Are most LCGs designed in order to have a 50% parity between players?

1) What I am asking is: Is Warhammer Conquest designed so that, on average , two decks/factions going up head-to-head are likely to triumph 50% of the time, in all circumstances? (with deck composition being the highest variable to factor in comparisons)

2) Secondly, are tournament gaming setups, which require a player to win the best of 3 games, balanced toward all factions within general parameters of collectible card games?

edit: I don't know if I'm asking this in the right way.

All of the factions should be balanced so that on average, one deck playing a variety of decks/factions should on average win 50% of the time with the following assumptions:

1. Identical skill of the players. A player making poor/unskilled plays when the opponent is playing a perfect game at Grandmaster level is not a fair match for other reasons.
2. Identical levels of deckbuilding skill and no counter-decking. IE no "I built this deck specifically to crush yours"

If you could somehow eliminate player skill and deck composition as variables:

I think it will emerge that some factions are stronger in specific matchups (eg tau/SM has tons of AOE which can really complicate life for Dark Eldar since they rely on token swarm), but deck construction and player skill seems to make a much larger difference than faction advantage.

If Tau/SM goes for 100 matches against dark eldar, Tau/SM may win 70% of games. If the same Tau/SM combo played 100 games against each other possible faction combo, then you should expect to see a 50% win rate (see assumptions above).

Also bear in mind that there are a lot more "factions" than you see at first glance. Tau/SM is very different from SM/Tau, which is also very different than mono-Tau or mono-SM. There are really 21 "factions" when you include ally combos, which can significantly alter the function of a deck.

Someone at some point on either this forum or BGG suggested that comparing factions for balance is actually not very effective. As the game progresses, each faction will have multiple warlords each with different abilities and signature squads. With that in mind, it may actually be better to consider balance in terms of Warlords instead of Factions. e.g. Dark Eldar has a strong reliance on Khymera tokens, creating a weakness to AoE effects. All of the token effects are tied to the current warlord and signatures. A future DE warlord might not have any reliance on tokens at all, thus no special weakness to AoE effects.

The weaknesses/strengths of a specific faction may be more closely tied to the warlord than the faction.

1) that's the dream, not usually realistic. Over the course of a games life some factions will be up and others will be down. Usually most games end up with a rock-paper-scissors balance where the good players can figure out the meta and design a deck that has a chance against a bad match up.

2) best of 3 helps with bad draws. Even with the best deck there can be bad draws, so that's where best of 3 helps. If you build a scissors deck and the other guy has a rock deck best of three just means you'll lose twice. Also best of 3 can hurt combo decks, since your opponent might know what's coming and how to avoid.

Follow up question:

Are 2 games out of 3 "enough" in competition in irder to elevate the better deck/player? (would anyone support a higher number of wins; along 3 out of 5 wins?)

Secondly, do certain factions make "it easier" to win matches in best of 3? (as opposed to other factions that might rely less on consecutive wins and more on grinding down your opponent and his deck?)

1) I think the game might take a too long to play best of 3. I think Netrunner and Star Wars run into this problem during elimination rounds. The Swiss format is pretty good at allowing the best players to rise. But with all tournaments there's some luck in pairings that are more favorable than others. If you get two bad match ups right away you'll be unlikely to make the cut.

I'd prefer maximizing different opponents and live with the variability of my deck. Also I have a finite number of games before my brain turns to mush. So swiss followed by elimination is good enough for me.

The best of three i think originated from ccg's like magic/pokemon... which in my experience have about half the average playtime of conquest... so i think time will be an evolving concern once a few tourneys are in the bag.

i Do think it allows for a good combat between two decks/players (especially with the free mulligan offered in Conquest, to mitigate terrible draws)

I think the order of the planets is the driving factor of which decks are more successful...meaning its much harder to win with the finesse factions if the first three (and sometimes four) planets share a color, and a faction such as orcs jsut keep piling onto the first planet every turn, with minimal command investment.

So far my 1 Core Chaos/DE has a 100% Win/Loss against 1 Core AM/SM and SM/AG (the combos my friend is experimenting with to the exclusion of SM/Tau, Tau/SM, AM/Orks, Orks/AM), however I attribute this more to inexperience on my friend's part, this is his first card game and my ##th (1st LCG), 10+ years of TCG/CCG experience definitely can sway a game despite unfamiliarity with new gameplay mechanics and concepts.