for those who played alot of conquest so far, what would you say is the playstyle of each faction?

In my opinion, the Warlord has a lot of weight for the playstyle of the faction. Take Space Marines for exemple. If you play Cato, you are like a mid-range deck having good defense and offense overall, but if you play Blackmane, you still are Space Marines, but you have a much more aggressive approach.

The deckbuilding is not 50 cards, it's 42+8 and those 8 cards plus the warlord have a lot to say on how you will play your faction.

i agre with timezero: it's not the faction, it's the warlord. Plus, it's also the ally faction (if any) you choose to side with.

I'd break it down like so: Each warlord excels at something. IMO I'll say these are the main categories:

Command - winning enough command that by mid-to late game they've got enough cards/resources to overwhelm

Choke - denying you cards and/or resources

Control - having card abilites and/or events tha limit what you can do

Swarm - overwhelm you with units

Offense - smack em first and smack em hard

Overall - just good/consistent all around

Cato - Overall

Ragnar - Offense

Straken - Offense (by attrition)/Control/Swarm

Nazdreg - Offense

Zarathur - Offense/Control

Ku'Gath - Control/Offense

Kith - Choke/Control/Swarm/Command

Eldorath - Command/Control

Shadowsun - Offense/Command

Aun'Shi - Offense

This is a crude breakdown as just a few cards can change the deck style. But that's a starting point.

Cool rundown Sammann.

I'm working on something like the above for Cardgamedb forums. I'll link the article once it's finished. Altough it's going to be 20+ pages long if I would put it out there at once.

Guess it will become a weekly thing...

The factions all do have a very specific feel to them, regardless of warlord.

AM - sacrificial shenanigans, support card synergy

Chaos - direct / indirect damage

Dark Eldar - event focused disruption

Eldar - board control

Orks - aggro

Space Marines - combat tricks and disruption

Tau - attachments / unit synergy

The factions all do have a very specific feel to them, regardless of warlord.

I do dissagree totally with that statement despite agreeing partially with your faction analysis because specific Warlords can totally alter the set up of the deck which in turn make the above analysis incorrect as Warlords are also part of a specific faction.

Some examples:

- AM does not have a multitude of in build sacrificial shenanigans. Their Unique unit does and Coteaz does but many of the other cards from this faction do not.

- DE is not fully Event based disruption, much of their disruption actually comes from their Army units and Support.

- Eldar do not have a way to control the board. They have a single card that can blow up HQ's. Chaos on the other hand is the closest we have in terms of board control by a multitude of removal cards.

- Orks are not Aggro. Zogwort himself is but the reason many struggle to find a deck for him is because Orks support a mid to lategame deck much better. In short Berserk works better on bodies who are ideally set up for combat.

- Space Marines disruption is limited to Shield cards and Indomitable. Their combat tricks are also minimal but they do have the most in-faction "Ambush" options.

Yeah yeah yeah, there are obvious exceptions. There's really no reason to wax contrary over some very general, broad observations.

A single board wipe is not what I'm referring to when I say board control. Tap-down effects, mobility, and in-house resource capitalization all figure into my Eldar analysis. Blowing stuff up is not the extent of board control. Orks most definitely fit the aggro archetype - all of their cards are very low on the curve, and, until Ammo Depot was released, they had no consistent means of gaining card advantage. Space Marines have ADPs and Maxos, which is exactly what I was referring to. Perhaps it would be prudent to understand my comments before attempting to correct them.

Yeah yeah yeah, there are obvious exceptions. There's really no reason to wax contrary over some very general, broad observations.

A single board wipe is not what I'm referring to when I say board control. Tap-down effects, mobility, and in-house resource capitalization all figure into my Eldar analysis. Blowing stuff up is not the extent of board control. Orks most definitely fit the aggro archetype - all of their cards are very low on the curve, and, until Ammo Depot was released, they had no consistent means of gaining card advantage. Space Marines have ADPs and Maxos, which is exactly what I was referring to. Perhaps it would be prudent to understand my comments before attempting to correct them.

But if the broad observations are not correct, it's important to state that for a beginning player. Orks are not about Aggro and Eldar are not about board control, it's as simple as that.

