I just started to play WQ and I want to build one deck per faction for casual play. So far I still can't figure out the subtle differences in deck variety. Which Warlord you think is the most "interesting" to play for each faction - not necessarily the most powerful, we're talking about casual play here but it shouldn't be auto-lose decks either.
Completely subjective answers incoming of course but my choices for most interesting (key being interesting, not most powerful
Astra Militarum: Broderick Worr
Chaos: Ku'gath Plaguefather
Dark Eldar: Urien Rakarth (bonus: people are figuring out how to not have him suck too!)
Orks: Old Zogwort
Space Marine: Chaplin Mavros
Tyranids: Subject Omega
To be fair, all three Tau warlords can result in some pretty interesting situations. Aun'Shi is probably more interesting on an action by action basis, though.
I did a theme of each faction post awhile ago, here. Not exactly what you're asking, and I haven't kept it up to date with Deathworld.
Each faction has one or two "vanilla" warlords, that fit within the general theme for that group, with one or two warlords that play in vastly different ways from how that race normally plays.
For example, Imperial Guard has four warlords. Straken is infantry focused, Coatez is an Inquisitor, Worr is a Commissar, and Maksim is an armor support focused.
Which one is the most interesting? Yes.
Straken and Maksim are vanilla versions of how Imperial Guard is supposed to play (in tabletop). You spam out a lot of units, or you have infantry supporting your tanks.
Commissars are the officers responsible for maintaining discipline and loyalty in Imperial Guard forces. Worr prevents units from retreating from the planet he's on, but his signature forces are more panicky than normal IG units.
The Inquisition is the primary investigatory body of the Imperium of Man, and is always on the lookout for signs of Chaos corruption or alien infiltration. Ironically, Coatez is actually more focused on spamming out huge forces than Straken or Maksim, and capitalizing on the loss of existing forces.
So... which of those is the most interesting? That's actually a really difficult question. And I don't mean because it's subjective. The IG faction is already interesting on its own, with its own unique flavor. The IG are normal humans sent out to fight all the horrors of the universe in defense of the Imperium. Beyond that they can use cards from the Space Marines or Orks, so this already starts to shape your options.
If you have a second copy of the core set, I'd suggest you start by collecting all your cards for each faction and forming decks. You'll have 4 copies of two cards for each faction, you can pull one of each and have a 48 card deck, or ignore it and run x4 copies (which is technically illegal, but none of the cards are that game changing.) Play the factions in their vanilla form, and then experiment with the other warlords. There are plenty of people, myself included, who are willing to offer deck building advice there.
I would suggest, if you intend to have a full collection, now is the time to get that done. The game's cycling out of print, and will become much harder to get cards for as time goes on.
If you played the earlier Warhammer Fantasy LCG, and don't have a complete collection now, you have my sympathies.
The AM faction already struck me as the most interesting in terms of warlord variety. I have a full collection with 3x Core sets and want to build as many decks as possible from the card pool to play casually with friends. I will have to proxy some of the key neutral cards but there are also some core faction cards that seem to be in nearly every deck of that faction. Proxying void pirates, Backlashes and Fragments is ok (and obviously mandatory), proxying one haöf of a deck is silly. I guess I will try to pick warlords that have no shared cards in their decks and see how far that will bring me.
Argama Flight Crew
I think there is a reasonable argument for the Necron warlord being Anrakyr. A deck focusing on discard effects and deploying units from your discard pile really feels like Necron more than a deck focus on the enslavement dial IMO. I've never gotten Nahumekh to work well. I think he's more challenging to pilot successfully. Also a big focus on the enslavement dial might create card conflicts if you want to make matchups with one collection.
Though that might make it a bit redundant with Shadowsun's recursion focused builds. Though that could free you up to make an Aun'shi build for Tau, which doesn't play like any other deck. Bouncing Ethereals around for global buffs always feels cool. Takes a while to figure out how to play it effectively. Starblaze builds for Tau will be problematic because it will cannibalize many of the same good cards your AM warlords want to use and therefore create card conflicts.
Worr is a good pick from a card economy point of view because he wants to include pretty much just AM units to maximize his buff.
Mavros is great because he will make the SM unit feel fierce and resilient though I think there's a case for Vezuel being the most diverse choice since no other warlord focuses so hard on the Deepstrike mechanic. No other warlord is going to care much for the Deepstrike cards. Cato is the easiest to play, but also can feel a bit paint by numbers. Ragnar has fallen out of favor, but if you actually play his deck like the hunt deck it was meant to be it can be very fun (just not that competitive).
