Basics of deck creation

[Mangler]

Looking for some advice on building a deck simply because if the computer gets a lucky streak I can't come back unless I play Old Willow. This is the formula I'm currently using:

(note: I'm at work, can't remember the card names very well)

2 Neutral creatures, the lion and the golden totem (+300G territory ability)

10 red creatures, 4 with land dependencies

10 green creatures, 4 with land dependencies

10 spells - Holy Word X, Holy Word 6 (2), Holy Word 1, Locust (2), Subsidence, Mistletoe, Fairy Light, Manna

The rest items, a few scrolls for penetration, Claymore, red/green shield, etc.

What should be my focus as I create a deck? Is there a good way to detect flaws/weaknesses? Thanks for your help

[ExMortis]

I'm no expert (I just play one on TV), but..
Unless you're running with some kind of theme (scroll users, first strikers, weenies, etc.), single color seems to be stronger than two or more colors. Two "land change to specific color" cards and two Influence are very good for single color books. It's good that you're keeping an eye on land dependencies -- but you mean requirement, or limit? Both are important to keep in check.
If you feel like you're benefitting from the Holy Words, my personal opinion is that X is better than 6 in every way. Using even amounts of Fairy Light/Manna is a good idea. Mistletoe only really works in 4-player matches.
The items you note seem pretty solid, but if I'm counting right, you have too many (18?). You can always use a spell every turn, you can probably use a creature most turns, but items are going to be the least used card type no matter what.

This is my feeling.

[Mangler]

Thanks for the reply!

The only reason I have 2 Holy Word 6 and 1 X is because they're all I have. I've only amassed about 500 total cards so far. I'm going to dump the 6's and replace them with X's as soon as I get the cards.

I included the land limit cards in the dependencies count, basically I wanted 6 creatures I could lay down any time and 4 powerhouses to bring out later. I initially had a problem with too many high level cards in my hand and not being able to play any creatures. The item count is high because I never seem to have an item when I need one, hehe.

I'll make a new single color deck tonight with more spells and fewer item cards. Thanks again for the advice!

[Mangler]

I made 2 single color books so far, red and blue, both worked a LOT better than I thought they would. I won 5 medals in my first match using it. :-P

Also made a first attack book that hasn't lost yet.

[dtcarson]

What is the benefit of a single-color decks?
I have only played about 8-10 battles, so I don't have a huge number of cards, and only few Rares, but it doesn't seem like there's much benefit, especially on a short map, to single colors. Wouldn't you have to change the territory's colors to gain the element bonus? What other advantage/s does this type of deck have?
My deck currently isn't very scientific; it's about 55-60% creature, 20-30% spells, and the rest items. I'll usually get one really cool spell, and one cool/strong monster each match, and rotate those into my deck, so it's pretty much a hodgepodge for right now.

[nightmare]

dtcarson said:

What is the benefit of a single-color decks?

IMO, in conjuction with color movement (Plain Leap, Lake Leap), land transform spells (which change the land for 1/2 the cost of territory command) and influence (which is half the cost of land transform spells), it's pretty easy to get one big chain going, and therefore derive higher land value more efficiently than setting up several small chains.

You'll also be getting Land bonus to HP for all of your creatures, enabling you to defend it better.

The focus also makes it easier to play creatures that have land requirements to play them. There are many cards that take advantage of having 1 creature color (elemental shields/rings, for instance).

Early in your playing, it's difficult to make a single color that's worth anything. The next best thing is to go dual-colored, and focus to 2 land types if possible.

Hope that helps.

[dtcarson]

Cool, that does help--I guess I just don't have enough cards as a whole yet to matter. But I'll definitely start experimenting, once I start getting more land-focused/benefit cards.
Pretty much the only land bonus I really rely on now is Wall of Ice on a blue square, and then level that one up a lot.

[nightmare]

Land bonuses, if you have good creatures, are forgoable (but still nice to have). Land bonus won't protect you from spells/territory abilities/penetration/scrolls, so it's not perfect defense.

