|
DatonKallandor posted:There should never be any stuff in your deck you don't want to draw and while you get to put 1 thing in your hand that you might want 5 other things you might also want are gone. Unconditional draw is awesome, search x, take 1 and put all the other stuff you searched away can easily gently caress you. The search stuff can really pay off (when there's one card or one set of cards that will simply win you the game right then), but the higher the ratio of keep to search the worse they can go wrong. That's not exactly true. True, it is likely that you went be able to draw all the way to those cards. But you have also effectively thinned your deck and you given yourself a huge piece of information in knowing what those cards are that you can't draw. But you aren't decreasing the value of future draws.
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2015 21:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 21:42 |
|
|
And just because you've put nothing but "cards you want to draw" in your deck doesn't mean there aren't cards you'd rather draw right now. That's the value of search cards.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2015 21:55
|
|
|
I really wish there was a good card game 101 primer because this comes up in EVERY card game. "Look at top X, draw 1, discard/bottom of deck the others" is strictly better than "draw 1." Yes, there are times you'll see multiple cards you want right now, but the difference between it being in that batch and already being at the bottom is simple. Now you KNOW you aren't drawing it anytime soon and can plan accordingly. This, and "but what if I mill my opponent's good card!!!" Bog down every thread.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 08:22
|
|
|
PJOmega posted:. Now you KNOW you aren't drawing it anytime soon and can plan accordingly. "Now you KNOW the card you needed to win the game is gone and you can lose accordingly"
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 17:13
|
|
|
DatonKallandor posted:"Now you KNOW the card you needed to win the game is gone and you can lose accordingly" Well, don't be a moron and not choose the card you needed to win the game.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
New LOTR LCG post about The Lost Realm. It details the side quests a bit more...including that there are PLAYER CARD Side Quests! Interesting stuff, not sure how often they'll be used though... http://fantasyflightgames.com/edge_news.asp?eidn=5329 Can't wait though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 18:01
|
|
|
DatonKallandor posted:"Now you KNOW the card you needed to win the game is gone and you can lose accordingly" Consider this. Suppose the effect was as simple as "look at the top card, then put that on the bottom." (I'm simplifying it to make the math/logic simpler.) Before this effect, your deck is shuffled. Is that effect going to "gently caress you" by taking away the one card you needed? Well, let's say you had thirty cards left in your deck and one copy of that card you need. Since your deck is shuffled, the needed card is equally likely to be in anywhere in the deck; it has a 1/30 chance of being in each position of the deck. It has a 1/30 chance of being at the top, a 1/30 chance of being the bottom, and a 1/30 chance of being the fourth card from the top. Simple stuff so far, right? So now let's apply the effect. If it was at the top, it's now at the bottom. If it was anywhere else, it's one position higher than it was before. Position 1 (the top) becomes position 30 (the bottom), 30 becomes 29, 29 becomes 28, and so on, all the way to position 2 becomes position 1. This is all nice and non-random. So the probabilities of those positions are exactly equal to the probabilities before. For example, if it was in position 25 before, with probability 1/30, it'd be in position 24 now, and since that's the only way it'd get to position 24, the probability of it being in position 24 now is also 1/30. This same logic applies to every position in the deck. So with or without the effect, the probabilities are the same - 1/30 for each position in the deck. The effect did  absolutely nothing to affect your likelihood of drawing the card. The only difference between the two scenarios is that if you do apply the effect, you have information about what the bottom card of your deck is. This logic applies in more complicated situations, as well. But it's also worth noting that since the effect we're discussing also lets you keep one of the cards you're bottoming, you're more likely to get it with that effect, so long as you follow S.J.'s advice in his most recent post. And you also get a benefit that you get to choose the order the cards go on the bottom, which gets better the more cards you get to put on the bottom. If it let you look at your entire deck (instead of just six), pick one, then bottom the rest in any order, you'd literally stack your entire deck however you wanted. So looking at more cards is good for you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 09:36
|
|
|
