Nexus of Power
Welcome to our rundown of Nexus of Power. Make sure you catch our podcast coverage of the release. For everything out with this release window, follow these links:
Thanks go to GW for providing a review copy to make this content possible.
Introduction
[D]AVY, [P]HIL, [B]RIAN, [S]KYLER, & [Z]ach
P: The long awaited hold deck has finally arrived! It purports to care about treasure tokens, if so I welcome it with open arms! Let's see if it truly wants treasure or to just kill anyone that tries to steal it.
D: Fingers crossed…
P: Very interesting, so you potentially benefit from standing on or next to treasure, but we will have to see how important covetous is as we go. The standard bonus for being on a treasure is pretty great and likely makes the math a bit scary sometimes as fighters can reach further than expected. The cost of letting your opponent choose two treasures to flip at the start of the game is really tough to judge, but it feels like it will force some tough decisions for both players.
D: Definitely one of the wordier plot cards we've had. Looking ahead, I think there must have been some concerns about too much power without this rule. It feels like something that was probably added later in development. There's some interesting interactions to think about with Pillage and Plunder or warbands that care about cover (Shadeborn?).
Objectives
P: Huh, so while you could score this for defending a treasure it feels more likely to get picked up while attacking fighters holding treasure. Probably a good flex choice for warbands that want to hold and fight.
D: This is an early indicator that this deck is super at war with Pillage and Plunder. If there's a lot of treasure out, this is a large portion of the board that is just looking for you to land a successful melee attack. If most have them have been flipped, your window of opportunity is drastically narrowed.
P: Prescient of you, Davy. After some play testing this is a bit tougher than it looks because it basically can be played around entirely if your opponent doesn’t care about hold treasure themselves.
P: Not having to hold to be covetous makes this easier. Another that seems like a good flex choice. Two points don't make a trend but starting to get a feeling...
D: The timing also prevents your opponent from denying this by hopping on a token and delving it. Though they could hop on one and drive one of your fighters away... But still, I'm always going to keep a close eye on any surges scored purely for positioning.
P: I think this should be solid, especially for warbands that can push or move multiple fighters at once. I'm glad it has that after opponents action window so they can try to respond to this.
D: There's some deployments and warbands that can get this first action, no problem.
P: Another surge for attacking fighters on or near treasure, but that caveat of having bounty of 2 or more could be tricky. Against some warbands that is completely impossible and getting to be the underdog against swarms can be really tough.
D: Unlike Seized, this scores on ranged attacks. But the bounty requirement is awfully restrictive. And watch out once raised fighters enter the chat.
P: Soooo overrun to score. Not exactly reliable but you will likely do this at some point in a game. Probably a surge that often doesn't make the cut but you might think about it.
D: I might not. I've never seen anyone take Usurped from Hunting Grounds and that one works on any feature token. In the immortal question posed by PtG- Sleeve it or Heave it? I'm heaving it. I guess if I'm desperate, and am in a DS pairing, and have battering ram...
P: Okay, critical effort with an extra hoop is still a solid surge. Less flex and more aggro but probably a staple option for this deck.
D: Yeah, no complaints. My main question is how long the board state sustains a covetous environment for all of these. Interesting lore tidbit about Kamandora! She has laws!
P: You are pretty likely to make an attack while within 1 of treasure with this deck, but how much you want to be invading likely decides how much you like this one.
D: I'd agree. There's enough other things in this deck that are looking to invade that there's probably a build that leans that way. Those are the treasures you have the least control over, though.
P: Ranged warbands should make this easier, a bit like a keep chopping for covetous fighters. I imagine this will be a frequent include for this deck.
D: Yeah, there's a lot that Thundrik doesn't super care for in this deck (invading!) but this is a prime example of a juicy choice for them.
P: Reprint from Emberstone that has had a bit of a infamous existence. A decent end phase on paper but having to get across the line and hold means you really only reach for this with a specific game plan. I think with a flex plan this may make more sense here.
