My two favorite LCG's so far have been Android: Netrunner and Star Wars: The Card Game . But the more I think about the resource mechanic in Marvel Champions, the more I like what it fundamentally does in this game as opposed to other LCG's.

When playing Netrunner , if you wanted more cards or money, you'd have to spend your clicks to get those (excluding the Corp's mandatory draw or any card triggers like"at the start of your turn" abilities, of course). But you only go through your deck once, so you don't want something that forces you to go through your deck too fast (lookin' at you, Noise!).

When playing Star Wars: The Card Game , you also didn't want to go through your deck too fast, but that was hardly ever a problem. Instead, you'd want to find the awesome cards in your deck as fast as possible. Drawing back up to your hand size in the Draw phase of your turn helped you do exactly that. But you would use tokens and resource generating cards to pay for things.

Now with Marvel Champions , cycling through your deck to get the awesome cards as fast as possible and generating your resources are one and the same thing. So the more resources you have on individual cards, the slower you go through your deck; and the fewer resources you have on individual cards, the faster you'll go through your deck. That's a very important thing to keep in mind when you are deckbuilding, and I am very much looking forward to deckbuilding because of it.

Also bear in mind that if you have to reshuffle, you get an extra villain card to resolve during their next turn. You may not want to cycle too fast.

1 hour ago, Wh0isTh3D0ct0r said:

So the more resources you have on individual cards, the slower you go through your deck; and the fewer resources you have on individual cards, the faster you'll go through your deck.

This isn't really true. Unless you're actively trying to hold a particular card, you'll likely empty your hand (or close to it) every turn.

Simplest example: You have 6 cards in hand, all with one resource and one cost. You'll spend three of them to play the other three. What if one is a two resource card? You can still do the same, or you play something more expensive. Likewise the opposite direction - a higher cost card (say a 3) will mean 4 cards out of your hand leaving you two, one to pay and one to play.

7 hours ago, Buhallin said:

This isn't really true. Unless you're actively trying to hold a particular card, you'll likely empty your hand (or close to it) every turn.

Simplest example: You have 6 cards in hand, all with one resource and one cost. You'll spend three of them to play the other three. What if one is a two resource card? You can still do the same, or you play something more expensive. Likewise the opposite direction - a higher cost card (say a 3) will mean 4 cards out of your hand leaving you two, one to pay and one to play.

Yeah, I’m imagining holding cards to be extremely rare. The skill in this game it playing the cards you have optimally rather than managing your deck. Playing out your hand each turn looks to be pretty standard. Yes, there’s a penalty for going through your deck, but I’d argue that it’s not as large a penalty as holding back cards would be over multiple turns.

Each turn you look at your hand and decide what to play, and what to use to pay. Use everything as efficiently as possible and get ready to go again.

13 hours ago, Tonbo Karasu said:

Also bear in mind that if you have to reshuffle, you get an extra villain card to resolve during their next turn. You may not want to cycle too fast.

One villain card amertized across your entire deck shouldn’t be a problem. Ie you should have gained far more than you lost in that exchange.

Hand management in this game is going to be very similar to KeyForge.

For those not in the know, KeyForge's system is your draw up to 6 in each end step, and on your turn you can play any/all cards of a chosen house (out of the 3 in your deck). Cards have no cost.

This really discourages you holding onto cards from turn to turn and also means that each turns is about optimising and using what you have NOW. I think this will be a good mindset to translate into Marvel Champions - don't hold onto stuff waiting for the perfect combo - that's for next game!

14 hours ago, Buhallin said:

Unless you're actively trying to hold a particular card, you'll likely empty your hand (or close to it) every turn.

Not only might you end up with the wrong types of resources to empty your hand, but you shouldn't always play a card as soon as possible. That's playing your hand rather than playing your deck, and that's what newbies do. The intermediate or expert player knows that you build your deck to function in a specific way at specific times, which means that you should be looking for specific cards in the early, mid, and late game. If you just play cards to empty your hand every turn, then you'll cycle through your deck faster than you probably should. Unless, of course, that's what your deck is designed to do, then do it.