Yeah you don't seem to get that your stuff is only relevant if you had an infinitely long game, or the ability to actually get to the bottom of the deck after putting something there. Being able to decide the order on the bottom cards is (with the current amount of draw) not something that matters. And knowing where the cards you didn't chose are and will be is, for the same reason, equally useless. You can't get to them again. There's not enough draw in Conquest to do it and not enough search to do it. Even with the upcoming search enhancer you'd have to use every search effect and have the match run very long just to start seeing the first few things you put to the bottom of the deck. So you can throw the match to order your deck the way you want. As said before, the search effect is good if your victory depends on a single card. In a regular play situation where the game is still going to take a few turns discarding 5 cards to draw 1 is not going to be 100% positive. Or are you going to argue that discard effects are positive too? DatonKallandor fucked around with this message at 12:51 on Jan 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 12:49
|
|
|
DatonKallandor posted:Having a certain amount of a card in your deck and being forced by a search effect to remove 1 or more of them to the bottom of your deck is the definition of decreasing the value of future draws. When that happens you know for a fact you can't draw those cards again (unlike the more common search and shuffle Netrunner uses). DatonKallandor posted:As said before, the search effect is good if your victory depends on a single card. In a regular play situation where the game is still going to take a few turns discarding 5 cards to draw 1 is not going to be 100% positive. Or are you going to argue that discard effects are positive too? Oh, they are. As a general CCG/LCG rule, can't really speak about Conquest in its current state. Some of the strongest Magic decks do this poo poo gleefully. Generally the idea is that the card you discarded might have as well been on the bottom of the deck and 1) hey, you've drawn something else for that cost 2) Instead of sitting gently caress-knows-where in the deck they lie revealed in the discard pile and it is oftentimes easier to fetch them from discard than to tutor from the deck 3) You can thin your deck for all sorts of combo tricks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 13:27
|
|
|
Lichtenstein posted:So how come the card you have to put on the bottom are pure gold you need to win, but the rest of the deck you suddenly consider worthless poo poo? If that is the case, it is a good thing to sort through the chaff to get to the game-winner ASAP. If you drop the sophistry and assume a well-made deck consists entirely of generally useful cards, it's still cool because you lessen the luck of the draw by being able to choose what is most situationally useful right now, while ditching spare copies of unique cards (which you'd waste your draw on). If you really need some poo poo you've ditched and have no spares, it's not the end of the world, you just know you need to save a tutor/deck shuffle effect for it, rather than relying on hail mary draws. No such thing as a tutor or deck shuffle in conquest. The retrieve from Discard are also top-card-only. And some of your best cards are forced one-ofs. Yes search effects are almost completely unconditionally great in other games. Conquest is it's own beast when it comes to search. Conquest isn't MTG (or Netrunner) and the power of the various effects isn't the same because of it. Conquest keeps your control over your discard pile to a minimum and getting stuff back is extremely limited. Just look at the difference in how you're allowed to play Uniques in Netrunner vs Conquest or how you're allowed to basically Discard anything whenever in Netrunner (and the fact that the discard in Netrunner doesn't have to stay the same order). DatonKallandor fucked around with this message at 14:30 on Jan 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 14:26
|
|
|
Pack it in folks, we've got a good old ostrich here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 14:56
|
|
|
DatonKallandor posted:Yeah you don't seem to get that your stuff is only relevant if you had an infinitely long game, or the ability to actually get to the bottom of the deck after putting something there. Being able to decide the order on the bottom cards is (with the current amount of draw) not something that matters. And knowing where the cards you didn't chose are and will be is, for the same reason, equally useless. You can't get to them again. There's not enough draw in Conquest to do it and not enough search to do it. By this logic, a card that forced your opponent to look at the bottom 5 cards of their deck would be awesome.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 16:25
|
|
|
DatonKallandor posted:Yeah you don't seem to get that your stuff is only relevant if you had an infinitely long game, or the ability to actually get to the bottom of the deck after putting something there. Being able to decide the order on the bottom cards is (with the current amount of draw) not something that matters. And knowing where the cards you didn't chose are and will be is, for the same reason, equally useless. You can't get to them again. There's not enough draw in Conquest to do it and not enough search to do it. You're literally arguing against math. You might as well scream up and down that one plus one is fourteen.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 16:39
