Simple question: Will upcoming Event (and possibly Tactic) cards end up allowing for a more balanced field in regards to the various factions?

I'm at work right now and don't have my cards with me, but I would like to post a few Event cards (and Tactic cards) and attempt to make a point.

Thoughts?

I find the game to be quite balanced at the moment so I'd like to see your points/examples first.

I hope each faction will get access to "Ranged X".

Lost 5 units with one shot against a ranged 4 unit in one attack! (ranged 2 unit + ranged 2 attachment and oponent had initiative)

Simple question: Will upcoming Event (and possibly Tactic) cards end up allowing for a more balanced field in regards to the various factions?

I'm at work right now and don't have my cards with me, but I would like to post a few Event cards (and Tactic cards) and attempt to make a point.

Thoughts?

As I think FFG is doing a wonderfull job balancing out their Conquest game I do think it will end up for more balanced field. Wherre this is possible.

Altough this is mostly because of the newer cards comming out with newer Warlords who are much more potent than other drops with the same cost in the Core set. For example, I really think the Leman Russ and the Deathwing are overshadowed by the Land Raider because the step from 3 to 4 command icons is much less relevant as the step from 1 to 2 command icons. Because of the way the Warlord interacts with Command Struggles. This often leads to the Land Raider being better as the Leman Russ and Deathwing in special when other units are present at the same planet and we are talking about the Mid to Late game.

I also personally think that currently Packmaster Kith is also one of the most potent Warlords and arguably more powerfull as any other because it always generates card advantage regardless of the situation. Something Old Zogwort also does but balances himself at the end of the Combat Phase... So I currently feel tokens are bit to powerfull in the game as there is isn´t much else about them as normal units. Calamity for example also doesn´t fix that problem so I´d say that FFG would be wise to create a nutral card that dissolves all tokens at any given moment as both Dark Eldar and Orks have easy ways to "save" a bunch of them when they suspect the Doom, Exterminatus etc. comming.

I hope each faction will get access to "Ranged X".

Lost 5 units with one shot against a ranged 4 unit in one attack! (ranged 2 unit + ranged 2 attachment and oponent had initiative)

I agree with you that I hope that each faction will evenatually have Ranged units as they play a very important role in the game almost always bypassing the initiative. Id say currently the Ranged units play a much bigger part as the Flying units and they have included different awnsers to bypass the Flying keyword without really giving an awnser to bypassing the Ranged keyword.

I find the game to be quite balanced at the moment so I'd like to see your points/examples first.

Will do.

Again, I'm at work so I can't give you any concrete examples.

If only gaming was considered work.... oh, the possibilities.....

I hope each faction will get access to "Ranged X".

Lost 5 units with one shot against a ranged 4 unit in one attack! (ranged 2 unit + ranged 2 attachment and oponent had initiative)

You mean Area Effect, I think. Daring Assault Squad with Gun Drones, right?

I hope each faction will get access to "Ranged X".

Lost 5 units with one shot against a ranged 4 unit in one attack! (ranged 2 unit + ranged 2 attachment and oponent had initiative)

You mean Area Effect, I think. Daring Assault Squad with Gun Drones, right?

D'oh! Yeah I meant area effect. (Iusualy go for the ranged combo, hence the mix up.) And you are right about the cards to. I was convinced AE didn't stack and my oponent and the rulebook disagreed with me (and are correct ofcourse)

So yeah, the umpteenth reason why Tau/marines are hard.

One thing to note, regarding this, is that you have to achieve a level playing field without blandness.

As Mark Rosewater points out with Magic The Gathering, "blurring the colours" generally makes for a less interesting and engaging game. Likewise, in Conquest, the distinct game mechanical identities of the factions helps support their sense of identity, and creates a more strategically interesting experience.

While it might be fiction-coherent for every faction to have good access to AoE, Ranged and Mobile, a better overall feel of simulating the fiction is attained if strong mechanical identities are maintained.

Personally I'm happy to see that the Space Marines don't do Ranged much, and that the Eldar don't do AoE, and that sacrifice is a DE/AM mechanic, and so on. If we get to the stage where all factions use all mechanics and all have equivalent units, there'll be very little (save the Warlords) to distinguish one faction from another.

While it might be fiction-coherent for every faction to have good access to AoE, Ranged and Mobile, a better overall feel of simulating the fiction is attained if strong mechanical identities are maintained.

