Star Wars LCG Community Deck, Episode I

UPDATE: You can now find Episodes II and III posted.  And now IV and V as well.  And finally, Episode VI.  The final deck can be found here.   I mentioned in my last blog about deck building that I’d be interested in trying a community deck-building blog series.  For those of you who are […]

Profile photo of Matthew By Matthew On December 08, 2012 Posted In Star Wars LCG

UPDATE: You can now find Episodes II and III posted.  And now IV and V as well.  And finally, Episode VI.  The final deck can be found here.

 

I mentioned in my last blog about deck building that I’d be interested in trying a community deck-building blog series.  For those of you who are CCG/LCG veterans, this will be a good chance to bounce ideas off of each other and learn from each others understanding of the game before it even comes out.  For those of you who are new to this world, there’s no better way to learn than by doing.  Either way, make sure you have read my Deck Building 101 blog because we’re going to follow that outline for this deck (for learning purposes, and to avoid chaos).

Episode I: Deck Goal

The first thing we need to decide is what our deck’s goal is going to be.  Since the demo deck in my last post was a Dark Side deck, let’s make this one Light Side.  Benjamin Comstock (can I call you Ben?) has posted an excellent outline of some basic deck themes, in particular a breakdown of control vs aggro.  For the LS player, control in my mind would indicate heavy use of board control/advantage to slip through attackers and/or using the balance of the force to ping some damage through.  It won’t win quickly, but it will keep the DS from accelerating the Death Star dial and grind out its win before the dial hits 12.  Aggro, on the other hand, would mean attacking early and attacking often, overwhelming the DS defenses or just plain striking over them to take out objectives as soon as possible.  I personally am a fan of going aggro with the LS, but I will let the comments decide what direction we go.  Feel free to propose a different goal as well and we’ll see where this takes us.  I’ll be traveling Sunday and Monday, but I’ll try to get the next step going by Tuesday.

 

Before I go, a little shameless plug: be sure to check out my top 3 core set cards post (I promise, this will be the last time I try to direct everyone to it).

  1. I think I’m interested in trying out a Light Side control deck. Something that relies on the balance of the force, and locking down the Dark Side to make it to victory. I think this appeals to me because it’s not the obvious deck type that I think most Light Side decks will be. But, I’ve got a feeling that even if we can make a control deck, it’ll still be fairly aggro heavy, if nothing else due to the limited card options at the moment.

    Anyway, them’s my two cents. Oh, and I’ll check out your contest blog again when you’ve started plugging mine. 😉

    1. I’ve tried to avoid plugging any contest entry blogs (for fairness and competitive reasons), but I’m certainly not opposed to links to other blog entries. 😉
      I’m all for trying out a LS control deck. My main reason for suggesting aggro was that it would be much easier to build. Still, a little challenge isn’t a bad thing and maybe the Team Covenant people who have probably gotten some more practice deck building with their early copies could give us some tips.

  2. I think the easier deck to build is aggro, so I’d prefer to go the control direction myself. I love this idea! If you haven’t yet I’d recommend posting a link to this over on the FFG forums. Excited to see where this goes.

  3. “Control” necessarily means different things for the LS and the DS. Sith decks are naturally best at taking control of the Force and holding out for a win on the dial by preventing the LS from getting through to meet their win condition through unit control (Tactics and some unit capture) and defense.

    But the LS has to get through and destroy objectives to win. So “control” for the LS will have to be oriented around Tactics and edge battles for engagement control. Jedi decks, obviously, are best at this in the Core set.

    1. If the LS can keep the force on their side, they can pick off at least 1 if not 2 objectives — but that will still leave 1 or 2 objectives they’ll have to go after in aggro-deck style. So you are looking at a hybrid “control + aggro” combination of cards out of an LS deck, right?

      1. I guess that remains to be seen. Sure, the LS has to attack, but they can still play around with how they attack. If they can keep the DS locked down with Tactics, then they don’t need so much blast damage since they’ll get the unopposed bonus. I imagine aggro being more of a blast damage heavy, ignore defenders by blasting through them, kind of thing.

      2. Stall DS aggro, outpace DS control. That’s how LS wins with control. LS aggro would be just outpacing DS aggro. By that definition there is no hybrid archetype for LS because control IS hybrid for LS. They are the same deck — and yeah there are going to be lots of methods to do it.

        DS control on the other hand could defend the dial or include a bit of aggro to try and accelerate the dial, although the latter seems diluted from a control standpoint.

        I think DS hybrid will exist. DS aggro with just enough control to win the race would be the hybrid.

      3. Personally, I’m curious to see what we come up with as control for a LS deck. As this discussion kind of shows, it’s not clear exactly what it will look like.