|
|
|
DontMockMySmock posted:You're literally arguing against math. You might as well scream up and down that one plus one is fourteen. You are literally trying to claim getting rid if cards is never bad because the next card after the ones you got rid of could be the one you need. Which doesn't work when there's a limited number of each card in the deck. Hell there's a very simple factual way to put it: If you need 1 card to win the match right now and you search you can win with the search. If you need 2 cards to win the match later and you search you can lose because of the search. DatonKallandor fucked around with this message at 19:14 on Jan 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
DatonKallandor posted:You are literally trying to claim getting rid if cards is never bad because the next card after the ones you got rid of could be the one you need. Which doesn't work when there's a limited number of each card in the deck. You're poo poo at deckbuilding if that's possible, and you're poo poo at math for continuing to argue probability.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
DatonKallandor posted:You are literally trying to claim getting rid if cards is never bad because the next card after the ones you got rid of could be the one you need. Which doesn't work when there's a limited number of each card in the deck. You seem to have a very results oriented view which is the completely wrong way to look at games where luck is an element in winning. Yes sometimes the search effect will screw you. But it's more often that it will improve your chance to win. If you are at the point where you need exactly one card to win right now or you need exactly two cards to win your chances of winning weren't very high at that point which either means your deck was outclassed, opponent got a God draw, or you misplayed. You're essentially saying I need to topdeck to win. That's the point of desperation and at that point you definitely want the search/draw card.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
DatonKallandor posted:You are literally trying to claim getting rid if cards is never bad because the next card after the ones you got rid of could be the one you need. Which doesn't work when there's a limited number of each card in the deck. Let's explore the difference between your scenario and, say, just not drawing that 2nd card you, for whatever reason, have perfect information about regarding it's ability to win you the game
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
vulturesrow posted:That's the point of desperation and at that point you definitely want the search/draw card. Thanks for agreeing with me. The search effect is, because of it's Conquest specific variant, a desperation play.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
DatonKallandor posted:Thanks for agreeing with me. The search effect is, because of it's Conquest specific variant, a desperation play. Yeah, that's not what was actually said. You're basically wrong about everything you've said, sorry 
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
DatonKallandor posted:Thanks for agreeing with me. The search effect is, because of it's Conquest specific variant, a desperation play. Lol not even close.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 21:00
|
|
|
Some of the search cards in Conquest are search the top 6 cards for a DRONE card, or an IMPERIAL UNIT card. With the starter decks the search can suck because the starter decks are poo poo. Searching through the tau deck for a drone and passing over a crisis battle suit (Which only has 1 crisis battle suit) sucks because now that crisis battle suit is on the bottom. But guess what, those are the starter decks. Any deck you make has redundancy and enough cards that it wont be end all be all if you play one of the cards that let you search for a specific thing and have it come up with nothing. Think of it this way, all the cards that do that let you play a unit and then search your deck. Its card draw with some fine print. I am purposefully ignoring the eldar card "look at the top 6 and pick a card" because that is an amazing card.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 23:17
|
|
|
The solution to losing games because earlier you searched and put the one specific card you needed to win to the bottom is to not get in to a situation where you needed one specific card to win, don't say searches are bad because you're bad (and also bad at maths)
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 03:20
|
|
|
EldarTau actually runs enough search effects to completely reorder the deck halfway through the game. If note-taking is allowed where you play it's pretty sick.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 03:20
|
|
|
Is it weird that everytime I build a tau deck it is nearly completely mono faction? I can barely shoehorn 6 eldar or marine cards in, and I am not sure even that is a good idea...