Regarding Eldar, tap down effects are exclusive to Eldorath, Mobile is the domain of Baharroth and I can only agree with you that Eldar are about resource capitalization (but each faction is because they need it to further progress)...

Removing pieces or being able to influence pieces from the board is board control and Eldar as a faction are not really about that.

There is really nothing that points Orks to being an aggresive faction, in fact, I'd say they are closer to board control and midgame even when we are looking at the Core set only. This 'lower curve' you speak of for Orks actually is non-excistant.

In fact the only current Ork cards that fit Aggro are Goff Boyz, Snotling Attack and (Warlord) Zogwort himself...

You're wrong, and I really don't have the time and energy to repeat myself or quibble over semantics.

You're wrong, and I really don't have the time and energy to repeat myself or quibble over semantics.

Tournament results and gameplay have not proven me wrong thus far.

Tournament results and gameplay have not proven me wrong thus far.

They haven't proven you right either, since you're not presenting them. It's also not especially relevant to the topic at hand. Deck archetypes aren't about how different the warlords are, it's about what the faction as a whole has in common. So what if Eldorath is the only one who taps things, and Baharroth does something else? Those both fit under the umbrella of my fairly broad description, and no matter how much you take issue with my choice of words, it doesn't make me wrong. Board control is not determined solely by removal. It's also about presence, which in this game is spread across several planets. Eldar do that very well, while at the same time manipulating the opponent's presence. That's board control.

We're talking about a fledgling game with an extremely limited card pool. I can build a deck for any given faction, with either current warlord, that would easily conform to my above analysis. Yes, there are exceptions. Yes, each faction can do a little bit of everything. Yes, each faction has cards that don't contribute to their primary play style. None of that is a reasonable counter to my broad - and accurate - observations.

They haven't proven you right either, since you're not presenting them. It's also not especially relevant to the topic at hand. Deck archetypes aren't about how different the warlords are , it's about what the faction as a whole has in common. So what if Eldorath is the only one who taps things, and Baharroth does something else? Those both fit under the umbrella of my fairly broad description, and no matter how much you take issue with my choice of words, it doesn't make me wrong. Board control is not determined solely by removal. It's also about presence, which in this game is spread across several planets. Eldar do that very well, while at the same time manipulating the opponent's presence. That's board control.

We're talking about a fledgling game with an extremely limited card pool. I can build a deck for any given faction, with either current warlord, that would easily conform to my above analysis. Yes, there are exceptions. Yes, each faction can do a little bit of everything. Yes, each faction has cards that don't contribute to their primary play style. None of that is a reasonable counter to my broad - and accurate - observations.

They have. But none is asking for me to present them here.

- Decktypes are about how different Warlords are. You cannot make a deck without a Warlord.

- Warlord abilities allow you to profit from them, a deck that profits from those abilities has a better chance to succes than a deck that is constructed without the Warlord in mind. I could give you many examples of this.

- Board control is not about removal solely, we do agree. But please mark the cards who you think are about board control in Eldar. As the statement by itself helps nobody. If you'd argue that Command presence (which has nothing to do directly with board control) is part of it, we could agree partially, altough it would still be wrong to say it is a part of it as your opponent is able to play against that aswell. Hence calling it Command presence and not a form of control.

I (and more with me) see many exceptions to what you are saying. To many to say you are correct. As such, without further statements of actual cards, your above analysis is still largely incorrect.

As I believe you have looked into the game but played not that often I think it's important to note that many new players should be aware that:

- Unlike other cardgames, Conquest is not an open deckbuilding game. You have to build a deck of 50 cards (minimum) and 8 of these are allready set. If new players ignore the Warlord and their cards your ignoring the most important piece of the deck that is actually your Warlord.

- Commiting with Warlords allow you to battle, battles allow you to remove pieces of the game with your Army and Warlord cards directly thus gaining you a form of card advantage that will eventually win you the game. Supports can contribute to this altough there are not many ways to actually directly remove opposing pieces with them (Ork Kannon being the only notable exception). There are also many Events who help in battles but these also do not always directly cause card advantage.

