Would/Do you game with a deck that is larger than 50 cards?

I would imagine that there are players who toss in a few (1-3?) cards into their deck due to multiple reasons, but do any of you play with larger (more than let's say 55 cards) deck sizes?

If so, is it playable? Is it restrictive?

(ie: Can you win with it?)

So far I've been sticking to 50 cards decks, but I doubt I always will. In AGOT, I virtually never stick to the 60 card minimum. I don't go too far over, but 62-64 is probably what I run.

Of course you can win with it. It might from a strictly mathematical viewpoint be more consistent to stick to exactly 50, but I suspect that you're unlikely to really notice much difference if you were playing with 52 or 53 cards. At some point, you will just want to go higher. You -could- cut some card to 2 copies, but you'd rather have the 3rd copy, and why not.

When you take into account something like Magic The Gathering, or even Netrunner, deck consistency comes into mind in that the number of cards you draw are fixed (1 per turn usually) except for a few cases where you can exchange your actions to draw more cards (which is universally available in Netrunner, and needs a card to be played in magic for instance)

This game has something a bit different, in that every turn you can boost your draws by the command struggle portion of the game.

Sometimes it may be worth having more 'utility' cards that have multiple uses (i.e. something that has shields and command icons for instance) in your deck because of the hopefully increased draw effects they can provide by either bolstering your command presence directly, or saving your better units to keep them around during the command struggle.

Of course, you then need to consider threat density, as long as your percentage of threats remains consistant in your larger deck, you have as much of a chance of pulling out threats in the same volume of deck size, and then if your command struggle effects are boosted as well, you end up drawing more cards in the same period of time.

Of course, the argument comes in what makes a threat card, and are the cards all equal in 'threat level' - the answer is probably no at the moment, and if your deck only has 3 cards that can end the game for you, no amount of additional threat cards can increase your threat density.

Of course, the argument comes in what makes a threat card, and are the cards all equal in 'threat level' - the answer is probably no at the moment, and if your deck only has 3 cards that can end the game for you, no amount of additional threat cards can increase your threat density.

I pretty much follow what you are saying, but can you elaborate some concerning your quote above?

When you say 'threat density', what do you mean exactly?

Thanks.

Of course, the argument comes in what makes a threat card, and are the cards all equal in 'threat level' - the answer is probably no at the moment, and if your deck only has 3 cards that can end the game for you, no amount of additional threat cards can increase your threat density.

I pretty much follow what you are saying, but can you elaborate some concerning your quote above?

When you say 'threat density', what do you mean exactly?

Thanks.

I believe the term refers to how many scary cards you have per cards in your deck. IE if you have 10 Scary Cards in your 50 card deck it would be 20%, if you have 11 Scary Cards but you go up to 56 cards total that is less than 20% so it might be worse than your original deck.

If I understand this concept correctly, (you will have to forgive me I am more of a miniatures player than a card player)

Yeah basically that's what I mean.

You may have 3 cards which you are counting on to win the game for you.

If you surround that with 47 other cards which 'help you get there' you will get them sooner than if you have 57 cards which 'get you there'.

Now in reality, you should have a much larger percentage of cards which advance your win condition (typically something that does really well in combat so you can either beat their warlord or win multiple planets) rather than relying on 1 or 2 cards to do the job for you.

However, if you have those same 57 'non threat' cards, and the extra 10 cards can get drawn and played much sooner than 10 cards in a 47 'non threat' card deck due to you doing so much better than your opponent in the command struggle so you're getting loads of card draw and resources every turn, it can prove to be that you can find your 3 threats just as fast, and you're then in a better position in future turns due to having an unbeatable advantage in the command struggles.

Of course, anything sounds plausible in a vacuum - when your opponent is trying to stop you doing what you're aiming to do, that's when it gets complicated.

There is also the 'mill' and discard aspects to consider, where your opponent forces you to either discard from your deck or your hand.

The former is not in the game (yet) and the latter is at this time; mostly confined to Dark Eldar cards, and one planet's Battle Ability.

The former is not in the game (yet)

Warp Spiders.

Ok, that's a weak example, but it IS in there

I meant in the sense of it being viable.

And all Eldar are weak..

I used to know someone who insisted that a deck should be the minimum size plus however many cards were drawn for the starting hand. I never saw the point that an extra seven cards would save you from mill decks but he would not deck build any other way.

I used to know someone who insisted that a deck should be the minimum size plus however means cards were drawn for the starting hand. I never saw the point that an extra seven cards would save you from mill decks but he would not deck build any other way.

I wonder how well he did with that strategy. Interesting.