is to the direction of the entire game.

Much of this answer is 'it depends'. Cards are generally valued higher than resources due to providing 'free' shield use and for diversifying options which generally allows you to spend your resources most efficiently, but this relationship is fluid. Planet layout and opponent choke focus can flip the valuation. A reducer in your hq can be a benefit just by getting you one more deploy in a phase which can be huge.

The necron reducer is a better version of a -1 cost reducer because you can apply it beyond just army units. From my standpoint I think Pejhmon and Skyknight hit the main issues: deck space is tight once your card pool grows and these tend to get cut as a result, the unique/limited burden makes running 3 risky while only running 1 makes it less consistent, and finally supports are basically reusable telegraphed events but come with the downside of having no shields. Play a few games where your command win heading into final battle pulls up a cost reducer with no shield and you may find yourself disliking it in your deck. This is true for all supports but easier to swallow when the support is foundational to a deck. Running 1x cost reducer means it's not foundational to deck, unless you are including it as redundancy with other cost reducers.
  • SoulTsunami, Skyknight and phillosmaster like this

#11
Eu8L1ch

Eu8L1ch

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 537 posts

@Skynight

I think labeling Austine's calculation as "dicey at best" is unfair.

The only two things his calculation is missing are (1) the stall itself and (2) the fact the relationship Resources-Cards might not be 1R<=1C.

However, you're also missing out on the fact that the reducer costs a limited slot (which - considering the available cardpool - might clash with Promotion, and Recon Drone in Tau).

More in depth:

Spoiler

Assuming all of the above, what you would net in round 2 is 0.25R, which is still pretty miserable. There could be some games once in a while in which it makes a significant difference, however one also has to take into account the tempo loss in round 1: most of the times, that clearly outweighs the minor benefit you get, without even taking into account the limited slot usage.

Bottom line, I think Austine's calculation is mostly correct.


  • phillosmaster likes this

#12
Skyknight

Skyknight

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 631 posts

@Eu8L1ch, my intentions were never to put Austine on the spot or anything, I simply disagree with his calculations for the reasons I stated. Granted, 'Dicey at best' is probably too strong and I've changed it to dicey. It's not that I overlook the issue about the basic reducers being limited and unique either, that is an obvious drawback and was never in question, I simply point out that the calculations beyond the first round are very uncertain (dicey) and should be presented as such, rather than as a formula that proves that reducers 'aren't good'. 

 

Your own calculations regarding the value of a stall are quite reasonable, certainly, but I would still take issue with one of your premises, which is the same one Austine used, the certainty about the -1C at turn 2... Say your deploy-stall enables you to win command om Barlus, perhaps even with an Eldar Survivalist, then the assumption that the player's balance turn 2 is -1C and +1R due to playing the reducer at turn 1 falls apart, since now the net gain from the reducer turn 2 is indirectly +2C and +2R. 

I'm not leaping to the reducers defence here - my point is merely that it is very difficult to predict gains and losses after the first round from a theoretical point of view. At least with any reasonable degree of certainty.

 

The reasons for not including the basic reducers in competitive play are many and the uncertainty they bring is likely at the forefront of those. But for non-competitive play such as what the OP stated, especially with a very limited card poll, they can be fine. I recall how Jeermaster once said something along the lines of 'besides, support cards are not what you want to be drawing in the command phase where you'd want to draw cards that can have an effect on the upcoming battle'. That is another reason why competitive players should be vary of including too many support cards and choose the ones they do include carefully.

However, that is a pro-tip and not meant for getting-to-know-the-game-styled casual play :)


  • phillosmaster likes this

#13
Libor

Libor

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 248 posts

I for example didn´t notice the uniqueness of reducers (probable cause by 1 core set available so I don´t have to bother myself with uniqueness of most of the cards), in that case there´s really no need for more copies. 

 

Once again, I appreciate all that analysis you all made for me (and other discussing players) but I don´t think I´ll take this game so competitive as other games I play (my 8 year old son is my only opponent :)  )

 

Deck space was not aspect I took into consideration (again, I didn´t play with expansions yet and with 1 core set there is no problem with deck space - even more when I don´t want to mix factions and use alignment wheel) - but I understand that drawing that location in fourth round is not a lucky draw. But one thing that comes to my mind (as a complete noob) - during deploying cards, isn´t deploying such a "free" card an advantage because I see more opponent´s card deployed and this delay can help me to know which unit I should deploy on which planet? (yes, I lost one card with no effect on game state, but even though...)

 

At last - sorry for my English, I´m not native speaker and sometimes I hardly express myself (and for sure I don´t express my ideas properly).


  • Eu8L1ch, SlaaneshDevotee and phillosmaster like this

#14
Eu8L1ch

Eu8L1ch

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 537 posts

@Eu8L1ch, my intentions were never to put Austine on the spot or anything

No problem, I am sure you didn't have a malevolent intent. :)

 

As for the rest, if I understand what you're saying correctly, you're saying that a stall can "snowball" into a command advantage in later rounds. In some situation it will help you win an additional command (most frequent case is if your opponent is forced to deploy his 2-for-2 before you have to deploy one of your 1-for-1s) but in general its impact is not as decisive as a command icon. For example, players usually don't think they're strengthening their economy by putting Dozer Blade in their decks.