To my knowledge,LOtR will not allow you to cycle your deck. In Arkham, if you cycle through your deck, you take a horror. Wether or not it is a bad idea depends on which investigator you build for.

7 hours ago, Wh0isTh3D0ct0r said:

Not only might you end up with the wrong types of resources to empty your hand, but you shouldn't always play a card as soon as possible. That's playing your hand rather than playing your deck, and that's what newbies do. The intermediate or expert player knows that you build your deck to function in a specific way at specific times, which means that you should be looking for specific cards in the early, mid, and late game. If you just play cards to empty your hand every turn, then you'll cycle through your deck faster than you probably should. Unless, of course, that's what your deck is designed to do, then do it.

So wrong AND rude. Gotcha.

Holding cards in your hand is stifling your economy and ruining your tempo. Holding multiple cards and waiting for the perfect time to play them, rather than taking advantage of them when you can, is not going to be a winning play. If you have a late-game card in your early hand you use it for resources, and vice versa. Your deck is small enough and will cycle fast enough that they'll come back around.

There is a penalty there, but it's minor compared to limiting what you can use over such a long run. Most characters have hand sizes around 5 or 6, so even if you're cycling fully each turn it's going to be what, one extra villain card every 6 or 7 turns? I don't think that's a good reason to cut your card plays by a third or more.

13 minutes ago, Buhallin said:

So wrong AND rude. Gotcha.

Holding cards in your hand is stifling your economy and ruining your tempo. Holding multiple cards and waiting for the perfect time to play them, rather than taking advantage of them when you can, is not going to be a winning play. If you have a late-game card in your early hand you use it for resources, and vice versa. Your deck is small enough and will cycle fast enough that they'll come back around.

There is a penalty there, but it's minor compared to limiting what you can use over such a long run. Most characters have hand sizes around 5 or 6, so even if you're cycling fully each turn it's going to be what, one extra villain card every 6 or 7 turns? I don't think that's a good reason to cut your card plays by a third or more.

You seem to be missing my point. Obviously you don't want to hold onto a late-game card for a long time. That exactly what I mean when I say that you should deckbuild with that in mind. (i.e., Put fewer copies of late-game cards in your deck and more copies of early-game cards in your deck because...math.)

No one's being rude here except you now. So I think you need to take a step back, take a deep breath, and stop inferring that people are attacking you when they aren't.

2 hours ago, Wh0isTh3D0ct0r said:

You seem to be missing my point. Obviously you don't want to hold onto a late-game card for a long time. That exactly what I mean when I say that you should deckbuild with that in mind. (i.e., Put fewer copies of late-game cards in your deck and more copies of early-game cards in your deck because...math.)

No one's being rude here except you now. So I think you need to take a step back, take a deep breath, and stop inferring that people are attacking you when they aren't.

There’s not a lot of wiggle room at this stage; 3 copies max, and many of the cards are unique.

2 hours ago, Wh0isTh3D0ct0r said:

You seem to be missing my point. Obviously you don't want to hold onto a late-game card for a long time. That exactly what I mean when I say that you should deckbuild with that in mind.

So then what are the conditions where you'll intentionally play less cards than you could? Because you're going to have cards which aren't useful until later (use for resources), would have been useful earlier but aren't right now (use for resources), or cards that are useful now (balance which ones you want to use for resources vs. play). In all cases, you're going to be using pretty much every card in your hand each turn, which means you're going to cycle things are pretty much the same rate no matter how many resources are on the cards themselves (which was your original thesis). Are there going to be cases where you don't want to play every card? Sure. But there's a major cost to that, and it should be carefully considered (and rare).

2 hours ago, Wh0isTh3D0ct0r said:

No one's being rude here except you now.

When you lead with "Only newbies do that", it's rude and insulting. It's an attempt to attack the speaker and legitimize their point rather than addressing it.

