Card Game DB
Sign In
Create Account
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!
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!
0
Basic Conquest Economy: Cards vs. Resources
Sep 21 2014 05:50 AM |
Kingsley
in Warhammer 40k: Conquest
Warhammer 40K: Conquest Kingsley
There are two main components to one's economy in Conquest: cards and resources. At present (and this may change), cards are somewhat better than resources are. The reason for this is simple: resources without cards do very little (Haemonculus Tormentor and Command-Link Drone aside), while cards can be used as shields even when you don't have the resources to actually play them. Cards also provide more flexibility than resources do and seem to be more useful in the current environment.A simple thought experiment illustrates this point fairly well. Imagine are two players in a game with roughly equal forces going into a battle. One player has ten cards but no resources. The other has ten resources but no cards. Which has the advantage? The player with the cards probably does, since he potentially has access to several shield icons, not to mention 0-cost actions like Suppressive Fire. A few well-timed shields can be a potent factor in battle-- even a card with one shield icon can yield multiple unit swings when applied at the right time.
Lastly, the current environment seems to favor having a larger number of low-cost units rather than fewer expensive units. As such, getting lots of resources is not necessarily that helpful-- if you're only drawing cheap units, you don't really need tons of economy to play them. The four resources you get every turn may in fact be broadly sufficient-- extra resources are only really necessary to go along with extra cards to play.
So, given that cards are better than resources, where do we go from there? One initial step is that we should prioritize including Void Pirate over Rogue Trader-- if a card is more valuable than a resource, then getting a +1 card bonus is worth more than a +1 resource bonus. Similarly, cards that provide card advantage are very strong and are worth putting into your decks. However, the deckbuilding component of this is relatively straightforward-- prioritize card advantage and card draw over gaining resources.
A somewhat more interesting question is how the card/resource dynamic affects gameplay. Perhaps the most important thing to note is that planets that provide cards are somewhat more worthwhile than planets that provide resources. It is generally prudent to slightly prioritize these when planning your command struggle deployments. All else being equal, I generally favor deploying capping units to planets that grant two cards, then to planets that grant a card and a resource, then to planets that grant two resources.
Of course, situational factors may prevent this, and the planets that you most want to focus on may not necessarily be the ones that you actually want to go to first (so as to counter-deploy after your opponent), but complexities like this are part of why Conquest is such a good game, and can't easily be described here.
Further, it's worth noting that both planets that provide two cards also have battle abilities that grant additional card advantage, either giving you an extra filtered draw or else taking a card away from the opponent. Thus, it may be well worth sending your warlord to try and snipe these planets if the opponent is in control of them, as they provide even more of a shift than their command struggle values suggest.
In conclusion, cards are better than resources in most cases, and therefore cards and planets that provide cards are better than cards and planets that provide resources. Plan accordingly.
- mischraum, kizerman86, CobraBubbles and 10 others like this
9 Comments
I think it partly depends on your warlord and/or deck. There was a big debate about this at gencon as well. If you have a warlord that is pumping out resources like SM then cards become a lot more valuable. I know the current meta seems to be spreading out a lot of low cost guys but some decks base themselves around the big guns. In those decks resources are worth more.
There are very little card effects that allow you to pay resources for something not in hand (I think a few DE cards). Once more of these become available it will swing the opinions a bit. Ultimately with the decks I run right now I value cards more than resources but I really think it is more complicated than to say one is worth more than the other, it really depends on your hand, whats in play, and what you need to swing the tide in your next turn.
Another thought experience, lets assume the next warlord to be revealed is a ork rush based warlord based around 2 cost units. Assuming the ability is the same, you you prefer that he get 8 resources and 6 cards, 7 and 7 or 6 resources and 8 cards.
I think this experiment shows that the article is overly simplified. Yes, there are situations where have cards work without resources, and fewer where resources are valuable if you don't have cards. But that assumes you have units and stuff already in play. But if you are drawing 6 cards a turn and 4 resources, but can only play 1 turn and use a couple for shields, where as someone drawing two cards a turn and 12 resources could be playing two 6 cost units/turn. I don't care how many shields you have your 4 resources worth of units is probably not going to hold up vs. that.. Likewise having a handful of card and no resources won't help after a doom or exterminus or Tau AoE4 wipes your units off the board.
Please not I'm not saying that resources are more valuable either as you pointed out above. Just pointing out that where you are in the game matters more than blanket statements. I'll give you that the later you go in the game the more valuable cards become relative resources. I also depends on your deck makeup and cost curve.
I agree that cards are not always better than resources. However, this article is supposed to present the basics, and all else being equal cards are better than resources in the present environment and cardpool. If we frequently saw good decks fielding lots of expensive units, it might be a different story, but that doesn't seem to be where we are right now.
I think that for most decks and most game states, cards are slightly worth more than resources. But this is more down to the current fashion to play lots of cheaper units. It's also down to the game structure:
Every turn, I'm going to gain R+4 resources and C+2 cards where R and C are the number of Resources and Cards I pick up through the round, whether unit deploy ability benefit, command struggle rewards, combat ability or planet battle action.
The reality is that I want to be able to play the cards that I need to play for the game state. This is rarely an extreme. Having 10 cards and 4 resources maximises my options to deploying 1 Valkyrie or max. 4 small units plus have shields. Having 10 resources and 4 cards may be better if I have seeded my deck accordingly so those cards are always useful. I don't need the choice because I've got the ability to play both Valkyries and the Pre-Emptive Barrage that remain in hand.