Personally I'm happy to see that the Space Marines don't do Ranged much, and that the Eldar don't do AoE, and that sacrifice is a DE/AM mechanic, and so on. If we get to the stage where all factions use all mechanics and all have equivalent units, there'll be very little (save the Warlords) to distinguish one faction from another.

I totally agree with you that it's important to have clear differences in factions. However keywords like AoE, Ranged and Mobile are not really the things that define a faction. As much as I think that Tyranid cards that will come out should not only create Tokens to "create the swarm feel". To go back to MtG for example, I do not feel Trample is a keyword that should be exclusive to Green or First Strike being exclusive to White.

Imho a great representation of those keywords would be what they do in the Warhammer 40.000 miniature game. AoE should represent the units ability to deal with swarms, Space Marines usually have Bolters and currently have the option to double their shots when an enemy unit is within half range of the Bolter. At the same time the Warhammer 40.000 miniature game have sniper units who directly damage a unit and often have superior ranged combat options, resulting in them often hitting before the opponent even has range on them. Lastly the game includes flying units who are much harder to hit and damage which is currently well represented in the Flying keyword. These again have nothing to do with the faction but much more about unit/vechicle design within the miniature game.

What does define a faction is which cards are bad-mediocre-good-excellent (represented in Tokens, Army with cost 1-2, Army with cost 3-4, Army with cost 5+, Attachment, Support and Event. This basicly represents how well they are equiped for the lategame and endgame. Currently the game is in a state where there isn't a huge punishment for not playing heavy on the early game, leading to SM/Tau and Eldar/DE being favoured.

In the following example I exclude the Warlord because I feel every faction should have good Warlords, note that a good Warlord is not only defined by how well he battles himself), so far this has been quite clear. With some exceptions (like Bloodletters having an AoE but the Leman Russ lacking it, while Bloodletters ingame excell at destroying infantry as much as the Leman Russ).

Currently I feel each faction has the following bad to excellent Core cards, excluding Warlords :

Space Marines: T: Bad, A1-2: Excellent, A3-4: Excellent, A5+: Good, A: Good, S: Mediocre, E: Good

Astrum Militarum: T: Mediocre, A1-2: Medicore, A3-4: Excellent, A5+: Good, A: Bad, S: Excellent, E: Good

Tau: T: Bad, A1-2: Excellent, A3-4: Mediocre, A5+: Excellent, A: Excellent, S: Good, E: Medicore

Eldar: T: Bad, A1-2: Excellent, A3-4: Good, A5+: Good, A: Mediocre, S: Medicore, E: Excellent

Dark Eldar: T: Good, A1-2: Good, A3-4: Excellent, A5+: Good, A: Mediocre, S: Good, E: Good

Chaos: T: Good, A1-2: Mediocre, A3-4: Good, A5+: Excellent, A: Mediocre, S: Good, E: Excellent

Orks: T: Good, A1-2: Good, A3-4: Excellent, A5+: Mediocre, A: Mediocre, S: Good, E: Good

T = Token

A1-2 = Army cost 1 to 2

A3-4 = Army cost 3 to 4

A5+ = Army cost 5 or more

A = Attachment

S = Support

E = Event

The great thing about the above set up is that when you would give a digit to the Bad (1), Mediocre (2), Good (3), Excellent (4) cards they all add up to 20. With the only real exception being the Dark Eldar and Chaos now, who in my book end up at 21 points. However this is balanced by the lack of their Command Icons on their 1 to 4 drops. Apart from this I also feel that people might confuse the Dark Eldar with having Excellent tokens, which is partially because they have the first Warlord who actually creates them.

Chaos on the other hand as a Core set deck is more balanced because of the heavy inclusion of 5+ drops. It is the only deck who actually includes a multitude of them, 6 cards in total , what is more than 1/4th of their Core deck without the 6 neutrals. Often leading to chaotic hands, quite litterly and a abundance of late drops that are not favoured by the game right now or can lead to akward mulligans with the Core set as the only deck.

On the other hand Astrum Militarum feels worse from a Core set perspective because Straken probably is the Warlord who currently interacts the least with his deck.

Normally one could include Command aswell to this list but I feel that only for the Core set there is a slight feel of unbalance for the Command struggles. If for example the deck contains in the Core set would have been different or more comparable the Dark Eldar Warlord and Chaos Warlord would probably be considerd to powerfull for a Core set battle. However, with Command being the ability to control certain sectors I feel Dark Eldar and Chaos will probably gain more units with good Command for their cost (as spoiled) for units being less explosive in combat.

