I don't see the usefulness of this card. Generally you going to draw/rec one, maybe two of draw or rec. So this card cost a card and a rec to nothing? Maybe you trade one card, one rec for 2 cards or 2 rec if you win or deny the same for the opponent.

I can see this being useful in a choke deck, but 1 resource for a one time denial of a planet seems a bit much in many circumstances.  I would find this card more playable if it were a 0 cost effect as you are already spending a card for the effect.

I can see this being useful in a choke deck, but 1 resource for a one time denial of a planet seems a bit much in many circumstances.  I would find this card more playable if it were a 0 cost effect as you are already spending a card for the effect.

Consider a situation where they have used a promotion to negate your command presence at a planet - now they've used a card as well, making your card-to-card usage a null sum, but you still win the command struggle. Also, superiority fires off after the warlord commits, giving you the flexibility to only use it after you have the knowledge of where their warlord has gone, use it on exactly the right unit at the right time while simultaneously stealing a command struggle, or realize it's not beneficial at this exact moment and save it for next time - none of these advantages are available to promotion.

It's 5 star in choke, but it's still good outside of it.

Your opponent may be counting on that resource for the combat phase. If you remove a double icon unit and swing the equation from them getting 1C1R to you getting it then you've actually gained a 2C2R swing off 1C1R. Maybe you really need +1R for your combat tricks so you use it on the 2R planet... There's lots of possibilities.

One important thing to note is that technically Command struggles resolve one by one (starting at Planet 1). therefore even if you have 0R, you could gain 1R from an early planet and then still play Superiority on a later one by spending that 1R you just got.

One important thing to note is that technically Command struggles resolve one by one (starting at Planet 1). therefore even if you have 0R, you could gain 1R from an early planet and then still play Superiority on a later one by spending that 1R you just got.

This is a major facet to the card that is often overlooked in the beginning. The other side of it is you may also draw this card on planet 1 and use it immediately on plant 2 - very versatile card. It's a staple in my DE choke deck.

Its an annoying facet is what it is, especially on octgn, where you have to point out to the opponent that you want to do the command struggles one by one, and often have to explain why.

A lot easier to do this when resolved with actual cardboard, of course.

Incredible solid card, could say it currently is a auto-include for Eldar decks. 3.5/5.

The other side of it is you may also draw this card on planet 1 and use it immediately on plant 2 

And that just explains why people playing it want to go 1by1 even though at the end of command they haven't used it (which always baffled me). I was always wondering why that was and didn't think of it this way. Makes a lot of sense now.

Right, and even worse, if your deck has the potential to include Superiority, you have to insist on 1 by 1 resolution in a competitive environment, otherwise you're revealing whether you have it in your deck or not.

Despite Kingsley's oft stated opposition to this card, I'm finding it to be a strong include still. Not so much in terms of sheer card/resource advantage (as Kingsley says, a one off effect is hard to include on that basis) but in terms of the disruptive effect on opponent planning, in particular in messing up their resource totals for the Battle Phase. Most good players will work the command phase in such a way that no matter where commitments go, they have the resources available for the event card that is currently in their hand and that they want to use to tip a decisive battle. Messing up that count with an untelegraphed event is a very strong disruption play, in my experience.

What I think is a little odd is that Kingsley really likes Primal Howl (this isn't without good reason). Now given, Howl has two shields and is more difficult to Nullify, but if you consider the resource flips Superiority can generate--particularly those involving counter-capped Pirates and Survivalists--it does compare reasonably with Howl.

During Regionals, I managed to blowout an Eldorath player on turn one by flipping Ferrin in favour of my Survivalist. He managed to deploy a monster 10 hammer hand including three Sslyths, but at the end of the Command Phase, he had just one resource to my four. He lost the first planet to his own Sslyth and had to let the second die to Kith since I would just bribe it if he chose to shield.

I absolutely agree with you on this. I guess its probably the two shields that does it for Kingsley, and the fact the Cato decks will often generate resources beyond their card draw. 