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
PaintVagrant posted:Is it weird that everytime I build a tau deck it is nearly completely mono faction? I can barely shoehorn 6 eldar or marine cards in, and I am not sure even that is a good idea... Tau are really versatile. From what I can tell, the only things worth importing in Eldar are Doom and Survivalists, and the only things worth importing in SM are Exterminatus, Tac Squad Cardinis (these guys poo poo on DE decks), and Eager Regruit. Eager Recruit has won me many a battle, and it's a good complement to the Aun Shi Prelate as far as surprise cards are concerned (I like a 3/2 split). Honestly I think I used Exterminatus once, since seeing SM units is usually enough for most people to avoid seeding later planets to an appreciable degree.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
We had our Store Championships on Sunday, and I managed to win with my Eldar deck! Deck Created with CardGameDB.com Warhammer 40,000: Conquest Deckbuilder Total Cards: (50) Warlord: 1x Eldorath Starbane (Core Set) Army Unit: (28) 4x Starbane’s Council (Core Set) 3x Altansar Rangers (Core Set) 3x Biel-Tan Guardians (Core Set) 2x Earth Caste Technician (Core Set) 3x Eldar Survivalist (Core Set) 3x Iyanden Wraithguard (Core Set) 2x Spiritseer Erathal (Core Set) 3x Swordwind Farseer (Core Set) 3x Vior’la Marksman (Core Set) 2x Wailing Wraithfighter (Core Set) Attachment: (4) 1x Mobility (Core Set) 3x Ion Rifle (Core Set) Event: (12) 2x Foresight (Core Set) 2x Calamity (The Howl of Blackmane) 1x Doom (Core Set) 2x Empower (The Howl of Blackmane) 2x Gift of Isha (Core Set) 3x Nullify (Core Set) Support: (6) 1x Alaitoc Shrine (Core Set) 1x Corsair Trading Port (Core Set) 1x Craftworld Gate (Core Set) 1x Dome of Crystal Seers (The Scourge) 2x Promethium Mine (Core Set) Top 4 ended up being three Starbanes and a Blackmane. I was up against Blackmane first, but he whiffed terribly on his first Drop Pod Assault, and I was able to keep control of the board to end the match. Finals was against a Starbane I had actually lost to in the Swiss match-ups, when he was able to snowball very effectively. He had something like a dozen units in HQ, and I drew the Doom the turn that he committed them all to the last planet he needed to win. During this match, we started out on much more even footing, though an early Trading Port and Promethium Mine kept me ahead a little bit. Key to this match was the Wraithfighter, as its ability, combined with a lack of card draw planets, allowed me to keep him very low on cards, especially shields. We eventually ended up in a big brawl at the last planet I needed to win, and the Wraithfighter got to discard the last card he had in his hand before he could use its two shields to keep someone alive. Empower, combined with the few shields left in my hand, allowed me to turn the mostly even battle to my favor and win the game. Very good, close game, and I'm looking forward to playing Conquest more often. Now that I've won with Starbane and I have my alt-art Leman Russ Battle Tanks, I think I'll go back to playing Stracken. It'll be nice to use Catachan Outposts and all the tricks Astra uses again. I've missed Preemptive Barrage, especially.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
Are the warpacks live on OCTGN? I tried OCTGN with a non-Core deck for the first time yesterday and it wasn't recognizing my new includes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 20:08
|
|
|
A new preview for the Treason of Saruman is up. The Ally versions of Gimli and Legolas look very nice, though a bit expensive. Helm's Deep looks like a neat variation on the formula, too. I especially like that the locations give a benefit on travel, and a detriment on exploring. Mostly, it just makes me wish I had people to play LOTR with. Some Gift of the Ethereals spoilers for Conquest can also be found.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
Can I register my surprise here that Orks are getting a deluge of supports? I woulda anticipated Guard as the supports faction. Heck observe the new Guard-loyal support-untap card. But Orks are getting the oodles of supports.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