- After a Warlord is picked, it is important to note which cards they come with and interact with. When this step is ignored, you'll end up with a deck that has less than optimal synergy. Examples of this are the quantity of Attachment cards in Shadowsun's deck, the quantity of Warrior/Soldier cards in Straken's deck and even the quantity of removal cards in Zarathur's deck. There are many more options for this.

So for any new player, I would suggest looking into a specific Warlord to play and build a deck around it. The faction analysis without the Warlord is an analysis bound to fail because Warlords allow you to play the most important part of the game.

You seem to be confused. Nobody is talking about decks, we're talking about factions. Decks are influenced by warlords, yes, but that doesn't mean you can't make generalizations about the factions. Your penchant for niggling and contrariness isn't doing anything to advance the actual thread topic, inform OP, or help new players.

As I believe you have looked into the game but played not that often...

In the interest of maintaining civility, I'll calmly ask you to get over yourself. I could say far, far worse things, but instead you can rest assured that I have plenty of experience. Probably more than some folks here.

You seem to be confused. Nobody is talking about decks, we're talking about factions. Decks are influenced by warlords, yes, but that doesn't mean you can't make generalizations about the factions. Your penchant for niggling and contrariness isn't doing anything to advance the actual thread topic, inform OP, or help new players.

Your inability to actually confirm your statements with spefic cards still leads me to believe you actually have played sufficient Conquest to make a statement of the better.

The point being here is how factions are played depends on the deck. How the deck is constructed depends on the Warlord.

This is because you actually can't play a faction without a deck or Warlord. I hope you understand.

I simply don't have the time to break down each individual card, especially since that isn't the point of this thread.

The point being here is how factions are played depends on the deck. How the deck is constructed depends on the Warlord.

This comment is about as fallacious as it gets. A subset of a thing does not qualify the whole. It is, in fact, quite the opposite. I hope you understand.

I simply don't have the time to break down each individual card, especially since that isn't the point of this thread.

The point being here is how factions are played depends on the deck. How the deck is constructed depends on the Warlord.

This comment is about as fallacious as it gets. A subset of a thing does not qualify the whole. It is, in fact, quite the opposite. I hope you understand.

Killax isn't asking to breakdown each every single cards, he's asking that you bring some cards as evidence to your claim.

In a previous thread you asked many times to booored : ''How much of the game gave you played so far?''

He didn't answer and made more empty claims. Now you're kinda acting like that with this post: ''I simply don't have the time to break down each individual card, especially since that isn't the point of this thread .''

It is exactly the point of this thread.

I don't have hundreads of games of experience in Conquest, but I have enough experience in card games in the past 20 years to easily identify that how the factions are played are largely affected by the Warlords are their signature cards and not the opposite.

For exemple: Eldorath Starbane is a control Warlord, but Eldar in its whole isn't a control faction. Baharroth will be a much more aggressive/midrange Warlord. Both of those Warlords have access to the same card pool, but the Warlord's text affects how you will craft your gameplan. Eldar has ''classic control cards'' effects -> Doom for mass removal and Nullify for counterspell, but does that make the Eldar a control faction? NO. They would need much more than that, but Eldorath fits the control type because of his effect and his 8 cards and not because of the faction as a whole.

Chaos is what is the closest to control. They have a large amount of removal: Tzeentch's Firestorm, Warpstorm, Nurgle Bomb, Dire Mutation and each Warlords have access to additional direct or indirect removal from their signature cards such as Zarathur's Flamer and Kugath's Nurglings. The only thing they are lacking is a Nullify-ish card.

Apparently discovering common denominators is beyond people. If anyone's purpose is to convince me that there's absolutely no inter-faction commonality, they're doing a sore job of it.

Let me craft an analogy. Hopefully some of you have played M;tG Commander, so you'll understand my point. You construct a deck based around a legend card, something you might consider akin to a warlord. Sometimes you pick a commander for his abilities, other times for his color identity. Either way, the commander itself is not a thoroughly representative figure of his compounded colors. Would you say that the colors have no uniquely perceivable qualities to them, simply because the legend doesn't reflect them accurately in a given deck? Of course not. All colors in Magic maintain their share of the color pie, just as the factions in conquest have a unique feel and play style. Yes, the warlords augment that to a certain degree, but they still share common ground with the overarching theme of their respective factions.