But personally, I love both cards, and wouldn't leave either out. Certainly I'm not going to take Superiority over Promotion in any circumstance save for a 3-Raid Kith deck, but as an additional part of the command domination game, I feel its a strong card.

I'm on Kingsley side. Superiority is useful only in certain decks and only if you are running heavy command, otherwise you just can use other cards. 

Primal howl doesn't have a condition to be included, it is just good.

I think that running Survivalist is also bad. It's a classic "two mediocre cards" combo IMO.

Right, and even worse, if your deck has the potential to include Superiority, you have to insist on 1 by 1 resolution in a competitive environment, otherwise you're revealing whether you have it in your deck or not.

May I ask why someone wouldn't want to do a planet-by-planet rundown during the command phase (regardless of having command-altering cards in your deck)?  I understand it could speed up the game a bit, but it helps display to both players exactly what's going on at each planet.  Things that one player may have missed, the other could have seen and can call out appropriate resolutions; other discrepencies can be addressed.

Not doing it one-by-one is mostly an artifact of OCTGN play IMO - there's an automation that lets you win on all relevant planets simultaneously, which makes the command struggle go significantly quicker. In person, I almost always go one-by-one.

I think that running Survivalist is also bad. It's a classic "two mediocre cards" combo IMO.

They're certainly worse than Pirates and Traders. I run them because planet flops with less than 4 cards available in command reward tend to be bad for the command heavy decks I play. I've found that 3 Pirates are insufficient to supplement the board in these cases.

Superiority doesn't need a Survivalist to gain value. Flipping Elouith or Barlus is a relative +3 card advantage and flipping a 1/1 in favour of a Pirate is relative +2 which is on par with Howl.

Flipping Elouith or Barlus is a relative +3 card advantage and flipping a 1/1 in favour of a Pirate is relative +2 which is on par with Howl.

No it's not. superiority cost 1 resource and it's 1 card, which is most of the times the same as winning the struggle over 1 planet. 

The howl is stronger because it has different trigger condition (and it cost INFINITE TIMES less). It triggers regardless of the struggle, you just need to face an enemy warlord, you can even lose the struggle. Also it's a threath for the opponent: Cato and Ragnar are two terrible foes, now their opponent has another reason to avoid the battle.

And yes, survivalist is not such a good card.

No, it is is +3 card on a 2C0R planet.

Winning the command struggle denies 2 cards to the opponent and gives 2 cards to you. Take off the 1 card cost of superiority, and it becomes +3C for 1R. In contrast, Primal Howl gives +2C for 0R.

And yes, sure, 0 cost is infinite times less than 1 cost. But lets not work infinities into our maths or we end up with silly arguments like saying because a 200 cost card costs infinite times a 0 cost card as well, the difference in cost between a 0 and 200 cost card is the same as the difference between a 0 and 1 cost card.

I agree, however, that Primal Howl is a better card. I'd say actually its trigger condition is a lot harder to meet: most turns of the game there will be at least one planet where Superiority can give benefit, whereas Primal Howl will only connect about 1 in 2-3 turns in the early game. Primal Howl is better because it has 2 shields, that's all there is to it.

That's not to say Superiority is a bad card, just because Primal Howl is better. 

However, as I said, card advantage is NOT the sole function of superiority. To me, Superiority's greatest strength is in disrupting the plays of opponents, by messing with their expectations. For that reason, I find myself playing it more often at Osus than Barlus.

You need to factor resources lost by the opponent as well. Denying cards and resources to the opponent is just as valuable as generating them for yourself.

Flipping Elouith/Barlus: +2 cards gained, +2 cards lost by opponent for the cost of a card and a resource. Net 3 cards, -1 resource (relative).

Flipping a 1/1 with a Pirate: +2 cards gained, +1 card lost by opponent, +1 resource gained, +1 resource lost by opponent for the cost of a card and a resource. Net +2 cards and +1 resource (relative).