It also depends on your play style. Your builds are very tempo based and as such shields are used by a lot by you, needing replenishing. Some players prefer to just build for the future with solid units. A Chaos elites deck may have the Daemons it needs and craves resources.
In addition, extremes are bad. Having 2 cards instead of 1 is 100% better. Having 11 cards instead of 10 is only 10% better.
Finally, we have what state of the game it is, the temporal axis. I would rather have cards over resources earlier in the game. Because this gives me more options to devise my game plan (ah, let's lure into a Doom). But as the game progresses and those more pricey units start to clog my hand, I would rather have resources so that I can empty out my hand before the game ends to win it.
I play a lot of resource management games and the sign of an efficient victory is when you have consumed every type of resource to win. So it's possible to have too much of one or the other.
There's also the pseudo draw that is a Farseer or Technician or Colliseum Fighter or Enginseer to help as well as recursion like Holy Sepulchre or Shadowsun.
There are no hard and fast rules but if I do feel that for most decks, with the current Core pool, "cards start off slightly better than resources" is good advice. But with the caveat that this will change as the game progresses and the rate of this change is based on your build cost curve.
Keep up the good work. Always a pleasure to read your thoughts on the game.
Yes, I think broadly you are right.
One thing I note is that drawing cards can create resources in itself, such as discounters/recursers/put ito play cards, with low cost units that then win you command struggles (which are a key part of every deck) and with (as you note) shields and events that let you attain board control and thus deny your opponent command struggles.
I think certainly though the balancing point needs to be found for every deck, and its often about working out how much energy you're going to commit towards draw and how much towards resources.
A big thing in board advantage terms is the ability to keep deploying after your opponent has said "pass", as this gives you a huge amount of strategic control over the coming phases, as you can make plays without answers emerging.
I don't know about you guys, but in my experience its almost always lack of resources that forces me to say "pass" rather than lack of cards.
I'd say that as a rule of thumb, the following is useful:
1) Calculate the average cost of each card in your deck, in resource terms. (lets call this "N")
2) Recognise that you are getting 4 resources and 2 cards by default. That means on average 2 resources for every draw.
3) In play try to gain additional resources / cards to bring these two numbers as close as possible.
adding in the variables X (extra resources beyond that 4) and Y (the extra cards beyond 2) you want to balance the following formula while making Y as high as you can achieve.
(X + 4) / (Y + 2) = N
or
X = ((Y+2) x N)) - 4
So, for example, if you know N = 2, and you expect Y to be 2, then you need to make X = 4.
If you know N is 4, and you expect Y to be 1, then you need X = 8. A sure sign that you need to wind back your draw ambitions (or more likely, rebuild the damn deck)!
If you know N is 1, and you expect Y to be 2, then you only need 0 extra resources: a sure sign that you can probably stretch your target draw a little further!
Its not quite as simple as that, of course, as you can roll over resources and cards round to round, and depending on your deck's style you might want a "crescendo" where you save up resources, or you might want an "explosion" where you over-spend up front. In my limited experience, the best play at present is an explosion of low cost units up front to establish early command advantage, followed by a decisive (but within the cost curve) card or three played in later turns with that extra income you've generated.
Also messing up the calculation are cards that cost resources when played, but which have means to be played without resource cost, such as shield icons. My own unvalidated calculation at present is to "discount" the cost of the card by 1 for each shield icon it has, to a minimum of 0 cost.
I definitely think it's a fluid situation, and what makes this game so deep and interesting. In my most recent Tau game I mulligan'd into a Stealth Cadre, Earth Caste Tech, a Mine, the Frontline Launch Bay, and some events/attachments. The first two turns were mostly playing out what I could and passing early with no real answer. The first 4 planets were either 1 card/1 resource or 2 resources, which also wasn't helping me. I also set myself even further back when I played the ECT I ended up having to dump a Firewarror Elite and a Firewarrior Strike Team to the bottom. The first HQ phase draw was an Even The Odds and a Squadron Redeployment, lol. Things were not looking good! I was able to set up my Stealth Cadre with more attachments like a Repulsor Field and my Warlord was able to strike in two planets that helped bring me back. Tarrus let me draw three cards and Elouith let me find my second Firewarrior Elite, which essentially won me the game in the end. I had around 10 resources the whole game, but it allowed me to just play the attachments from hand, instead of using Shadowsun's ability so that she could strike the back planets on her own. But on the flip side I was able to shield attack after attack and most of my kills came from two different army units having Replusor Fields against the Imperial Guard enemy. He was doing the work for me essentially, lol.
So I had all the money in the world, so card draw was king. Even if I wasn't drawing army units, anything and everything was still helpful. For Tau I think cards will be more important, since their punch (attachments) are generally free or can be reduced in cost with the Ambush Platform. Having those cards in hand is what's important. On the flip side if I had started with units like Stingwings and Crisis Suits, I'd be scrambling for those resources, haha.
But are things ever truly even. I remember a lot of threads like this coming up at netrunners release on credits vs cards. Similar to all of the Star Wars LS Vs DS threads and articles that popped up right away. I think a lot of this is based on peoples understanding of the game in the current time, and will develop change as time goes on. I don't think it's a hard and fast answer as implied.