a key part of this game seems to be winning command struggles for resources and cards and I was wondering what people think is more valuable when.

personally I'm inclined to go for resources at first then cards once my hand gets low but I'm afraid I may be underestimating the value of using cards to shield units in the early game.

obviously the factions/deck you are playing will impact this but do people think cards or resources will be more valuable at diffrent stages of the game.

I think it's going to be very fluid. I do agree that some factions (or possibly just decks) will want one more than the other more often, but I think it's something you'll have to decide on turn-by-turn rather than being able to declare in advance.

I suspect a balanced approach will be the best anyway; too few cards and you have nothing to spend tour resources on, too few resources and you have a hand of useless cards.

I would agree that the balanced approach is the way to go, and would reiterate that the balance should include what you already have. If you have a fistful of cards, go for resources. If you have a bank of resources, go for cards. If you are roughly equal (ie, can pay for the cards you have), you should probably try to keep that equality.

However, I can see Command Struggles being as much about denying my opponent as it is building myself up. Remember, each command struggle I win is a card and/or resource my opponent doesn't get. So, for example, even if I have a fistful of cards, if my opponent's hand is all but empty, I'm going to try to win as many command struggles with cards at stake as possible - not because I particularly want them, but because my opponent needs them.

However, I can see Command Struggles being as much about denying my opponent as it is building myself up. Remember, each command struggle I win is a card and/or resource my opponent doesn't get. So, for example, even if I have a fistful of cards, if my opponent's hand is all but empty, I'm going to try to win as many command struggles with cards at stake as possible - not because I particularly want them, but because my opponent needs them.

That is an excellent point. As any eurogamer will tell you, the balance between getting what you need and denying your opponent what they need is a hard line to walk.

I would agree that the balanced approach is the way to go, and would reiterate that the balance should include what you already have. If you have a fistful of cards, go for resources. If you have a bank of resources, go for cards. If you are roughly equal (ie, can pay for the cards you have), you should probably try to keep that equality.

I would disagree in general about keeping a balance. I think you would usually want more cards than resources to provide options. A balance would result in sub-optimal unit selection--there's not a lot of choice with equal cards and resources. More cards would give more options and allow better use of the units you have. I don't think you would ever want to be in the position of having more resources than cards, at least with more cards than resources you have more knowledge and can plan ahead better.

I would agree that the balanced approach is the way to go, and would reiterate that the balance should include what you already have. If you have a fistful of cards, go for resources. If you have a bank of resources, go for cards. If you are roughly equal (ie, can pay for the cards you have), you should probably try to keep that equality.

I would disagree in general about keeping a balance. I think you would usually want more cards than resources to provide options. A balance would result in sub-optimal unit selection--there's not a lot of choice with equal cards and resources. More cards would give more options and allow better use of the units you have. I don't think you would ever want to be in the position of having more resources than cards, at least with more cards than resources you have more knowledge and can plan ahead better.

That seems a pretty fair assessment - as long as you keep enough resources to be able to make meaningful plays, then card advantage could be a big deal. Gotta be careful not to deck though.

It also depends on the faction. Tau? Need more resources AND cards to get those attachments in play. Space Marine? Need more cards, Sicarus will provide the resources as you bring righteous death to the enemies of the emperor. Etc. etc.

That seems a pretty fair assessment - as long as you keep enough resources to be able to make meaningful plays, then card advantage could be a big deal. Gotta be careful not to deck though.

I can get behind this statement. Remember that I defined my "roughly equal" idea in the balanced approach as being able to pay for what you have. You many have an amazing card advantage, but if you can't play any of them, it doesn't translate into a practical advantage. At that point, the only planning ahead you are probably doing is "I need more resources."

Let's say I could win a command struggle that gets me 2 cards, or one that gets me 2 resources, but not both. If I have 2 resources in the bank and 3 cards in hand (all at 1- or 2-cost) I'm probably going for the cards. But if I have 2 resources in the bank and 3 cards in hand (all at 3-cost or higher) I'm almost certainly going for the resources. Because until I get resources, all the cards in my hand are dead weight and can't help me at all, even if my opponent has just 1 card of his own. Sure, I might draw something cool I can play with my 2 resources, but I've never been able to top-deck like a Yu-Gi-Oh! cartoon.

That seems a pretty fair assessment - as long as you keep enough resources to be able to make meaningful plays, then card advantage could be a big deal. Gotta be careful not to deck though.