1 hour ago, Buhallin said:

So then what are the conditions where you'll intentionally play less cards than you could? Because you're going to have cards which aren't useful until later (use for resources), would have been useful earlier but aren't right now (use for resources), or cards that are useful now (balance which ones you want to use for resources vs. play). In all cases, you're going to be using pretty much every card in your hand each turn, which means you're going to cycle things are pretty much the same rate no matter how many resources are on the cards themselves (which was your original thesis). Are there going to be cases where you don't want to play every card? Sure. But there's a major cost to that, and it should be carefully considered (and rare).

When you lead with "Only newbies do that", it's rude and insulting. It's an attempt to attack the speaker and legitimize their point rather than addressing it.

My father used to say, "If you throw a rock into a pack of dogs, the one that barks the loudest is the one that got hit." (Not a perfect analogy here, but a true statement nonetheless.)

• First of all, I did not lead with newbies. That was well into my explanation.
• Second, I did not explicitly single you out; you chose to infer that as an attack against you personally (i.e., If you currently play your deck instead of your hand, then clearly I'm referring to other players who are still newbies. But if you do currently play your hand instead of your deck, then you are probably a newbie and therefore have an opportunity for improvement.)
• Third, there's nothing inherently wrong with being a newbie. If you want to infer that as an insult rather than an objective observation, then that's on you, not me. I consider myself skilled in some games yet still a newbie in most other games. I see nothing wrong with admitting that I'm a newbie with many games.
• Fourth, like so many other players, I too made the same mistake all the time when I was a card game newbie. I would try to play whatever was in my hand because I liked all the cards, which is why I would put those cards in my deck. Star Wars: The Card Game , which uses objective sets instead of individual cards, taught me the value of playing the deck instead of playing the hand. If you haven't played that game and you love Star Wars, then I'd highly recommend it.

Now, on to your question about theoretical conditions...here are a few scenarios off the top of my head where you would conceivably not play all the cards in your hand: A.) Not the right type of resource generated, B.) Card too expensive to play during that turn/Too few cards remaining, C.) Playing the card in the next one to two turns would be more beneficial than playing it in the current turn.

The only reason to not use all the cards in your hand every turn are 1) the math doesn't add up for the cards you can play vs resources you can generate; 2) it is early game and you have multiple setup cards in your hand that are more valuable to get on the board as early as possible.

The second scenario will be more common for characters like Iron Man and Black Panther, who use more permanents and would keep ones they drew but could not yet play. For characters that are more event oriented, or when the above have their setup complete, there's no reason to hold anything back. Use what you can every turn the most efficient way possible. The opportunity cost of holding a cancel card back for something catastrophic rather than using it for the first benefit you see is going to be more in the long run than the rare instances where holding it back helped cancel a game-ender. Especially in the way this game advances. Preventing three damage when you are at full health is just as valuable over the course of the game as preventing three damage when you only have three health left. Same with thwarting, damaging the enemy, etc.

17 hours ago, Wh0isTh3D0ct0r said:

I consider myself skilled in some games yet still a newbie in most other games. I see nothing wrong with admitting that I'm a newbie with many games.

Like... this one? For a game it's not possible to be anything but a newbie at yet, you seem awfully sure you know what expert players will do. In this case, you're bringing knowledge from another game and applying it here in ways which may or may not be valid. Cards as resources and constant hand refilling change the equation dramatically. If you're looking for an FFG game to compare, Destiny (played that) has far more similarities than the SW:LCG. LOTR Erestor decks (never played, but been in games with them) are closer. And that is all interesting discussion, but can and should be happening without "Newbies do that, experts do what I do" sort of statements.

It's also possible to recognize your statement as rude without feeling personally attacked. I'm pretty comfortable in my level of card gaming skills.

17 hours ago, Wh0isTh3D0ct0r said:

Now, on to your question about theoretical conditions...here are a few scenarios off the top of my head where you would conceivably not play all the cards in your hand: A.) Not the right type of resource generated, B.) Card too expensive to play during that turn/Too few cards remaining, C.) Playing the card in the next one to two turns would be more beneficial than playing it in the current turn.

