1000th Post ~ Card Advantage 101

[Mojumbo]

Assuming you build minimum size decks, card advantage is the biggest determining factor in winning and losing in shadow era. That's why all my decks are built "to go second" meaning the most health and highest ability to retake the board.

How to create card advantage where there is none:

Let's take Gravebone for example. It's turn 4. You went second. Your opponent has played the dreaded Jasmine+Aldon combo and the board is clear. Lightning strike won't help. Nova is a turn away and would really put you in a health hole PLUS they would still get the turn to do whatever they wanted. If they dropped a high health ally T5, you're likely still screwed.

A chimera would be crippled. Anything else would just get ran over. Playing a portal, rather than playing an ally, is a good idea. Playing a bella will just be a speed bump. Portal in itself is -1 card advantage though, which is bad. You sacrifice a turn and set yourself up for it to be destroyed. If it sticks, you can send in a belladonna for a immediate card draw and death of his jasmine. This brings your card advantage back even. Now he will likely kill your Bella with his Aldon or hero ability, but you still will have haste for one more turn plus an extra card.

Cards like Portal and Evil Ascendant don't have direct card advantage, but when applied correctly, aid greatly in the direction you built your deck. This is synergy ladies, and this is the second biggest determining factor in good deck building. Evil Ascendant combined with infernal gargoyle is extreme synergy. Cards like sacrificial lamb on a hasted Bella on t6 is extreme synergy. You know she won't survive and you in turn get maximum reward for your play. 4 damage and 4 cards drawn for 2 cards played.

+1

I realize this is an article only about card advantage, but what about the tempo loss from using the two resources? In addition, should you choose to play Bazaar over another card that would have remained on the field (or had another card-drawing effect that would have been immediate), then you've lost yet another point of CA (in theory) for using a card that was instantly nuked. In other words, the "floater" aspect you mention later could apply here as well since A) you got no benefit (and therefore lost tempo in the process as well) and B) you could have made a "floater" card by making another choice.

Just a thought. Really enjoyed the article! Congrats on the 1000 posts!

Ya you can also view cards like artifacts and support abilities as having "paid for the themself." Its a good way to track if your drack is producing lots of card advanatage or giving it away. The reason allies that have paid for themselves can be considered floaters is because they tend to have a very short life expectancy and are just "hovering over the board" until they die. As such, the allies that can pay for themselves faster can be seen to offer greater value in terms of pure card advantage. Thats why I find an ally like Belladonna quite interesting, and like Killtrend mentioned with the use of haste she can become pretty menancing! I know I've included her in my Majiya portal decks in the past

[BlanketEffect]

I agree entirely with the OP's opinions on card advantage. Other factors, as mentioned, play a factor: board advantage and tempo advantage.


The biggest thing with card advantage is that a card is just a card, and it can be hard to say if one card "did more" than any one other given card, especially situationally.

A way you can measure your level of advantage is to ask how much have you accomplished in a certain span of time. We'll assume that all cards, in a competitive deck, played by good players, in a balanced set of cards, have the same impact:cost ratio, though sometimes those effects aren't equitably quantifiable.

So we'll assume that (1), which I use to represent the concept of a resource being spent as part of a cost to play or to activate an ability, has (1) "victory" point worth of effect behind it. In other words, since the first set is as balanced as can reasonably be expected, then each resource you spent to elicit an outcome roughly equals the output amount of any resource spent in the game.

Now, in order to accomplish the most your deck (and luck of the draw) have to offer, you need to spend resources. Strategy notwithstanding, the more resources you spend, the more effects on the game you can elicit. The more effects you elicit, the more likely you are to win the game, since your effects will be aimed towards the outcome of your victory.

I would posit, in the broadest terms possible, that spending resources is what wins the game. If you managed to spend (35) and your opponent only managed to squeak out (22), then you have clearly accomplished more than he has (again, assuming equal skill of players).

In order to have spent so many more resources than your opponent, odds are very great that you've been drawing more cards than he has, as you always have options in your hand and your board to consistently spend as close to 100% of your resources every turn.

I'm not saying that this is an exact methodology or science, but I'll bet in a HUGE majority of games played, at all levels, the the winner of a given match spent more in resources either in playing or activating abilities than their opponent.

TL;DR
Card advantage is hugely important, as the more cards you get and/or save mean that many more avenues to spend your resources, and he who spends the most resources, generally speaking, wins the game.

[Gondorian]

I agree entirely with the OP's opinions on card advantage. Other factors, as mentioned, play a factor: board advantage and tempo advantage.


The biggest thing with card advantage is that a card is just a card, and it can be hard to say if one card "did more" than any one other given card, especially situationally.

A way you can measure your level of advantage is to ask how much have you accomplished in a certain span of time. We'll assume that all cards, in a competitive deck, played by good players, in a balanced set of cards, have the same impact:cost ratio, though sometimes those effects aren't equitably quantifiable.

So we'll assume that (1), which I use to represent the concept of a resource being spent as part of a cost to play or to activate an ability, has (1) "victory" point worth of effect behind it. In other words, since the first set is as balanced as can reasonably be expected, then each resource you spent to elicit an outcome roughly equals the output amount of any resource spent in the game.

Now, in order to accomplish the most your deck (and luck of the draw) have to offer, you need to spend resources. Strategy notwithstanding, the more resources you spend, the more effects on the game you can elicit. The more effects you elicit, the more likely you are to win the game, since your effects will be aimed towards the outcome of your victory.

I would posit, in the broadest terms possible, that spending resources is what wins the game. If you managed to spend (35) and your opponent only managed to squeak out (22), then you have clearly accomplished more than he has (again, assuming equal skill of players).

In order to have spent so many more resources than your opponent, odds are very great that you've been drawing more cards than he has, as you always have options in your hand and your board to consistently spend as close to 100% of your resources every turn.

I'm not saying that this is an exact methodology or science, but I'll bet in a HUGE majority of games played, at all levels, the the winner of a given match spent more in resources either in playing or activating abilities than their opponent.

TL;DR
Card advantage is hugely important, as the more cards you get and/or save mean that many more avenues to spend your resources, and he who spends the most resources, generally speaking, wins the game.

Good post.

Following this logic, it is easy to see why warriors with BF and JD can be so strong.

[Mojumbo]

Good post.

Following this logic, it is easy to see why warriors with BF and JD can be so strong.

I hear that

[BlanketEffect]

Good post.

Following this logic, it is easy to see why warriors with BF and JD can be so strong.

Good, tangible example.

[Preybird]

Brilliant post, and excellent discussion. Very very good reads.

And congrats on the 1K!

[Tyr Anasazi]

Both side at 3 resources, one side has 3x Sandworm and 3x Tidal Wave, the other has 1x Infernal Gargoyle and 1x Thaddeus.

Still card advantage?

[BlanketEffect]

Card advantage, yes. Tempo and/or board advantage, absolutely not.

Who's gonna get to spend more resources/accomplish more on their next turn? That is your guide.