I can get behind this statement. Remember that I defined my "roughly equal" idea in the balanced approach as being able to pay for what you have. You many have an amazing card advantage, but if you can't play any of them, it doesn't translate into a practical advantage. At that point, the only planning ahead you are probably doing is "I need more resources."

Let's say I could win a command struggle that gets me 2 cards, or one that gets me 2 resources, but not both. If I have 2 resources in the bank and 3 cards in hand (all at 1- or 2-cost) I'm probably going for the cards. But if I have 2 resources in the bank and 3 cards in hand (all at 3-cost or higher) I'm almost certainly going for the resources. Because until I get resources, all the cards in my hand are dead weight and can't help me at all, even if my opponent has just 1 card of his own. Sure, I might draw something cool I can play with my 2 resources, but I've never been able to top-deck like a Yu-Gi-Oh! cartoon.

BELIEVE IN THE HEART OF THE CARDS, ktom!!

Or, you know, play some kind of tutor like the Tau Earth Caste dude.

given a deck of 50 cards (min) a starting hand of 7

43 cards

over the 7 turns (assuming the game goes that far) you draw 2 cards 6-7 times (not sure if you draw at end of turn 7)

29 cards

to deck yourself you would need to draw more than 4 extra cards per turn

I don't see decking being a problem in this game (especially considering there is no max deck size)

At least until a faction gets mill effects, anyway.

is decking through mill effects viable in any FFG LCG?

I have never seen it in AGOT or SW and in netrunner you would score 7 from archives before you decked a corp

as a future tau player you are welcome to mill (read: spend resources to find my attachments for me) my deck

is decking through mill effects viable in any FFG LCG?

I have never seen it in AGOT or SW and in netrunner you would score 7 from archives before you decked a corp

Can't speak to Netrunner, but in SW, I'm not sure enough "discard a card from a player's deck" effects exist outside of the challenge decks. In AGoT, you don't lose if your deck is empty, so even though it's possible to mill an opponent's deck, very few people bother.

AGOT is where milling is easiest from what I know.

I think this topic will really depend on the deck you are running.

Cato and crew will not need resources as much in command because he can generate his own income with stomping the yard.

Tau on the other hand have some cards that provide resources and low cost but with attachment heavy decks, you will need significantly more card draw to keep up on units, so with that deck, I would focus on filling my hand.

Balance is balance sure but the deck will ultimately decide this for you, unless of course, you are going to deny your opponent all day.

I would say this early in the game cards are much more important. You refresh 4 resources and 2 cards per turn. So card draw isn't a problem, and cards being used for shielding means more cards in your hand, even if you can't afford to deploy, means you can save an already deployed unit.

Related sidenote: One of the actual benefits of Promethium Mine (the controversial card) is that it can free you a TINY bit (not a lot) in going for cards a bit more.

I agree with KTOM in this one. It's never a set rule, either way, imho, but a situational decision. If all things are equal, I'd agree with Darik and go with Cards, generally speaking. But if I already have a lot of cards and I'm hurting for Resources, then I'd go heavier for those.

Having just lost a game to an opponent who repeatedly forced me to discard and actively focused on denying me cards in the command struggle, I can say that being low on cards is far worse than being low on resources.

I had at least 10 resources when I lost.

From a purely abstract standpoint, by 'balance' we mean not drawing more cards than you can ever pay for while also not generating more resources than you can hope to spend. Devoting units to capturing planets that generate the item you don't need is suboptimal notwithstanding the possibility of denying cards or resources to your opponent.

A good rule of thumb is to calculate the average cost of each card in your deck. Some of the web-based deck builders around will do this for you. If your average card costs 2 resources, then try to generate twice as many resources as cards.

That said, I would rather have no resources than no cards.

Psychologically speaking, I agree it is more of a blow to have resources but no cards than it is to have cards but no resources.

Practically speaking, though, it seems to work out about the same -- a lack of real options that you can play.

I have seen karat's situation in reverse -- actively focusing on denying the opponent resources from Command Struggles, and using the few effects that are available to take resources from the other player to great advantage. The 4 resources you get in the HQ phase really don't go too far when they are all the resources you ever see. The end result was about the same (a whole mess of cards in hand when I lost).

But I will admit the feeling of "if only I could get resources" is a lot less demoralizing than the feeling of "if I could only get cards" tends to be.

Ive only had a handful of games and resources were lacking . you have a nice '6' army card or a '4' and you want to hang onto a couple resources for events or actions ....

again , my experience is low but what ive experienced was the pain of low resources . i even had a Prometheum Pit Mine in play !