A) There is no resource matching required to play cards.
B) If a card is too expensive to play during the current turn it's probably going to be too expensive to play during the next turn. There's no saving resources from turn to turn. There's very little ramp in the game (at least so far). Most "maybe it'll get cheaper" is going to be hoping for some of the few cost reducers we've seen, or hoping you draw your one-of double resource icons. It's going to be aspirational at best.
C) This is sort of valid, but IMHO is going to be a trap more often than not. Clogging your hand and limiting your plays, waiting for just the right time to play a card, is going to slow you down dramatically. That's important. Unlike LOTR or AH, there doesn't seem to be much free setup time. The pressure is on from the very first turn, and you have to respond appropriately. (And yes, I've actually played the game).

Which is all interesting discussion, but I'll again bring it back around to the original statement: " So the more resources you have on individual cards, the slower you go through your deck; and the fewer resources you have on individual cards, the faster you'll go through your deck", which remains inaccurate. Heck, your own B point above contradicts it - more resources on individual cards will enable you to play more expensive cards faster and avoid holding them, ergo your hand cycles faster (or, really, just as fast as it would have otherwise).

11 minutes ago, Buhallin said:

Like... this one? For a game it's not possible to be anything but a newbie at yet, you seem awfully sure you know what expert players will do. In this case, you're bringing knowledge from another game and applying it here in ways which may or may not be valid. Cards as resources and constant hand refilling change the equation dramatically. If you're looking for an FFG game to compare, Destiny (played that) has far more similarities than the SW:LCG. LOTR Erestor decks (never played, but been in games with them) are closer. And that is all interesting discussion, but can and should be happening without "Newbies do that, experts do what I do" sort of statements.

It's also possible to recognize your statement as rude without feeling personally attacked. I'm pretty comfortable in my level of card gaming skills.

A) There is no resource matching required to play cards.
B) If a card is too expensive to play during the current turn it's probably going to be too expensive to play during the next turn. There's no saving resources from turn to turn. There's very little ramp in the game (at least so far). Most "maybe it'll get cheaper" is going to be hoping for some of the few cost reducers we've seen, or hoping you draw your one-of double resource icons. It's going to be aspirational at best.
C) This is sort of valid, but IMHO is going to be a trap more often than not. Clogging your hand and limiting your plays, waiting for just the right time to play a card, is going to slow you down dramatically. That's important. Unlike LOTR or AH, there doesn't seem to be much free setup time. The pressure is on from the very first turn, and you have to respond appropriately. (And yes, I've actually played the game).

Which is all interesting discussion, but I'll again bring it back around to the original statement: " So the more resources you have on individual cards, the slower you go through your deck; and the fewer resources you have on individual cards, the faster you'll go through your deck", which remains inaccurate. Heck, your own B point above contradicts it - more resources on individual cards will enable you to play more expensive cards faster and avoid holding them, ergo your hand cycles faster (or, really, just as fast as it would have otherwise).

Clearly I can't help you understand because you've made up your mind that you're right and everyone else is wrong. Very well then, I'm done with you and your toxic personality now.

3 hours ago, gokubb said:

The only reason to not use all the cards in your hand every turn are 1) the math doesn't add up for the cards you can play vs resources you can generate; 2) it is early game and you have multiple setup cards in your hand that are more valuable to get on the board as early as possible.

The second scenario will be more common for characters like Iron Man and Black Panther, who use more permanents and would keep ones they drew but could not yet play. For characters that are more event oriented, or when the above have their setup complete, there's no reason to hold anything back. Use what you can every turn the most efficient way possible. The opportunity cost of holding a cancel card back for something catastrophic rather than using it for the first benefit you see is going to be more in the long run than the rare instances where holding it back helped cancel a game-ender. Especially in the way this game advances. Preventing three damage when you are at full health is just as valuable over the course of the game as preventing three damage when you only have three health left. Same with thwarting, damaging the enemy, etc.

Or there is just a strong card to save for the proper time.

Such as Ground Stomp for Ultron, or saving Gamma Slam for an extra round.

Timing is just as, if not more, important than maximizing resources each turn.

33 minutes ago, Radix2309 said:

Or there is just a strong card to save for the proper time.

Such as Ground Stomp for Ultron, or saving Gamma Slam for an extra round.