I love playing Urien and I think he's gotten much better though he can still be kind of frustrating to play. If you find that to be the case then Morn is also a very interesting choice since she makes all those Kabalite units worth taking and her focus on lighting raids and hording resources does make her deck feel very piratical. Blackguard, Harriers, Slavers, Marauders, Raid, Rapid Assault, Archon's Terror, Raiding Portal... fun times.
I agree with Ku'gath. Only Zogwort rival's his ability to do all his own fighting. Also he's just made to run the big demon elites that chaos has a wealth of in their card pool.
Zogwort is a fun deck. I think there is an argument for Nazdreg since giving all your units brutal feels so orky. He's a bit easier to pilot than Zogwort and I have a soft spot for Nazdreg. I really have fun playing him.
I agree with Subject: Omega because focusing heavy on infestation and ambushing genestealers does feel very different from all the other decks.
I agree with Baharroth because a mobile heavy deck is a lot of fun to play and he's the only warlord that puts such an emphasis on the keyword. He's not easy to play since his sig squads are so expensive and are a bit hard to use so keep that in mind.
"Interesting" is a difficult metric, because it's going to vary for everyone. For someone new to the game, then honestly all the warlords are interesting, but I would strongly argue that they should avoid "weird" warlords like Subject Omega. For someone well used to the game who likes to play a slightly different game than their opponent, warlords like Subject Omega are going to be the more interesting ones.
With that in mind: "typical" warlords tend to be good-to-great in command as well as good-to-great in combat with a warlord ability that reinforces one of the two. Cato and Kith are great examples of this style of warlord (Cato's resource generation helps fuel Space Marine combat tricks and offset his slight weakness in command, and Kith's Khymera tokens help offset her potential weakness in combat). While all warlords can be competitive (to varying degrees, depending on the skill of the player and the warlord's faction), these "all-rounders" are usually the most competitive of the bunch because they are the most forgiving of mistakes.
Atypical warlords are ones who either subvert the core mechanics in some way, or whose warlord and signature cards encourage (or enforce) non-standard deck-building. A lot of PootJenkins' list is made up of these warlords, and they are generally more difficult to play because they require you to learn that specific warlord instead of the game as a whole (whereas switching between Cato and Kith is a lot easier, because they are both doing basically the same thing with different emphases--Cato focuses more on combat, and Kith more on command).
With that in mind, here are short descriptions for every warlord to help you determine which are most interesting to you:
Cato: typical warlord. Space Marines are strong at combat, with an excellent suite of combat tricks, and Cato's resource generation complements this. Arguably the strongest of the SM warlords due to his consistency, and one of the easiest to play.
Ragnar: atypical warlord. His signature cards and warlord ability encourage actively hunting the enemy warlord, making him big into mind games. Arguably loses effectiveness vs. elite decks, though.
Mavros: typical warlord, but with a focus on high health units/elites thanks to his ability.
Vezuel: atypical warlord, due to his focus on Deep Strike. When allied with Tau can become pretty nasty, but he's a little inconsistent due to the drastic difference in effectiveness when he has his signature attachment vs. otherwise. Probably the best warlord to play if you want to emphasize Deep Strike (it's more of a minor splash for pretty much everyone else).
Straken: typical-ish warlord, except that his ability constrains your deck-building options in ways that generally hurt his command presence.
Coteaz: atyipcal warlord. Best in swarm decks where his ability can shine. One of the few warlords who actively encourages the approach of making strategic sacrifices.
Worr: typical warlord. Highly efficient, and makes AM swarms absolutely brutal at green planets thanks to his ability. This guy singlehandedly pulled AM from tournament obscurity to dominance, and is relatively straight-forward to pilot.
Maksim: atypical warlord. Encourages decks with large numbers of supports and/or tanks. Difficult to deck-build for, though, because there are not very many good tanks, and it's difficult to reliably get his economy up and running if you are focused on alternate support economies.
Nazdreg: typical warlord. Originally not very good, but with the full Conquest collection he can be really nasty (very good with elites/high health units, and he badly needs the command/alt-economy options in later sets). Although typical, he doesn't play quite like the other typical warlords because he's all about balancing damage vs. attack on your own units.