D: Brian ran this for quite a while in his Gardeners ES pairing, so I appreciate the picture here.
P: Uhh, different treasure tokens makes this kinda gross for only one glory. You don't have to hold but I imagine if you are next to a token your opponent can grab they will delve it and lock you out. I could be wrong but this one feels like too much work for most warbands.
D: I agree, this one looks insane for one glory, but maybe I'm wrong. Early cut.
P: This wording sucks. I think it is saying they can't be adjacent to any fighters so essentially flanking a single treasure. But, it might be that they can be adjacent to each other, just no more fighters. If the second reading I think this is a pretty decent end phase, if the first I'm probably leaving it at home.
D: Words mean things GW! Lone Wolves?! Plural? I think this has to be the more restrictive wording. I think this is pretty good, but not if you're pairing with Emberstone Sentinels.
P: Weeeird. Hold two is pretty easy but needing at least one fighter damaged could be tough to line up. I imagine you'd only want this if you have fighters with four health that can absorb a hit. If playing against this and you have pings you probably will need to be careful about when you fire them off.
D: Any warband that is raising damaged fighters is happy to run this. I think I quite like the design on this one. Also maybe (probably not, but maybe) gives some legs to some self damage cards.
Gambits
P: Close enough to a sidestep that I'm probably always taking this. Delving makes this trickier but it is pretty rare to get so many treasures delved down that you can't find a use for this.
D: This just in, WTH hosts rate sidestep (near) equivalents highly.
P: Wow, I think I'm in love. Moves out of sequence can be so game changing. Having to only end within one of a treasure leaves this really flexible, especially for faster warbands. Play offensively, defensively, or just to cover the board. I'm calling now this might be the best card in the deck.
D: I might not be quite so high on it, but it *is* great. One that feels especially good pairing into Emberstone to get tokens covered with greater efficiency than expected.
P: And as soon as I make a bold statement they hit us with this! Without any range limit this is pretty nuts for repositioning. Yes, having to have both be holding requires some set up but when that is what your warband wants to be doing it is hardly a cost. Again, can use this aggressively, defensively or to reach more of the board. Dang!
D: High ceiling on this one. Low floor too. But getting a hitter up close to swing, then swapping with a more defensive fighter is a pretty juicy option.
P: Solid. Get an accuracy boost while attacking around treasure. So far, I'm thinking you might struggle to have room for all the ploys you want and this one might not make the cut.
D: Works on ranged attacks, which is a nice thing to note. Obviously there's better accuracy ploys, but I can't get mad at having this in the toolbox.
P: Am I trying to hold even a little bit? Then yeah I think I'm taking this. Getting to lock down a specific spot or make a fighter who charged in tougher to hit should always have value.
D: Does the fighter need to be in neutral/enemy territory, or is that a requirement of the token? I think the latter?
P: Probably our first niche piece. Clearly planned to help get treasures back up, but I'd guess most of the time you don't need this to do it. Maybe if you are expecting a lot of counter delving you would decide this is important but on face value I think it is not quite good enough to always take.
D: Has some limited counterplay into pillage. Or I guess can help pillage that need more treasures to delve faster.
P: After some testing, that counter delving is probably more impactful than I first gave credit to. This card is likely more important than it looks.
P: Cleave on demand is nice, could even work as a deterrent to being near tokens. Bit of a meta call but the way things have been lately I am always happy to have cleave.
D: I thiiiink there's just too many restrictions on this one to make it to my top 10.
P: Yeah, I missed the undamaged part on first read. That likely sinks this, unfortunately.
P: A nice reprint to lock in your position. I have almost always been happy to have this card when trying to hold in the past.
D: I agree. It doesn't make the cut every time, but if it doesn't it usually means I have some warband tech to help. This deck cares about positioning quite a bit, so nice to see it here.
P: Oh wow, a surprise reroll on defense could be so scary. Especially for warbands that already have multiple defense dice. I dig it!
D: Hopefully I don't eat my words, but this feels balanced just about right. Digging for a save or Stand Fast can flip a game.