      4. When the card pool gets bigger, I can see a pure Light Side control deck coming out. The two key things that it’ll have are keeping the balance of the force, and stalling or reversing the Death Star dial. With those two things, the Light Side will be able to work out a win.

        Right now, there aren’t enough Death Star stall cards to make that work. So whatever we come up with (assuming we do go this control route), will necessarily have some aggro with it.

      5. One of the better articles on head to head written to date — it’s also the reason that players tend to min/max when it comes to playing aggro or control, as you have a better guess on which you will be. The issue with min/max is that when you are both min/maxing toward the same end, the deck that has to adopt an atypical role doesn’t have enough cards in the deck to do it.

        Aggro tends to adapt to playing control better than control adapts to playing aggro, generally on conversion of multi-sided cards to switch to defense. If you can find some control cards that aggro well, all bets are off I think.

      6. I agree, it’s a great article. Also, I do think that we’ll be able to find some control cards that aggro well in tactics icons. You can go aggro with tactics, proactively placing focus tokens and such things, and still be control in locking down the DS’s ability to do anything. Or at least that’s how it could work in my head. *shrugs*

      7. I think the card pool is going to have to be rather large before any one pure style of deck(control, aggro, etc..)will be feasible due to the objective pod based deck building. Just my thought on that.

  4. Looking pretty solid that we want to do a control deck, but I’m going to wait until Tuesday to make that call because I’ll be traveling the next couple of days and writing up a full blog post from my phone doesn’t sound like fun. Besides, I want to give aggro or combo or such things a chance.

      1. My plan is to have each “episode” follow one of the steps from my deck building blog. I’ll post my thoughts about that step, and then let the comments make the decisions.

        Edit: Just re-read my response and realized that it might not have cleared things up at all. For instance, the next episode will be about determining what characteristics we’ll want to look for on cards for our chosen deck goal, and will probably be shorter since we’ve already started discussing it here. After that we’ll do an initial pass through the LS objective sets. For that one, I’ll post my thoughts on all of the sets, and the comments will be a place to discuss all other thoughts so that we end up narrowing down the card pool some by eliminating objective sets that don’t help at all. And so on.

  5. not going to pay to much attention to this just because so far star wars game hasn’t got me as interested as agot (dont like the game as much or the theme) but if going with control it think what should look for is characters that use the focus icon if can make all the dark side committed force users not count, and get some unopposed attacks here and there at objectives seems most effective “control” style for light side, just my take and i haven’t played too much so could be wrong.

    1. Force control means high-strength characters that commit well to the force, and I really like Obi-Wan toward that end because he can commit to the force and still operate normally. LS control needs to be able to able to win the force and still defend itself turn-to-turn.

      I think you need anti-aggro control too, because if you lose any objectives it’s nearly as bad as not controlling the force. You need anti-aggro that also permits your own aggro — so I think you are looking at unit killing out of LS here and maybe focus-level manipulation.

    1. For sure, LS can pull off a great blitz. Doesn’t look like we’ll be doing that this time, but the first LS deck I tried to put together was like that (list is posted on the FFG forums here). However, I think Rebel Assault or Heavy Blaster Emplacement could be even better in a control deck by giving it some reach and extra damage.

      1. The Heavy Blaster definately can work in either “type” of deck. It is always great to activate it and hand your opponent a damage token and ask them “who wants to jump infront of this bullet?”

      2. Yeah, I love the heavy blaster in just about any deck. The question for me would tend to be whether or not the rest of the objective set fit my goal.

  6. After looking at the game mechanics, I was surprised how familiar it was. Focus tokens are a new way of marking “tapped/kneeled” that can stack to keep a card out of action longer. Things attempt to “untap” at the beginning of your own turn. So to some degree this game is …post planeswalker MTG, L5R, Battletech… enough to look at cards through that lens and not have a huge degree of unwarranted POV. It’s familiar when played even if the way decks are built here is new.

    LS control as I see it:
    — Attempt to win/hold control of the Force
    — Bay DS aggression, since winning/holding the Force takes pieces out of the battle every other turn (except Obi-Wan).
    — Aggro enough to win against slow progress on the Death Star.

    Targeting DS pieces for death directly seems the right way to go. Kill off their best Force-winning guys, kill off their aggro, kill off their defenses — all in one convenient package. All gains are permanent in nature, so a bad draw-up mid game doesn’t end LS chances the way trying to momentarily neutralize DS pieces might.

    LS Control is primarily a tactics deck, which protects its Force-holders from harm while it thins the DS board and builds up strength to the point where DS cannot come back to win. No question in my mind now that it can’t adopt a different plan and still win in a control way. It would otherwise (at least in a portion of games) lose the Force or find DS aggression too resilient to both defend and attack.