In addition to this, we should probably consider the opportunity cost: by playing that reducer you're giving up on having another card in hand that is better at winning command, which in turn can more easily lead to a snowball. In particular, I think a Void Pirate/Rogue Trader is better than a reducer 99% of the times, for command purposes.

 

@Libor

Sure, getting to deploy a free card is an advantage. How big of an advantage it is is precisely the conundrum being discussed above! :)

 

I think you can enjoy the game no problem with the cards you have for your first games; just be mindful that, as soon as the both of you become more experienced with the game, you might want to proxy Pirates/Traders because those are very important cards.

Anyway, part of the fun is learning the game for yourself, so don't be afraid to try things out with your son and see what works for you!

 

(no problem with your English, I'm not a native speaker either but I can understand you just fine)


  • SoulTsunami, Skyknight and phillosmaster like this

#15
Kaloo

Kaloo

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 941 posts

You're all correct. When the "cost" of the card to play the reducer is taken into account, the 1 cost reducers from the core set are not worth it from an economic perspective since it takes too many turns to turn a benefit. However, the deploy stall can provide an immediate benefit that allows you to spend your resources more efficiently in order to gain more command wins. For example, being able to win a 2 card planet due to the deploy delay afforded by playing the support overwrites the lost card in playing the support. Generally speaking, however, the former overwrites the latter since it's quite unlikely that you're able to truly gain from the deploy delay.

 

Thing is, in the environment of having 3x of all cards the minor and delayed benefits of these supports make them worse includes when you can compare them with other cards. For example, Promise of Glory provides the same deploy delay, but gives you two (effective) resources up front instead of a net 0 resource bonus (in the round you play it), with the flexibility to be used as a shield or provide additional fighting units in a pinch. However, if you can only put 1 in the deck you can't reliably hit it, which somewhat negates its benefit since it becomes a "good to see" card rather than a key pillar of your deck.

 

The faction cost reducers, in contrast, have always been "good to see" cards rather than cornerstone cards, and as such are not bad includes in a low card environment. Given as well that Libor wants to maximize the number of decks he can make, including cards that are unlikely to be used as out of faction cards in an alliance helps expand the options afforded to other decks.

 

And remember; we aren't talking about a tournament environment here, but rather a casual one, so efficiency is less of an issue as long as the decks are balanced towards each other.


  • Caldera, Skyknight and phillosmaster like this

#16
Kaloo

Kaloo

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 941 posts

As an aside, Libor, here's a forum post designed for people like yourself that just have the one core set and are looking for decks to help them get started with respect to understanding the game. The decks break the usual 50 card limit and instead focus on 30 card decks, however with the benefit of being created by experienced players and having key ally cards strengthen the decks' focus.

 

http://www.cardgamed...ingle-core-set/


  • Libor, SlaaneshDevotee and phillosmaster like this

#17
phillosmaster

phillosmaster

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 566 posts

My take on the reducers (and I use to use them a lot in the early life of the game) is that they are fine if they come out early.  They are a deploy stalls and can save you a decent amount of resources.  The problem is adding things like Promotion quickly became a much better play because if you draw it late game it's still a shield so it's never not a useful thing to draw.  Also concentrating on command rather than support based economy helps you win cards and resources.  In addition it compounds the benefit by denying your opponent those benefits.  As an added benefit perhaps it makes your opponent waste resources and cards chasing and losing command at planets. So quickly the meta switched to cheap cards that could win command and that took up the deck slots where the reducers would normally be slotted.  Because of the way card draw works in Conquest it always felt like your slots were incredibly valuable and if a card wasn't helping you win battles or win command you needed to make absolutely sure it was worth including.  I think what changed that as the game went on was the release of higher benefit econ supports and the power of choke strategies saw a greater rise of support includes. 


  • Caldera and Skyknight like this

#18
SoulTsunami

SoulTsunami

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 142 posts

...Reducers round 1 are actually really good imo due to the deploy stall and how important round 1 deploy is to the direction of the entire game.

This right here is how you evaluate the benefit on 1-cost things.  Deploy stall is a resource, and 0-1 cost get the best value.  

 

Edit: When the game ended, Webway Passage was one of my favorite alt-resource cards in the whole game



#19
Libor

Libor

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 248 posts

After some time I have one more question (maybe a strange one), so I try to revive this topic if you don´t mind:

 

Are there any underpowered Warlords among the others in core set and first cycle or are they approximatelly balanced? I look for a significantly weaker warlord. We used to play with Colonel Straken, Commander Shadowsun, Eldorath Starbane and Ragnar Blackmane and we found Shadowsun a bit weaker than the others (but very funny to play). Could you recommend any pairings of Warlords where some of them should have more troubles with defating the other one? We would like to use pure, mono-faction decks without using alignment wheel...

 

Thanks a lot for any reply. 


  • Eu8L1ch likes this

#20
Eu8L1ch

Eu8L1ch

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 537 posts

Uhm, not using the Alignment Wheel warps the evaluation. Urien Rakarth (DE) is/was widely regarded as a weak warlord due to his inability to use effectively some of the best cards in the card pool (including alliances though), also having a rather poor signature squad.

Aside from him, I don't think there is a Warlord which is signficantly weaker. Shadowsun for example was not considered a weak warlord, so it's tough to say what you might find underwhelming. Baharroth is generally regarded as weaker than Eldorath, but is by no means a weak warlord.