I believe cards for these factions will continue to be released in this trend. With expensions dedicating from time to time wheter or not it's good to play heavily on the 1-2 drops or 3+ drops. We have seen FFG is aware that the game is favoured in 1-2 drops because this way your initial turn will give you the most resources. However cards like Calamity are there to balance things out, eventually leading to a better overall balance. The great thing about Neutral cards like these is that people don't get as much mad as if these cards would be limited to a certain faction.

Personally I think the Ranged keyword is not lacking on the Army cards Space Marine or Chaos Space Marine have available. Ranged imho is a keyword best used for snipers/assassins within the faction. Space Marines have Sniper Scouts but these are not yet represented in the game. Personally I could see people wondering why the Land Speeder does not have Mobile but then again the vechicle is not designed to go from planet to planet as some of the Tau and Eldar vechicles are.

So for me there really only a few units that rule wise are a bit out of place, these are:

- Daring Assault Squad, probably should have AoE (1) and 2 Command Icons (Mordian Hellhound) as they are probably equiped with Flamers and other assault weaponry

- Leman Russ Battle Tank, probably should have AoE (3) in favour of having 4 Command Icons) as they are able to blow holes in units of Space Marines or just have a cost of 6 with 3 Command and 3 AoE.

- Modian Hellhound, probably should have AoE (2) and 1 Command Icon (Daring Assault Squad) as it's main weapon is a heavy flamer cannon ball

- Enraged Ork, probably should be 1/4 with Brutal instead of 0/5 with Brutal, they are allready Enraged right?

- Pact of the Haemonculi, probably should say non-token unit, it's a small difference but considering how much tokens Kith generates the downside doesn't feel like a downside at all cardswise.

- Carnivore Pack, probably should give 1 Resource when it destroys a unit instead of gaining 3 when it is destroyed.

One thing to note, regarding this, is that you have to achieve a level playing field without blandness.

As Mark Rosewater points out with Magic The Gathering, "blurring the colours" generally makes for a less interesting and engaging game. Likewise, in Conquest, the distinct game mechanical identities of the factions helps support their sense of identity, and creates a more strategically interesting experience.

While it might be fiction-coherent for every faction to have good access to AoE, Ranged and Mobile, a better overall feel of simulating the fiction is attained if strong mechanical identities are maintained.

Personally I'm happy to see that the Space Marines don't do Ranged much, and that the Eldar don't do AoE, and that sacrifice is a DE/AM mechanic, and so on. If we get to the stage where all factions use all mechanics and all have equivalent units, there'll be very little (save the Warlords) to distinguish one faction from another.

You (and MaRo) certainly have a point, but in Magic you can freely combine all five colors while in 40C you are stuck with your faction and its two adjacent allies. In magic if i want to take big green creatures and add some black for creature removal I can.

One thing to note, regarding this, is that you have to achieve a level playing field without blandness.

As Mark Rosewater points out with Magic The Gathering, "blurring the colours" generally makes for a less interesting and engaging game. Likewise, in Conquest, the distinct game mechanical identities of the factions helps support their sense of identity, and creates a more strategically interesting experience.

While it might be fiction-coherent for every faction to have good access to AoE, Ranged and Mobile, a better overall feel of simulating the fiction is attained if strong mechanical identities are maintained.

Personally I'm happy to see that the Space Marines don't do Ranged much, and that the Eldar don't do AoE, and that sacrifice is a DE/AM mechanic, and so on. If we get to the stage where all factions use all mechanics and all have equivalent units, there'll be very little (save the Warlords) to distinguish one faction from another.

You (and MaRo) certainly have a point, but in Magic you can freely combine all five colors while in 40C you are stuck with your faction and its two adjacent allies. In magic if i want to take big green creatures and add some black for creature removal I can.

Very true!

I think thats why some elements turn up in more than one faction.

Sacrifice-for-benefit, for example, seems to be a DE/AM thing at present. That potentially makes it available to 6 of the 7 factions. Only Tau miss out on that, and thats kind of thematic when we consider how opposed to attrition warfare the Tau mindset is.

Also, we can look at game mechanics that achieve similar goals in game, but maintain a sense of faction identity.