P: I'm immediately thinking about ranged attacks getting grapple with this, that feels pretty neat. Not sure it is necessary but I like the tech options.
D: Not 100% sure on the utility of this earning a spot in the deck, but I'm more excited to get Brutal than Grapple here.
Upgrades
P: Playing a two glory upgrade that just helps scoring feels rough, but maybe covetous will be easier to counter than I'm thinking and having this bridge card to keep the scoring flowing will be clutch. I'll need to see it in action to know for sure.
D: Yeah, my thought is that a few reps will show how important this is. It's not as good as an upgrade to gain united, but in a warband that has saucy range 1 attacks, it's an ok bump, even absent deck interaction.
P: Oof, yeah after seeing it in action I think this card is better than it looks at first glance. There are just enough ways to gum up the scoring that a bridge card here could help keeps things flowing but two glory feels so steep.
P: Maybe it is better to think of this as a ploy that lets you make a range 3 melee attack once? I think there would be times you would absolutely want that effect and since you will immediately be refunded the glory when it breaks it seems like a reasonable way to think about it.
D: Very interesting. Pricy as heck but getting one extra attack from a fighter that's upgraded to the 9s could very well be worth it.
P: Relevant to note using this for just range two attacks would still be solid on some fighters, it is not as valuable though since you can already get that by being on a token.
P: For two bounty I don't know. There are not as many impactful ranged attacks this edition and while they can definitely change the board state I would guess most of the time it is range one and two melee attacks that will be the deciding factors so spending a slot that does nothing for those feels steep.
D: Good lord, another 2 glory price tag?! Gotta be a meta call at best. I struggle to see space at that price unless there's warband with ranged attacks really making waves.
P: Fun reprint to disincentivize being driven off treasure. I like this being here in a deck that feels very flex.
D: I've included this in other pairings, but it is often the 10th or 11th pick for upgrades. It'll sneak in if the pickings are real sparse.
P: When we first saw this upgrade I didn't like it much, but the game has shifted a bit and flanked is a really common situation now so being able to deny it could be really valuable.
D: Yeah, same. It's grown on me. I think with Deadly Synergy here to stay in the land of relevancy the stocks on this guy stay high.
P: Worth noting this fighter doesn't have to be the one that got charged so a way to undo delves... The thing I'm unsure of is when is a fighter considered to have charged, after the whole activation I think so you can't do this before getting attacked if the charge is at this fighter.
D: Maybe best for establishing covetous when you're off the token for a decent crackback? Doesn't have to be empty either, so you could force a delve? Or effectively delve twice yourself. At 1 glory, I'd goof around with it.
P: Wow, range 5 or 6 while using this? That's crazy. Talk about having a way to surprise someone with a long bomb shot from across the whole field.
D: Lund is dreaming of his range 7 shot with Custom Aethrshot rounds. Inspired, that's a 10 hex threat. For one damage, but still.
P: Yikes, this plus the range bonus of covetous feels scary. That feels like when this will be most potent. You are holding a treasure with extra range and damage.
D: Yeah, I'll mess with this for one glory.
P: Never tell me the odds! But seriously, this is decent. Find that spot you want to lock down and settle in with this fighter on two defense. Obviously will only take this if your warband doesn't have two defense innately but plenty of warbands don't, especially block warbands.
D: Priced right. Relatively rare to get a bump and some fighters really, really like that second defense die.
P: Hey! I know that card. Little first edition throwback. Pretty solid weapon for turreting up on a treasure. Having this keep stagger is really a nice cherry on top.
D: Oh, you're right. Totally forgot that this existed. I'm not 100% sure why this is in here, other than a weapon to tie in with the covetous theme. I suppose with the positioning requirement, this lets you get into a spot while still cracking off a potentially pretty accurate shot.
Summary
P: Alas, not the hold deck I wish we got but a decently interesting deck regardless. I’d say this falls squarely in the flex category and might even be best AGAINST hold rather than as a hold support deck. Just what we were all hoping for…