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!

Search Articles

* * * * *

Basic Deckbuilding for the Command Struggle

Warhammer 40K: Conquest

Early play and analysis indicates that by default, players seem to focus more on combat and battles when building decks. As a result, many players end up with decks that can be easily outmaneuvered in the command struggle. While the tactics involved with winning command struggles are actually quite complex, this article covers a more basic topic-- how to build a deck that can do well in the command phase as well as in battle.

Posted Image
The first thing to notice about the command phase is that not all units are created equal. For instance, take the Ultramarines Dreadnought. This is one of the beefiest units in the game. It can bloody the opponent's Warlord or kill almost any unit in the game with one hit! In combat, this is a card to look out for. However, this card does absolutely nothing in the command struggle.

Now let's look at the Recon Drone. This unit has the worst combat stats of any card in the game-- it is even inferior to a Snotling token! In battle, the Recon Drone is about as useless as it gets. Why would we put it in a deck? Simple-- its two icons and 0 cost make it the best command struggle unit in the game.

If units that are great in battle can be terrible in the command phase, and units that are great in the command phase can be useless in battle, how should we evaluate what units are strong and what units are weak overall? I find it helpful to classify units into three main categories so as to better draw out what we plan on using them for. These three categories are:

1. "Capping units," which are almost entirely oriented towards capturing planets in the command struggle. Most of these units cost 1-2 resources. They typically have one command icon for each resource you pay for them, have fairly weak stats, and often lack abilities. 10th Company Scout, Chaos Fanatics, and Vash'ya Trailblazer are good examples of capping units.

2. "Core units," which are useful for both the command struggle and combat. Most of these units cost 2-3 resources and have less than one icon for each resource you pay for them, but make up for it with good stats or abilities. Hellion Gang, Altansar Rangers, and Enraged Ork are good examples of core units. One useful note is that each race currently has a "subcommander" unit-- a 3 cost 2/2/3 (2 icons, 2 attack, 3 HP) unique unit that also has a strong ability, like Spiritseer Erathal. All subcommanders are great mainstay units and I strongly recommend that basically any deck plays two copies of its subcommander.

3. "Combat units," which are almost entirely oriented towards combat. These units have a wide range of costs, but typically have no icons or very low amounts of icons for their cost. Instead, they have very good combat stats or abilities. Elysian Assault Team, Possessed, and Daring Assault Squad are good examples of combat units.

The order in which I presented these options is also the order in which I tend to favor including these in a deck. When I build a deck, I start with many (9+) capping units. I then add slightly fewer core units, and finish by taking a few solid combat units, tending to go for higher-cost options for my combat choices when possible. This plan lets me take an early command struggle advantage and then hold on with my core units until I've amassed enough resources to bring out the heavy hitters in the late game.

One other important element to consider is what your Warlord and signature squad look like. If your Warlord is good at independently picking off enemy capping units (like Captain Cato Sicarius), you might be able to get away with including somewhat fewer capping units of your own. If your Warlord does better supporting your main battle line (like Packmaster Kyth), you might want to include more capping units.

Posted Image
Similarly, it's important to note that basically every signature squad comes with four solid core units (though some are more or less combat-oriented than others). This means that you may not need as many core units as you first think! My first decks greatly suffered from having too many core units, as I had forgotten to take the signature squad into account. This is especially relevant when considering units that overlap somewhat with your signature squad-- ask yourself if you really need 3 copies of Blood Angels Veterans to go along with your 4 copies of Sicarius's Chosen!

In conclusion, in order to do well in the command struggle as well as battles, you need to make sure that you have a deck that includes not just strong core and combat units, but also a robust base of capping units to go out there and win command struggles. This base of capping units tends to be the most important part of the deck, and while it's easily overlooked in favor of the flashier combat units, focusing on it is critical to winning games.
  • Amuk, tehkernel, DarconTheFirst and 14 others like this


8 Comments

Great article for Novice. And we are all rookie players right now :D

 

I've translate in French for the French Communautary forum:

http://w40kconquestj...mmandement#1791

 

Thanks you

I'm not sure all cards can be pigeon holed into just three categories as some tend to fall into utility category. But it's a good article nonetheless
Photo
CommissarFeesh
Aug 31 2014 07:22 PM
I agree with Nate that not all cards will fit these categories; it's probably more of a spectrum of effectiveness. However, this is still a useful framework, and a valuable insight.

I wonder if it's possible to make a 'rush' style deck successful - that is, less command icons but attempting to simply slam first planets as fast as possible for the win. I suspect that this is too reliant on planet order though; if you can't win by planet 3 or 4 you're probably going to stall (and may have already done so due to lack of resources and draw you missed out on in the command phases). Be interesting to see if someone can make it work.

Thanks for this; I'll be glad to see what other insights you have as the game matures :)

Great article for Novice. And we are all rookie players right now :D

 

I've translate in French for the French Communautary forum:

http://w40kconquestj...mmandement#1791

 

Thanks you

 

Thank you very much-- it's an honor to see that someone thinks well enough of my article to translate it! :)

I'm not sure all cards can be pigeon holed into just three categories as some tend to fall into utility category. But it's a good article nonetheless

 

I agree with Nate that not all cards will fit these categories; it's probably more of a spectrum of effectiveness. However, this is still a useful framework, and a valuable insight.

I wonder if it's possible to make a 'rush' style deck successful - that is, less command icons but attempting to simply slam first planets as fast as possible for the win. I suspect that this is too reliant on planet order though; if you can't win by planet 3 or 4 you're probably going to stall (and may have already done so due to lack of resources and draw you missed out on in the command phases). Be interesting to see if someone can make it work.

Thanks for this; I'll be glad to see what other insights you have as the game matures :)

 

I also agree with you guys! There are definitely some units that are on the boundary in between these categories, and others that don't cleanly fit in at all. For instance, Coliseum Fighters is a completely terrible unit for its cost-- but you're paying primarily for the recursion effect, not the actual unit.

 

The categories I present are definitely simplified and somewhat basic. That said, I think they encompass many important elements and are a good starting point for new players.

 

As for 'rush' decks, I think Dark Eldar might be good at this. Their early Khymera counters can be quite overwhelming in the right context, and they have some nice cheap Ranged units to bully early objectives as well. The key weaknesses that I see in this strategy are planet order and AoEs, but it's possible that there are ways to overcome this.

The main problem with a "Rush" style deck is the massive momentum loss even a single Warp Storm or Doom could cause; ideally just before you have a chance to win. If that happens, you have a few points and the opponent has capping unit dominance and is more than ready to never let the lead go.

 

...maybe if you start with all three Stalwart Ogryns? :P

 

The article is quite sensible, though; good read. I wonder if Tau should add a few more core units than one would think necessary, since a good deal of the Stealth Cadres will act as attachments. But then again, that may just mean that you get to "upgrade" units to "Core+"-units?

Good article!  I think the game and the deck-building will get really intriguing once we get more cards into the card-pool, too. 

 

Cards that help players become a bit less dependent upon the Command Phase, like Prometheum Mine, will shunt players more into combat-oriented decks.  I could see them, then, down the road, providing cards that give rewards other than resources for winning Command Struggles to tip the balance back the other way. 

So I imagine one of the big design struggles will be how they keep players engaged in BOTH phases through the life of this cool game.  :)

Also, I hope no one will mind this shameless self-promotion but I wrote a fairly sizable review over at BGG.  I would love it if you spread the word and checked it out.  If you liked it, please give it a top thumb!  :)

 

Thanks!

 

http://www.boardgame...erly-awaited-do

    • mischraum likes this