For example, Doom, Exterminatus and Warpstorm are all soft board resets, but their different flavours reflect their factions different inclinations and mechanics (playing for the long game, ignore the numbers and direct damage respectively).

While it's true that certain cards interact more with the general flavour I do feel that in 40K there is a much more mixed colour pallette as there is in Magic. Honestly the 5 colours are even mixed nowadays, imho so much some cards just don't make sence flavour wise. But that's just my current gripe with Magic the Gathering in general.

Back onto the keywords however I do think they will appear cross-factions more as some might expect. Mainly because in 40K each faction actually has a comparable unit altough they might be weaker cross-faction for the cost because of the way the faction is put into the cardgame as a whole.

Some examples I'd expect:

Space Marines: Cost 2: Scout Snipers 2/1 Ranged Armor Piercing Command 1. More expensive than seen before but still very much in the trent of what to expect from Space Marines. Also very powerfull in combination with The Fury of Sicarus

Prism Cannon: Cost 2: Hardpoint. Weapon. Attach to Eldar vechicle, when attached unit attacks chose one

- AoE (2)

- + 2 ATK Armor Piercing

Dark Eldar: Cost 1: Torture. Attach to an army unit. Attached unit loses all Command Icons.

They all are less available for the faction but still there if you want to deal with specific match ups and also fit the fluff well enough.

While I would love to be able to give thorough examples (such as Killax and others have) to buttress my thoughts, I will merely say that in general, I feel that Event cards will steer the game (and I would also argue the meta) into a more 'balanced' field of competition for the various 7 factions (and certainly for the upcoming 2 factions) due to common Event cards (those that certainly might be afforded in upcoming releases) that all factions can choose from and use in their decks.

In summary; If and when general neutral Event cards come out, I would think that this would have a larger impact on the game than we might consider now. (I would also add neutral Tactic cards to this mix)

My apologies for not having responded to this thread earlier.... I was locked in combat with the nephews.

I feel your on the right track on that one Papa Midnight. I feel Events, in special the Neutral ones are ideal to steer the meta into a certain direction. I do feel that Calamity is just the start and imho think it would be cool if there actually was a 4 cost card that would destroy all Tokens and 1-2 drops. It would be very powerfull but just like in MtG a boardwhipe is a very interesting concept in order to let heavy costed decks shine more.

Yes if they are gonna include a reset button card, they might aswell make it neutral one. Keeps things fair for all factions.

Yes if they are gonna include a reset button card, they might aswell make it neutral one. Keeps things fair for all factions.

Exactly the point I was trying to make and also the reason why I feel Calamity is only the beginning. FFG has shown us Neutral Inquisitors allready so Im sure a Neutral "Doom/Exterminatus" is not out of the question.

Yes if they are gonna include a reset button card, they might aswell make it neutral one. Keeps things fair for all factions.

Exactly the point I was trying to make and also the reason why I feel Calamity is only the beginning. FFG has shown us Neutral Inquisitors allready so Im sure a Neutral "Doom/Exterminatus" is not out of the question.

Precisely what I was trying to state.

Calamity and the upcoming Neutral "destroy all of X cards on the board" are seriously needed and warranted, given all of the various factions and their specific workings with their faction-only cards.

Good point.

My only worry with strong neutral cards, like the previewed Inquisitor, is that you rapidly reach a stage where they become automatic includes in every tourney deck, which closes the number of deck slots that can be effectively customised.

For example, in AGOT LCG, there was a stage in the game when it was simply considered required to run Ygritte and Coldhands , for their general abilities. This phase passed, as decks overall became stronger and stronger from the expanding card pool and it moved beyond a level where they were autoincludes, but for a long time a lot of tourney players said that you start the deck by including them. Its still the case with some other cards, like the neutral 0-cost discounter cards that make their way into almost every competitive deck, and the ubiquitous 3x Harrenhal that every deck must carry.

Swinging this back to 40k, we're nowhere near that stage yet, but I think it will be very likely the case that the neutral Inquisitor will be considered a 1x autoinclude for any tourney deck, for the sheer power of its effect and its ability to almost fully negate decks that rely on the long game and big hands of cards in the final stages. This might be mitigated by a shift in the meta where people fear the card and don't play decks it can hurt. We're already at the stage where 3 x Void Pirate is pretty much an automatic pick, and 3 x Rogue Trader and 3 x Promotion almost as much so. This is the threat of strong neutral cards: they compress tourney decks into similarity of build, and leave less room for a deckbuilder to make choices in deckbuilding.