The important things are your chains.

another thing to try, just to *see* the power of chaining for yourself, is to go into versus mode, create a blank character, and enter a small board (Dunnan hsould be fine) with your normal character and the blank.

Have the blank just go around, while you pick one land type and drop as many creatures (color is irrelevant) on that land if you can. Since there's no threat from the dummy, you can even spend the money to turn a forest into a fire. If I'm right, you should see very little to no gain in total G on your first drop. But when you get a big (6-7) chain going, each land will be worth quite a bit more, growing exponentially with each level up.


Obviously I don't suggest you do this unless you really want to confirm with your eyes, as I did/do, that single/dual colors are generally more efficient.

With dual color you might focus on two land types, and get 3-chains on each. They are not the equivalent of one six chain, but is easier for you to accomplish at this stage.

OK, I'm full of babble about this awesome, awesome game.

adios,

-Q.

[darklao]

Er... correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no additional chain bonus after a 5 chain, so on most non-tiny boards, there's not much call to develop chains past 5.

Obviously, depending on deck factors, there will probably be very good defensive reasons, but from a purely offensive stand-point, it is almost never worthwhile to alter land-types (except multi- and non-elemental lands, which are fairly cheap to change).

The relative cost also changes drastically in the late game, and on higher level lands.

Paying 300 to help defend a land and move it from a 20 to a 44 toll is probably a waste--you're only getting +10 HP in combat and an extra 24 toll. Nothing.

In the late game, paying 700 to better defend a level 5 1.5K toll land and convert it to 2.5K is very, very worthwhile: +50 HP and about 1000G toll increase.

Note how counter-intuitive that is. The higher cost is the better benefit. Of course, it's cheaper to just buy the conversion at the start, but it's more of a gamble because the investment will take longer to pay off--more time for the enemy to steal the land. Not to mention that in the early game, 300G can be a big chunk of G, whereas in the late game (when you'd have an off-color level 5 land), 700G is rarely hard to part with.

Whether or not you should chain past 5 also depends on what cards you're using, and what cards your opponent is playing. Against a heavy penetration deck, converting lands after a 5 chain probably isn't going to be worth it. Likewise, if you rely on a lot of damage nullification or reflection for creature defense, the additional HPs won't be as useful as raising levels on other lands.

Yes, there are some obscure offensive benefits to land conversion after 5, but they're pretty sketchy. Generally anything with land-based HP/ST is either a) at x20, 5 lands will already make it 100ST(or HP) -- effective in nearly all situations already, or b) at x10, paying 300-700G to make a 1 shot (or 4 shot) card +10 more effective is pretty bad return on investment.

Basically, the rule of thumb I follow is this: In the early game, I don't do it. It's just not worth it. In the mid to late game, I'll usually do it on a mid-high level land to help defend it (if it would help). Once in a blue moon, with the advantage, I'll do it in the middle of an enemy zone, on low-level lands, just to force the enemy to change it back for the same cost or higher if they manage to retake the land.

So, this is my speech on land-conversion. Moral: Don't do drugs. Also, chains bigger than 5 may look pretty, but they may also be wasted G.

[nightmare]

few things:

-You completely skipped the part where I talk about cards to convert land. Land conversion can be done cheaply with a topographical change card (Weathering, Sink, Upheaval, Wild Growth) or Influence, the former set costing 150, and influence costing 80. Neither of these costs is too much in the early game.
You also failed to adress my mention of 'land leaping cards' -Mountain Leap,Plain Leap, et. al. -these cost *20*G, as well as accelearating you towards a lap potentially.

-a card that I didn't mention is Spirit Walk, which will let you move a creature to a land you want to change at. There are also many creatures that can move to vacant territories of a certain type in the area.

-the reason to get chains is *not* for tolls, but for land value. If you look at the land value increases you get with a chains, they are considerable. Land Value contributes directly to your winning, whereas tolls may or may not.

-adding past 5 chain is not so much to increase the chain's value, but to make the land you drop have more value. With a 5 chain of wind, the next land you drop will instantly have more value if you claim another Wind territory, and will have substantially less if you drop it on Fire (assuming you have no chains there).