I've been extremely busy this past weekend, socializing with friends and playing games at the local shop. I do not always have access to the resources I would like in order to better illustrate my points, nor the time to write small essays for you, so I've made them as broad as possible. You may not be aware of this, but the vast number of my posts are constructed on my phone. Even without breaking down specific cards, there is enough merit to my observations that I shouldn't have to suffer this garrulous quibbling. If nobody here can understand that which is especially obvious to my eyes, like how Orks are without doubt an aggro oriented faction, there is little I can do to convince them otherwise. Open your eyes, and perhaps I'll discover the incentive to respond with a more specific investigation of the cards, better expenditures of my time notwithstanding. Until then, you may again rest assured that I have ample experience with this game.

This looks to be a communication issue.

Wonderwaagh is saying that broad generalisations can be made with regards to mechanical thematic elements that run through each faction. This is correct. To take the MTG analogy, he is saying that "Red has attributes, and Blue has attributes", not that "decks can be Red, or they can be Blue"

Killax is saying that this is a secondary issue, and a misleading way to look at the game, as deck construction is led by Warlords. He is saying that the shape and character of actual decks in play is not led primarily by the faction of the chosen Warlord, but rather by the Warlord itself, and the alliance context. This is also correct.

You are arguing on different terms, and aside from saying the other person is wrong, not actually disagreeing on any points.

Just thought I'd point that out.

Ding, ding round two!

This looks to be a communication issue.

Wonderwaagh is saying that broad generalisations can be made with regards to mechanical thematic elements that run through each faction. This is correct. To take the MTG analogy, he is saying that "Red has attributes, and Blue has attributes", not that "decks can be Red, or they can be Blue"

Killax is saying that this is a secondary issue, and a misleading way to look at the game, as deck construction is led by Warlords. He is saying that the shape and character of actual decks in play is not led primarily by the faction of the chosen Warlord, but rather by the Warlord itself, and the alliance context. This is also correct.

You are arguing on different terms, and aside from saying the other person is wrong, not actually disagreeing on any points.

Just thought I'd point that out.

Thank you. OP asked for the play style of each faction, not each individual warlord or deck. As much as some people might like to disagree, there are common elements within each faction to distinguish them from others. I've done my best to describe those elements, and in turn been met with resistance amounting to little more than semantic hair-splitting. While there's something to be said about specificity, that isn't really what's required of the topic at hand. I hope my fellow posters will realize that sooner rather than later.

... ''I simply don't have the time to break down each individual card, especially since that isn't the point of this thread .''

It is exactly the point of this thread.

Please re-read post #1, and then say that to me again.

This looks to be a communication issue.

Wonderwaagh is saying that broad generalisations can be made with regards to mechanical thematic elements that run through each faction. This is correct. To take the MTG analogy, he is saying that "Red has attributes, and Blue has attributes", not that "decks can be Red, or they can be Blue"

Good you pointed out. As mentioned over and over again, I can agree with some points in this comparison but mostly this comparison is flawed and does not give you information you can actually do something with. Not for a newer player and most certainly not for an advanced player.

The mayor flaw within the thinking of Wonderwaagh is (and perhaps the original poster) is that factions cannot be played without a Warlord and as such don't have a significant playstyle by themselves. For example Eldar have mill-strategies, attack for more strategies etc. Space Marines have powerfull Army cards in terms of stats and abilities but also arguably have a Army unit who has a weak statline but incredible Command ability. The factions, mostly, have a bit of everything as such you cannot pin-point and say Eldar are control or Orks are aggro (the latter is fully incorrect aswell).

The main reason a comparison between MtG colours and Conquest factions is largely flawed is because:

1. One system contains a minimal deck of 60 cards where 0 are set - One system contains a minimal deck of 50 cards where 8 are set. The main difference here is that the set cards are close to 20% of the deck.

2. One system contains resources in the deck (by exhausting Lands) and one system requires you to tactically place Army units to gain resources (by winning Command struggles).

3. One system allows you to mulligan for -1 card and One system allows you to have a single free mulligan.

4. Etc. etc.

This list can go on and one, if people want me to do that please feel free to ask.

The main point here again is that factions by themselves don't have a specific playstyle. Decks do however. Factions contain a multitude of cards who allow for decks to be made in a specific playstyle.