Yes, the triggering conditions are different. Nevertheless, if you're winning command natively in these situations, then I'd argue that you're likely winning the game. If not, then the Superiority is helping you get there. More so, having the conditions where the flip is relevant is quite common in the early game since most opponents I know of will try to counter-cap one hammer units with ones with two hammers. Howl, on the other hand, requires an accurate commit prediction or Warlords chasing the same objective.

I won't argue that it's better than Howl, because I know Howl is very good. It has two shields, is difficult to Nullify and gets through Palace oppression. The point is that the relative card/resource advantage generated by Superiority when played can be compared with Howl.

The other thing with Superiority is there isn't really a downside, beyond a slight hit to immediate momentum (in the sense that maybe you would have preferred another card or desperately need the 1R in the deploy phase *and* aren't generating it before the flip planet). Otherwise the card tends to *at least* pay for itself in both R and C terms and as Syntax points out also denies your opponent stuff which is just as important.

I took it out recently for space issues, but am strongly considering forcing it back in, even though I never run Survivalists.

Howl is great and covers the last weakness of the SMurfs, but it's a different card for a different deck with a different function. On the face of it they are both card advantage (or potentially R advantage for  Superiority). However the function of Howl is more to sustain SM's card draw so they can keep playing nonsense, rather than a specific relative advantage. Superiority fits much better with choke archetypes, like DE, E and Tau where it's as much about denial as own gain, sometimes even more so.

Also Howl means you've come to me and I can punch Cato in the face with a big stick

Howl is a better card *but* in my DE deck I wouldn't play it with 1 Shield as it doesn't help with denial and I crazy draw anyway, in SM I still would as they need the draw. Of course it has 2 shields so currently I'd play it in every deck if I was allowed.

Re: the survivalist/superiority combo, I do however agree that its a case of a weak card (survivalist) being strong in combo, but not strong enough to consider running.

I think while its true that you shouldn't run Survivalist unless running Superiority too, I also think that Superiority is strong enough to run without Survivalist about.

Also, I'd say if you run Survivalist, make sure you don't diminish combat unit presence to do so. In other words, never drop a Hellion Gang for a Survivalist, but consider Survivalist over, say, Earth Caste Technician in an Eldorath deck with barely any attachments. Not saying its the better choice, but its a consideration thats worthy of being made, while replacing a fighting unit with Survivalist generally is a bad idea.

I think it's play style/deck build too. Survivalist requires more protection and tends to fit better into a model where your deck needs resources/cards and is willing to go heavy on a couple of planets to get it, rather than spread out everywhere and try and contest command across the board. For pure capping/hammer efficiency the Pirates/Traders have it imho. I'd never put Survivalist in DE choke for example because I care more about the hammers than the bonus.

Approach 1 = I care about card/resource advantage i.e. the relative difference between me and my opponent as I believe I will win if I outdraw/resource him. This approach values hammer efficiency, especially out-hammering the opponent by 1 on any given planet regardless of type.

Approach 2 = I care about my personal card/resource situation as that fuels my deck's engine and if my opponent gets a tonne of cards/resources too I still believe I will win because my deck engine is awesome and will maximise that draw/resource flood more or contains game-winning combos that simply require it. This approach targets key planets and tries to leverage them for as many cards/resources as possible, it doesn't care a jot about denial so won't waste hammers there when it could instead go to a vacant planet.

Approach 3 = I care about card/resource denial because my deck can run on sod all and my opponent's probably can't. I believe I will win because if we both have nothing but I have Khymera it's simple maths.

This approach picks cards or resources depending on matchup/draw and tries to stop the opponent from winning *any* of that type across the board, even if that means sacrificing its own production.

Survivalist clearly doesn't fit into approach 3, but Superiority can. Approach 2 is where survivalist is most likely to crop up, with or without Superiority. Approach 1 could include either/both, but doesn't generally want to sacrifice hammers to do so.