I don't think this is a problem at present. Even if I have 8 sig cards, 3 Void Pirates and 3 Promotions, I still have 36 more choices to make, though once you take the "common sense" choices I often find the true decision points are across about 10 card slots at most. However, I'd hesitate to desire or push for a meta that is filled with strong neutral cards that every tourney deck wants to include.

I agree, altough the same could be said for faction specific cards. Why wouldn't you include "possessed" in a chaos deck or "preemptive barrage" for instance.

But the whole "meta" thing is why i rarely play tournaments.

I hope each faction will get access to "Ranged X".

Lost 5 units with one shot against a ranged 4 unit in one attack! (ranged 2 unit + ranged 2 attachment and oponent had initiative)

How does this work, doesn't ranged only happen the first round of combat, was it ranged AOE. Is that doable right now?

Calamity and the upcoming Neutral "destroy all of X cards on the board" are seriously needed and warranted, given all of the various factions and their specific workings with their faction-only cards

Honestly, my concern here is that there will be too many of these around. You already have all factions having access to some form of board wipe or another. Calamity is fine too, but I hope we are not going to continue to see them. I don't really like the idea of decks that can just play some form of reset or other continually. Unfortunately, if past experience in ccgs is any indicator, we will see them.

@Titan

At this point in time, with the release of the core cards and a single pack, our fears are a little premature, methinks. Though I totally see your point.

It also depends on what the next 5 battle packs' focus is in regards to Neutral Event and Tactic cards.

I agree, altough the same could be said for faction specific cards. Why wouldn't you include "possessed" in a chaos deck or "preemptive barrage" for instance.

But the whole "meta" thing is why i rarely play tournaments.

Oh I can think of plenty of reasons not to play Possessed in a Chaos deck. For starters, one GIANT attack against one target is usually not as useful as several smaller attacks that can spread around to different targets. Remember how hammered you got with that AoE: 4? It would've killed the Possessed as well. That 9 attack just isn't that good with only 4 health to back it up.

Preemptive Barrage is not all that useful against someone that can ready themselves...like, say Flash Gitz?

Just two examples. The game is low on "staples" right now, but I'm beginning to think that Void Pirate>Rogue Trader when you're looking for a command unit that gives you a bonus. Cards>resources so far, I think.

Event cards very much CAN be the level the playing field card, though perhaps not in the way that we are thinking. Events have shields, and the timely shield is the end-all, be-all for this game, IMNSHO. So, the real lynchpin of success? Armorbane or - barring that - discard. Fear the Dark Eldar....

It took me a while and is also a 100% offtopic but when multiple Cultists are included (3x Splintered Path Acolythe, 3x Chaos Fanatics, 3x Promise of Glory and a possible inclusion of Umbral Preacher) Ravenous Flesh Hounds often out preform the Possessed by a lot.

As for staples, I feel each faction has them allready in the form of 3 1 drops and 3 2 drops, most factions start this way and currently I feel the Tau with Earth Caste Technician are the best equiped because they find Iron Halo, Promotion, Ion Rifle and the signature Attachments of Warlords (adding up to enough good Attachments to make ECT really good).

And in my problem that is somewhat where the reason lies why Tau and SM preform so well. Currently I feel Kith is only second best and a good Dark Eldar player for sure can win from Cato but it still isnt an easy task by any means.

Because of this, Im looking forward to more board removal Events, but Dakka Dakka Dakka! is sure to boost Orks in the right competative direction.

It took me a while and is also a 100% offtopic but when multiple Cultists are included (3x Splintered Path Acolythe, 3x Chaos Fanatics, 3x Promise of Glory and a possible inclusion of Umbral Preacher) Ravenous Flesh Hounds often out preform the Possessed by a lot.

Could not agree more. Yes, there are some advantages to Possessed. For one, they can be a huge deterrent to warlord deployment, since they can bloody or kill a warlord outright. They are also good to take out big units in one shot. But generally, I do prefer the staying power of the Flesh Hounds, or the firepower of the Vicious Bloodletter. Darik hit the nail right on the head when he said one giant attack is inferior to several smaller ones.

As for staples, I think that neutral cards have the best chance at becoming one. Reason being that they can be used with any faction, therefore they become true staples. Faction cards can only be used within a relatively limited number of factions, and won't be true gamewide staples.