Each faction has specific powerfull cards (Such as AM's Support or SM's Events) but these don't define a playstyle unless you put them in a deck and aim for synergy with a Warlord.

You've again managed to focus on trivialities that are beyond the scope of this conversation, and beyond the scope of this thread. You also missed the point of my analogy by a wide, wide margin. It takes a truly remarkable person to so heartily embrace this level of willful ignorance. Bravo.

Tell me again how Orks like to play for the long game. I could use a good laugh right about now.

I don't think we need to keep arguing about this. People can have differences of opinions about things and I think the OPs question was answered long ago.

Tell me again how Orks like to play for the long game. I could use a good laugh right about now.

- Nazdreg himself favours larger HP bodies with Brutal because more HP means they'll hit harder as a result of being attacked. The bodies with the larger HP counts are often found on the 3 or 4 costed Ork Army cards.

1. Nazdreg comes with Flash Gitz a 3 Costed signature unit that becomes better once there are multiple targets to attack with it's ability. In short favouring a battle where multiple pieces are set up, something that becomes more of a common sight during the later stages of the game.

2. Kraktoof Hall allows you to move damage from units to place it on others. However due to the nature of the Cost and way Supports don't contribute to Command presence (and income) this card is often better played during the later stages of the game.

3. Bigga is Betta allows you to deploy a unit for a cheaper cost, albeit for put an damage on the card. This card can be used on 2 drops but is simply said better on lategame cards so the additional damage is a minor inconvienence.

4. Cybork Body allows you to double the HP on an army unit. This does not contributes anything when paired with Aggro orientated cards because they often go from 1 to 2 HP to 2 or 4 HP. On a mid to lategame body however, the HP is maximized to 6 or even 12 in some cases.

5. Goff Nob is a giant body for a cost of 5, which is allready a cost more better equiped for the lategame due to the missing Command Icons on the Army card.

6. Weirdboy Maniak allows for a multitude of X/1 bodies to be destroyed at a planet. Before a single planet will see a multitude of bodies we are often in the mid to lategame stages of a typical Conquest LCG game.

7. Tankbusta Bommaz, much like the Goff Nob comes at a cost of 4 and is looking for specific cards that have the Vechicle trait to damage. All vehicles come currently at a minimum cost of 3, where the mayority is 4+ Costed and thus can be considerd a lategame cards. Making Tankbusta Bommaz an awnser to lategame cards.

8. Rugged Killa Kans, cost 4, comes with Brutal, making it ideal for lategame battles where Nazdreg is not perse present.

9. Enraged Ork, does nothing under initiative for the first swing. As such is often ideally used as a counter to Aggro on the first planet.

10 . Crushface, allows you to set up a cheap swing. Could be considerd to be ideal for Aggro but is limited in it's use because of being an Unique card.

11. Bad Dok, becomes better during the later stages of the game where damage will eventually come at him and the massive Command Icons are more valuable. Also allows for more combinations, thus is typical a midgame card.

12. Rokkit Boy, awnsers flying cards. Isn't directly considerd competative.

13 . Goff Boyz, typical Aggro card.

14. Shoota Mob, a typical initial turn card, however mainly played due to having a Command Icon and is costed 1. In a way they are the in-faction Void Pirate/Rogue Trader option and are played as such.

15. Burna Boyz, cost 4 making it automatic ideal for mid to lategame albeit it's body might seem aggro, it's mainly more effective on iniative and goes down quick but does not allow you to dominate during the initial stages of the game.

16. Battle Cry, requires you to pay 3 resources for an incredible effect provided there are more bodies on a single planet. Which makes it a mid to lategame card.

17 . Snotling Attack, typical Aggro card.

18. Squigh Bombin, allows you to remove important Support pieces from your opponent who become a common sight during the mid to lategame stages.

19. Rokkit Launcha allows you to attack with Ranged, which can be cool in combination with cards that allready have high ATK (not commonly found in the Ork faction) or allows you to set up for a great mid to lategame battle where there are multiple Ranged units on the board.

20. Ork kannon, allows your opponent to deal 1 damage to his unit and allows you to deal 1 damage to your own. This is a typical board control card that can give you an advantage (mainly against Aggro strategies).