Zogwort: atypical warlord. If you do the math, he can solo bloody almost any warlord in the game, which provides some interesting possibilities for bullying them off planets early game. However, his signature squad is pretty terrible, so he's a little difficult to play compared to the other Ork warlords.
Gorzod: atypical warlord. Enforces very specific deck-building choices with his focus on out-of-faction vehicles, but his lack of access to non-vehicle out-of-faction cards leaves him pretty weak compared to most other warlords. Lots of fun to deck-build, not so much fun to play.
Zarathur: typical warlord, but plays pretty differently because his ability is so bonkers in combat while he's super easy to bloody. Best in swarm or midrange decks with lots of damage sources, or in a deck that can output enough damage pre-combat to kill or neuter the enemy before they have a chance to swing.
Ku'gath: atypical warlord. Due to his fantastic survivability, he's usually used in low-unit-count, high-elite-count decks. Requires a different mindset to play, but since he's got a very strong archetype he's arguably one of the best introductions to the kind of decision making necessary for atypical warlords.
Ba'ar Zul: atypical warlord. Incredibly difficult to play well due to his warlord ability and stats (he can't snipe command units, and if you don't time his bloodying right, can be virtually useless in combat the whole game). Arguably the worst warlord in the game.
Vha'shaelhur: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I've never used him or played against him (because he hasn't been released yet), so who knows? My guess is that he'll be one of the nastiest elite deck warlords in the game, which would make him atypical (since elite decks almost always need alternate economies).
Kith: typical warlord. Incredibly strong at command/choke, and pretty dang good at combat, too.
Urien: atypical warlord. His signature cards and special ability enforce a very specific deck shape, but with the right deck and player he can be incredibly nasty. Very difficult to play, though.
Salaine Morn: typical warlord. Her ability encourages a particular deck-shape, but mechanically she's kind of what you'd get if Cato and Kith had a love-child.
Eldorath: typical warlord. Eldar has fantastic command, and Eldorath's ability drastically improves their chances in combat. One of the few warlords who can often deal with elite decks whether or not he plays elites.
Baharroth: atypical warlord. His focus on mobility means you have to pilot him completely differently from every other warlord. In the right hands he can be very dangerous, but thanks in part to his awful signature squad he's difficult to play.
Talyesin: I've no interest, and have never seen her hit the table, so this is pure speculation. I suspect she's a typical-ish warlord with deck-building restraints due to her special ability. Unfortunately, said special ability doesn't really help offset the command hit that playing a bunch of warrior and psyker units causes, so not a particularly great warlord.
Jain Zar: typical warlord (with the caveat that I haven't player her or played against her, because she's so new, so I could be wrong). One of the few warlords that can play defensively, thanks to her ability to cancel effects.
Shadowsun: typical warlord. Like Nazdreg, another warlord who has gotten a lot better recently thanks to her ability to spam attachments in order to bring a normal unit up to elite strength, or push an elite unit over the top. Plays a little differently than other warlords thanks to her card recursion.
Aun'shi: atypical warlord. Whether they love him or hate him, everyone pretty much agrees that Aun'shi requires a lucky player as well as a skilled player. He can be completely unstoppable one game with an early Orbital City, and be completely steamrolled the next.
Starblaze: atypical warlord. Like Gorzod, requires nonstandard deck-building. Also like Gorzod, is a lot more fun to deck-build for than play. Arguably a little better than Gorzod, though, because Starblaze has access to all AM common cards, rather than just a subset of units like Gorzod.
Old One Eye: all Tyranid warlords are intrinsically atypical due to their reliance on the Synapse unit to offset their sub-standard command. Of the three, though, Old One Eye is the closest to a typical warlord you'll find. It suffers against elite decks, but is still my favorite Tyranid warlord because it has the greatest deck-building flexibility of the three.
Swarmlord: atypical, and very difficult to deck-build and play. Significantly better if you largely ignore Hive Mind and focus on elites.
Subject Omega: the most atypical of the Tyranid warlords. Omega requires a completely different playstyle from every other warlord in the game. Really fun, but there's a bit of a learning curve and not a lot of space for creative deck-building.
Anrakyr: typical-ish warlord. Like Tyranids, Necrons tend to be a bit atypical thanks to their focus on recursion and the enslavement dial, but Anrakyr is the most typical of the lot. Most effective when you exploit his recursion abilities with a side order of elites.
