optimum deck size

[CanHammer-darren]

hey everyone.  So ive been building based on minimum 20 cards.  Given it's a 3 turn game and you want to maximize what you pull during the game, seems sensible to have minimum necessary.  But should this be the optimum deck size?

[KillagoreFaceslasha]

9 minutes ago, CanHammer-darren said:

hey everyone.  So ive been building based on minimum 20 cards.  Given it's a 3 turn game and you want to maximize what you pull during the game, seems sensible to have minimum necessary.  But should this be the optimum deck size?

Yes. In fact, it's going to be enforced. Anything more and you'll end up with tons of nice stuff that won't be used.

[Killax]

I think so, though going 22 is something to consider still. Some Upgrades are Cleave add ons and sometimes are amazing. 

Adding any Ploy to that seems okay. Depends on the complete deck offcourse and Warband.

[Attackmack]

I would say yes, the less cards you need to go through the easier to get the ones you want/need.

A thought however. As the game expands, more warbands are introduced and some sort of "meta" forms there might be good reasons to go for more cards. 20 cards might not be enough to ensure your deck is equipped to handle whatever warband/deckbuild you go up against but 30 might be, and going through 30 cards in a game is still possible.

Ive played way to little to say but I would expect decks to become bigger down the line. 

[someone2040]

Hmm, I think we'll have to wait for more play to decide.

I know in both my games so far, I've actually mulliganed my complete first hand due to ending up with like 4 upgrades in them.

In fact, in my first game, I ended up going through my entire deck. So there could perhaps be a case for going to 22 cards. But overall I think you'd have to figure out how often that's really the case. In that game, I lost 3 of my Bloodreavers first turn, so I had a lot of 'spare' activations to search for power cards/objective cards (and I also used the kill an enemy draw 2 cards reaction).

Personally I don't think 20 cards should be enforced. If someone wants to run with a deck of 50 cards, then why not allow them to? 

[CanHammer-darren]

Did they say they would enforce a max deck size?

[Sleboda]

I am about 12 games in now, so not much, but tonight I tried a larger deck and liked it.

The idea was that I had a bunch of cool things I wanted, with none of them being critical to a plan. That way, whatever came up, I could probably use it. With a more focused deck, if you don't get the few cards that are key to your plan, you could be hosed.  With more cards that are all just nifty, you take what you get and make the most of it.

In other words, a small deck has  a bigger chance of giving you what you need for a specific plan but it can mess you up on a bad draw, whereas a larger deck filled with basic, fun stuff may not let you pursue a specific plan but is far less likely to leave you in a lurch.

I won tonight, btw.

[zabbraxas]

Like in magic for a competitive game I think the minimum number of card is, most of the time, the beast way to go.

In my first game i go with more card, and it's been nice so i can see what work well and what not. Now i got the minimum 20 and it got a lot more control I know each card of my deck so i can go fishing for card and have a good idea if i can draw the one i really need.

 

[Wallack]

If you have 21 do you need 11 upgrades or can you have 10 upgrades and 11 ploys? because if you can I'd go with 21 to have an extra ploy.

[Killax]

11 minutes ago, Wallack said:

If you have 21 do you need 11 upgrades or can you have 10 upgrades and 11 ploys? because if you can I'd go with 21 to have an extra ploy.

Every Upgrade opens a spot for a Ploy. So you can have 11 Upgrades and 10 Ploy but you can't have 10 Upgrades and 11 Ploy. Which is why I'd typically go 22 the moment I'd feel inclined to add another Upgrade.

Sometimes it's worth it though, it also depends on your meta. If it's huge, mixed and you have a lot of people who have all Warbands I'd consider going 22 for Orruks and Stormcast. Reason being that those games are won and lost by not having Cleave or having it. 

[CanHammer-darren]

Plus you have to buy two packs of shadespire sleeves if you have more than 20 

[Killax]

Haha yeah.

Well while I went 1-3 with Bloodreavers, really enforcing another Warband for me I wasnt dissapointed in the 20 cards deck. Advantage remains to see them all with a mulligan and that knowledge of knowing which cards you get with accuracy is worth a lot.

At the same time a mate of mine, completely new with the game went 4-0. Deck constructed by me and Stormcast Warband. What it boils down to for me remains that Bloodreavers dont have much to do at competative level except against Sepulchtal Guard and Bloodreavers. The latter was also my only win.

So back to decks, the guaranteed knowledge of ploys and upgrades you will see is often better as adding flexability. Cleave for example is worth a slot, regardless wether or not you want it versus Bloodreavers and Sepulchral Guard. Worst comes worst you dont play it, best option is you play it and it nets you the game against Orruks and Stormcast.

20 cards isnt a lot but you can know for sure you see them all. An aggressive mulligan of a poor hand is actually rewarded well because there are few ways to draw Powers in between and if their upgrades it doesnt even matter most of the time when you draw them.

[Attackmack]

15 hours ago, Killax said:

Haha yeah.

Well while I went 1-3 with Bloodreavers, really enforcing another Warband for me I wasnt dissapointed in the 20 cards deck. Advantage remains to see them all with a mulligan and that knowledge of knowing which cards you get with accuracy is worth a lot.

At the same time a mate of mine, completely new with the game went 4-0. Deck constructed by me and Stormcast Warband. What it boils down to for me remains that Bloodreavers dont have much to do at competative level except against Sepulchtal Guard and Bloodreavers. The latter was also my only win.

So back to decks, the guaranteed knowledge of ploys and upgrades you will see is often better as adding flexability. Cleave for example is worth a slot, regardless wether or not you want it versus Bloodreavers and Sepulchral Guard. Worst comes worst you dont play it, best option is you play it and it nets you the game against Orruks and Stormcast.

20 cards isnt a lot but you can know for sure you see them all. An aggressive mulligan of a poor hand is actually rewarded well because there are few ways to draw Powers in between and if their upgrades it doesnt even matter most of the time when you draw them.

Interesting that the new player managed 4-0. I take it had your opponent constructed his/her own deck it would have ended differently but still it shows how important the deck really is.

 

[Killax]

1 hour ago, Attackmack said:

Interesting that the new player managed 4-0. I take it had your opponent constructed his/her own deck it would have ended differently but still it shows how important the deck really is.

 

Yep, as before I see it as a 70-30 tactics luck game. Meaning 40% is player skill, 30% deck construction and 30% luck. For certain my buddy had the deck and luck but the game is basic and simple enough that skil isnt a massive factor just now, it will be though as soon as more and more play it.

What I also admit to is that the biggest errors can actually occur during deployment, especially for Bloodreavers as your trying to maximize Movement 4 to your advantage but it also means Shardfall and pushes mess things up. I had this occur to me twice, it lost me control in phase 1 twice. Oddly, Bloodreavers also do not have a push ploy exclusive to them, while the other decks do and I feel it makes Bloodreavers the weakest of the 4 so far, as there is no build in way to deal 4 damage either with ploys (Stormcast and Orruks again do have that option).

In any case, will share the decks, update the card list and personal vision on the Warbands soon! Might thake a while