21. Bigtoof Banna, allows you to play your units at a cheaper cost but does not contribute to Command and as such is not often played in a competative setting.

22. Tellyporta Pad, allows you to move an Ork unit. Which is a incredible card once you've stablized on the board. It allows your Warlord to have a more dominant board position due to the nature of Command struggles and Warlords. As such can be seen as a board control piece.

23. Deathskull Lootas, a mix of Squigh Bombing and Tankbusta Bommaz, aimed to awnser mid to lategame cards.

24. Smash N Bash, generally speaking a card that you could potentially use to deal with a battle at a planet where no Warlords are present, as such is often not used because it's unlikely that the Warlords will not meet due to the mid to lategame nature of Orks (and the powerfull cards they have for the mid to lategame).

25. Attack Squigh Herd, costed 4, has no Command and thus is often seen as the 4th or 5th RKK in the deck. It's implications are reasonable to the mid to lategame where Command presence becomes less of an issue.

26. Dakka Dakka Dakka! Another board control card to let you deal with Aggro.

27. Kustom Field Generator. A card that allows you to spread out the damage provided you have more than a single body on a single planet. As such is best used in the mid to lategame.

28. Mekaniak Repair Krew. A combo-card which has excellent implications with many Ork Supports. Due to the nature of these Supports you can see him as good during the mid to lategame.

29. Goff Big Choppa, an Attachment with excellent effects, best used on a body that can carry it around longer (often a mid to lategame body a.k.a costed 3 or up)

30 . Ammo Depot, a direct awnser to Choke that can be used by Aggro to some extend.

- Zogwort, a Warlord that allows you to have a dominant position from the start. Can be seen as an Aggro Warlord. However due to the current Army cards available to Orks is currently seen inferior to other Aggro Warlords such as Aun'Shi, Kith or Ragnar. The other 'problem' why he can't fully support Aggro is because of the forced removal of Snotling Tokens after each turn.

31. Zogwort's Runtherders allow for a direct counter against an Aggro strategy. Due to the nature of Zogwort, the tokens will not stay around to fully support an Aggro type of set up.

32 . Zogwort's Hovel allows for a good Aggro set up but more importantly allows Zogwort to fully commit as he pleases. Improving it's Command presence more than anything (provided opposing Warlords do not commit to the same planet).

33 . Wyrdboy Stikk, provided your opponents do not attack Zogwort allow you to place another Snotling token to Aggro with.

34. Launch Da Snots, allows you to set up for a mid to lategame Warlord kill if you want to experiment with card combinations such as Snotling Attack and commiting to the same planet as Zogwort for a potential whopping +5 ATK.

Out of the 34 Ork 'cards' 4 cards can be seen as typical Aggro within the Ork faction and the others are limited to Zogwort.

The mayority of Ork cards however are aimed at card combinations to create a profit in the game (such as Nazdreg commiting to the same planet that allready contains some bodies) and as such can fully dominate during the mid to late stages of the game much easier than during the inital stages of the game. We can see they are a typical mid to lategame deck with board control pieces and having awnsers to mid to lategame pieces.

Orks come with a multitude of cards to "stop" Aggro to make sure they can go to the mid to lategame. In general these pieces are:

- High HP on a multitude of Ork bodies, allowing them to survive certain battles and do something even not under initiative.

- Ork Kannon/Kustom Field Generator, allowing you to deal with X/1 bodies or spread out the damage Aggro comes which, which in turn allows you to survive longer with Orks.

- Dakka Dakka Dakka/Weirdboy Maniak, allowing to remove a multitude of X/1 bodies in a single go.

- Tellyporta Pad, allowing you to have a dominant Command presence with your Warlord and on another planet with regular multitude of Command Icons. Which in turn allows you to build up towards a dominant mid to lategame.

Orks usually also prefer Command strong bodies from other factions and as such are often paired with AM to make sure they can set up their pieces and win in the mid to lategame.

Cards often seen with Orks from AM are:

- Sanctioned Psyker (be dominant in Command to set up for the mid to lategame)

- Iron Guard Recruits (be dominant in Command to set up for the mid to lategame)

- Supresive Fire (to once again stop Aggro)

Ding, ding round three!