Nahumekh: atypical warlord, due to his focus on embedding multiple factions into the deck. Difficult to deck-build and play.
Szeras: another I don't have any experience with. He looks like another typical-ish Necron warlord, but instead of steering you into the recursion mechanic he steers you into the healing mechanic for Necrons. Whether you prefer Szeras or Anrakyr will probably come down to whether you prefer your units to never die or constantly jump back out of the grave.
Whew! Okay, I think I finally made it. Hope that's helpful to you!
- Last edited Fri Sep 23, 2016 6:21 pm (Total Number of Edits: 1)
- Posted Fri Sep 23, 2016 6:19 pm
Thank you all for the helpful replies. When I finally have settled on 9 decks that don't overlap I'll post them here, as it might be helpful for others who acquired a full set in the wake of the FFG/GW split and look for the same approach.
I started putting decks together and nearly finished with most factions. They are mostly mono decks or decks with a few second-faction cards as I wanted to keep the useful cards to their respective factions. Also, you cannot min/max these decks as you have to distribute the key neutrals (Fragment, Void Pirate, Rogue Trader, Backlash etc) among several decks.
So far I got
Cato/with a few Tau
Vezuel/with a few Tau
No problem here, both decks are quite different and the only contested good cards were Crushing Blow, Indomitable and Jump Pack which were not to difficult to distribute among the two decks.
I tried to build a second Orc deck but Gorzod would have pulled to many needed cards from AM, Zogwort/Snotlings were lacking too many staple Orc cards which I put into Nazdreg's deck
Morn/with few Eldar
Urien/with few Eldar
No problem in assembling two decks because they use different cards due to the Warlord ability. Only contested cards were Klaivex and Archon which I added both to Morn's deck
Eldorath/Elite Vehicles with Tau support
Talyesin/with few Dark Eldar
No problem here as well for building two decks, only contested cards were Nullify and Jetbike
There are too many key/good cards that would have been missing if you build two Tau decks, including cards like Ambush Platform, Gun Drones, Ion Rifle, Missile Pod, Recon Drone, Sniper Drone, Trailblazer, Marksman. So I decided to stick to one deck and use Tau as support for some other decks.
Subjekt Omega (because of the Genestealer flair)
Both Necrons and Tyranids seemed to have some powerful cards they need to be included in every deck in order to be played properly, so I kept only one deck around.
Worr/with a bit of Orcs
Kugath/mono Nurgle theme
Zarathur/mono burn deck
I still have to build decks for Chaos and AM but both seem to cannibalize too many key cards which is a pity because I really want to have two different decks from each of those two factions (Worr/Maksim and Ku'Gath/Vha'Shaelhur for example). AM seems to rely on cards like Cat. outpost, Assault Team, Griffon Escort, Inquisitoral Fortress, Iron Guard Recruits, Staging Ground, Chimera, Suppressive Fire and Troop Transport. Chaos on Helldrake, Corrupted Teleport, Ominous Wind, Promise of Glory, Acolyte, Prince's Might, Bloodletter, Warpstorm. These are just too many cards to cvut from either deck.
- Last edited Tue Nov 15, 2016 5:59 pm (Total Number of Edits: 1)
- Posted Thu Sep 29, 2016 10:54 pm
Argama Flight Crew
When you feel like you've got a good configuration you should post your decks. That would help other BGG users who want to do something similar with their collection.
Godd idea, will do that. I still haven't settled on the Chaos and AM decks - I'm waiting for the last pack. Afterwards I'll add any surplus key cards to the decks. I mainly took decks from cardgamedb and tweaked them according to the card pool available from one complete set.
I built 14 decks and started playtesting. Interestingly, it was not the low amount of neutral key cards (Rogue Trader, Void Pirate, Backlash, Fragment) that were causing limits for more deck building but critical faction key cards. Especially with AM, Chaos, Dark Eldar, Orcs and Tau.
Playing with these decks made me realize that most matches were decided by whether you were lucky to have 1-2 major events/combat tricks in your hand when the crucial battle in mid-game was initiated (a problem because you have to split most decisive event cards between two decks). The side that got the short end of the stick when both Warlord trains clashed usually lost the game afterwards.
Apart from that Warhammer Conquest provided a deep tactical game play while keeping things (and the set up) simple.
- Last edited Tue Nov 15, 2016 6:21 pm (Total Number of Edits: 1)
- Posted Tue Nov 15, 2016 6:09 pm