Taran_Wanderer posted:A new preview for the Treason of Saruman is up. The Ally versions of Gimli and Legolas look very nice, though a bit expensive. Helm's Deep looks like a neat variation on the formula, too. I especially like that the locations give a benefit on travel, and a detriment on exploring. Mostly, it just makes me wish I had people to play LOTR with. A bit expensive, yeah...but man I can see Legolas doing some work with card draw in Tactics. Especially since most of my Tactics decks tend to be mono or Tactics/Leadership in multiplayer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
SuperKlaus posted:Can I register my surprise here that Orks are getting a deluge of supports? I woulda anticipated Guard as the supports faction. Heck observe the new Guard-loyal support-untap card. But Orks are getting the oodles of supports. Orks and Guard are right next to each other on the wheel, so I'm guessing it is in service of the Guards if they wanted to go Orks instead of SM. You see similar synergies with allies elsewhere, like Eldar and Dark Eldar both getting a lot of control (and even Chaos to an extent). I think SM and Tau are the only ones who have ambush units currently as well, too. I think?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 21:35
|
|
|
Someone asked about my deck on cardgamedb, and I ended up writing a whole lot more then I expected to, so I thought I'd share.quote:The basic idea of the deck is the old "quality over quantity." I'm not going to win all of the command struggles, so I'm going to focus on what I need or what they need and deny it. Calamity helps thin the board out if they get ahead in body count, while leaving most of my guys alone. When I do need to stand and fight, Empower makes a world of difference. Just making the Wraithguards have three HP makes them far more likely to suvive a round and hit back hard. Making Starbane have two ATK was pretty excellent, too. If I have some cheap units out, especially the Biel-Tan Guardians, Craftworld Gate is great for moving them around the board and denying key command struggles, not to mention delaying deployment. As much as people disparage Promethium Mine, I'm a big fan of it for its consistency. Rogue Traders and other cheap units can be sniped off, losing those command struggles, but once I put a Mine down I know I'm getting my resources out of it, which is key with a cost curve like this deck has.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 23:51
|
|
|
GrandpaPants posted:Orks and Guard are right next to each other on the wheel, so I'm guessing it is in service of the Guards if they wanted to go Orks instead of SM. You see similar synergies with allies elsewhere, like Eldar and Dark Eldar both getting a lot of control (and even Chaos to an extent). I think SM and Tau are the only ones who have ambush units currently as well, too. I think? Dark Eldars just got one, but by and large I think you're right and the point stands. I'm not even really complaining either because I love the support cards - Kustom Generator is orky orky orky.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 00:21
|
|
|
SuperKlaus posted:Are the warpacks live on OCTGN? I tried OCTGN with a non-Core deck for the first time yesterday and it wasn't recognizing my new includes. Yes, but the CardGameDB deck exporter doesn't export cards from them correctly, so you need to manually add them back in on the OCTGN editor afterwards.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 02:19
|
|
|
Having played a total of one game against him, right now I think Aun'shi is terrifying.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 15:20
|
|
|
Devlan Mud posted:Having played a total of one game against him, right now I think Aun'shi is terrifying. Is it just because of the Armorbane?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 16:08
|
|
|
Ranged + armorbane + ion rifle + swapping the ion rifle between ranged units...seems terrifying.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 16:09
|
|
|
PaintVagrant posted:Ranged + armorbane + ion rifle + swapping the ion rifle between ranged units...seems terrifying. Yeah. Can't wait for... Zogwart. To blow up all my tokens.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 19:25
|
|
|
PaintVagrant posted:Ranged + armorbane + ion rifle + swapping the ion rifle between ranged units...seems terrifying. Am I missing something? How are the ion rifles being swapped around?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 21:42 |
|
|
Even the odds (event, moves an attachment to another unit controlled by the same player)
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 19:32
|
|