-overall, developing strong chains is more efficient and also easy to do in the early or late game. With a minimal card investment -roughly 3 to 5 cards - it's simple and cheap to do.

[Ben-Ra]

The value of chains (including how much trouble/g you should spend for them) varies immensely from deck to deck (obviously). It's true that chains don't increase the value/toll of land beryond 5 chain. But, if you have a chain greater than 5 it keeps the chain intact if you lose one (and it can be pretty hard to defend that many lands reliably/repeatedly). But yeah, unless there's a reason to do so, I probably wouldn't spend g changing land types once I had a 5-chain.

I agree with both of you on some things. Land transforming the Old Fashioned Way is pretty suspect in the early game (neutral/multi-element notwithstanding), but spells are an efficient way to do so anytime. Plus, in the early game, it may be needed for land reqs, which is a strong reason in and of itself.

I have experimented with the tactic of doing unnecessary land transforms to cause my opponents grief. I'm not 100% sure if it's worthless or not yet, but I'm pretty doubtful so far.

Having 5+-chains is one of the most efficient means of increasing value, certainly. Single color decks are efficient because (in theory, and usually in practice) it's better at building and maintaining those chains than multicolor decks.

[darklao]

I have never seen a game where land values made a bigger difference than tolls paid. The only time land values made a distinct difference was in games where toll payment was roughly equal, or where no significant tolls were paid.

The outcomes will obviously change if you're using cards, rather than paying fees, but cards can be an unreliable resource, and not everyone has them. Obviously paying 80-150 (depending on the spell) instead of 300-700 will change the usefulness of land conversion.

Of course, the question then becomes, in my mind, why aren't you using those deck slots for something more useful? I've dropped them in and out, but they've never stuck, even in a single color deck. Maybe I'm weird, but I never found them useful enough.

And changing enemy color territories unnecessarily in the mid-late game isn't the most efficient use of G, but I think of it as buying insurance. If you have the money to spend, and you drop an critter in the middle of, say, a red string of lands against an enemy playing red, and you convert it to a color he isn't using, it's insurance. It's spending 300G (or whatever) to force the opponent to spend the same again to change it back.

Against the computer, many will start to ignore that land, most of the rest will be less likely to bother with it. Against a human? It's hard to say.

Anyway, I'm just sharing my impressions, not trying to argue for universal truth here. Couple questions: If you do play land switch cards and advocate using them, how often do they have a worthwhile impact on the game? How much profit do you typically turn (in land value) with a play? How many deck slots do you spend on these cards? How do they fare in the discard decision? First to go? Last? What lands do you change and when? Low-levels? High levels? Early, mid, late game?

[MisterScratch]

I find that land conversion cards come in very handy and will usually have a couple of whatever color(s) I am using. I think I actually tend to use them on the people I'm playing as much as on my own lands - either to get rid of a land hp boost or some other special ability (eg. Old Willow, Kelpie), bust up a chain, lower a toll if I'm coming up to it, or just make the other player cough up some G to switch it back.

[chaim79]

I've used Land transformation spells many times in two ways:

#1: To build chains. Or more importantly, build them where I want them. On several maps there are multiple routs to and from places and only a few areas that you Always cross. Those areas are what I fight over, if you can avoid it I will usually get something there but keep it low level and will rarely spend to change it. But if you cant avoid it I will fight and change it as many times as it takes.

#2: To disrupt my appontent. Mainly if thay have chains or have one of those always cross lands. As I said, I will fight over those lands, even to the point of changeing it from what my apponent has it as, (ie. turn an air land to a fire land, without the chain the toll drops from over $2000 to around $300). This tactic works with human and computer apponent. With human they spend the money to turn it back as quick as they can. (at lvl 4-5 that can be a lot). With computer apponents they will often ignore the change, leaving their lvl 5 land with no chain support and a yellow creature alone when I turned it into a fire land.

I have spoken, you may now ignore me.
Erik of Ekedahl