Timing is just as, if not more, important than maximizing resources each turn.

Are there going to be cases where it's better to hold a card? Sure, but I think the value math there is going to be a lot trickier than some people are giving it credit for. Every round you hold a card is going to effectively increase its cost by one in addition to keeping you from seeing more cards.

16 hours ago, Buhallin said:

Are there going to be cases where it's better to hold a card? Sure, but I think the value math there is going to be a lot trickier than some people are giving it credit for. Every round you hold a card is going to effectively increase its cost by one in addition to keeping you from seeing more cards.

Generally the power of a hero deck derived from maximizing its card draw and use. Since the rate of “bad things” is basically locked in at one per round, anything you can do to increase draw/use is a net gain for the hero.

Meaning, it’s a net loss to hold cards in hand, even good cards. The question isn’t: “Is it bad to hold cards?”, because that’s a yes. The question is: how long can you hold a card before you’ve done more damage to your deck performance than the card is actually worth.

8 hours ago, Derrault said:

Generally the power of a hero deck derived from maximizing its card draw and use. Since the rate of “bad things” is basically locked in at one per round, anything you can do to increase draw/use is a net gain for the hero.

Meaning, it’s a net loss to hold cards in hand, even good cards. The question isn’t: “Is it bad to hold cards?”, because that’s a yes. The question is: how long can you hold a card before you’ve done more damage to your deck performance than the card is actually worth.

I agree with this generally, but I think there are cases where accepting the increased cost is worthwhile. Gamma Slam is actually a good example - depending on the villain you know there's a good chance it could be as much as +4 or +5 damage next round. That would be worth the extra cost. But only if you're sure you're going to get that much extra out of it, hence the worry about calculating value.

More often than not I think trying to hold cards will be a trap, but I'm a little hesitant to drop a broad "Always use up your hand every turn".

4 hours ago, Buhallin said:

I agree with this generally, but I think there are cases where accepting the increased cost is worthwhile. Gamma Slam is actually a good example - depending on the villain you know there's a good chance it could be as much as +4 or +5 damage next round. That would be worth the extra cost. But only if you're sure you're going to get that much extra out of it, hence the worry about calculating value.

More often than not I think trying to hold cards will be a trap, but I'm a little hesitant to drop a broad "Always use up your hand every turn".

Yes, but that’s just it; 4-5 damage is approximately 1 attack for She Hulk (switch to form+basic); and if you draw into something like a 1-2 punch, than it’s a wash. Holding onto the slam to wait for extra damage was no better (worse even, because you’re delaying the recycle of the slam).

26 minutes ago, Derrault said:

Yes, but that’s just it; 4-5 damage is approximately 1 attack for She Hulk (switch to form+basic); and if you draw into something like a 1-2 punch, than it’s a wash. Holding onto the slam to wait for extra damage was no better (worse even, because you’re delaying the recycle of the slam).

But you'll always get that attack, and there's a lot of "what if" in the draw. You might just as easily draw into a relatively useless card. Recycle will depend on your deck state, and will definitely be another thing you have to consider.

28 minutes ago, Buhallin said:

But you'll always get that attack, and there's a lot of "what if" in the draw. You might just as easily draw into a relatively useless card. Recycle will depend on your deck state, and will definitely be another thing you have to consider.

Even if it’s relatively useless, it’s still usable as a resource card. And, at least for the hulk, you can burn cards for threat reduction purposes.

On October 3, 2019 at 4:06 PM, Wh0isTh3D0ct0r said:

Clearly I can't help you understand because you've made up your mind that you're right and everyone else is wrong. Very well then, I'm done with you and your toxic personality now.

I'm utterly baffled at how that was your takeaway.

On 10/2/2019 at 2:49 PM, Wh0isTh3D0ct0r said:

That's playing your hand rather than playing your deck, and that's what newbies do. The intermediate or expert player knows that you build your deck to function in a specific way at specific times... ....[snip]

If you build your deck right you should always be able to play to the strength of your hand. This newbie has been playing to the strength of his hand in card games for years. It serves me very well. I'm not one of those expert players who waits for specific times to make a contribution.