Faëria Analysis 1

Faëria is a Strategy Card Game under development by Abrakam.
You can find out more on Faëria.net, and their Kickstarter campaign. If you enjoy board games or card games, I recommend backing them up (there is also a campaign on Steam’s Project Greenlight you can help with).
This is not an introduction to the game, so I will assume you are familiar with it and the basic mechanics. Rather, I wanted to take a deeper look at the numbers in the current card-pool.

Card Types and Colors:

At the highest level, we may wonder about the distribution of the Card Types among the various colors. The first two charts (“Card Type, by Color”, and “Card Color, by Type”) show us two view of the current Faëria cardpool.



All colors have more Creatures available than other types of cards, while some colors have more Structures than Events, and vice-versa.

The color with most Creatures available is Blue, followed by Green, Yellow, Red, and Humans in decreasing order.
For Structures, the order is: Red, Humans, Green, and a tie between Blue and Yellow.
For Events: Yellow, Red, Blue, Humans, Green.

Human Creatures:

Human Creatures are easier to analyse than the rest as they have no Land requirement. Hence, their cost can be reduced to a single value: the sum of the Gold and Faëria cost (I’m calling it GF Cost for ease of reference).

The next chart (“Human Creatures LP (by GF Cost, no Land Req.)”) shows us the average Life and Power of the Human Creatures at each point of the GF scale. For instance, a Human creature with a GF cost of 3 (which may mean 3 Gold and 0 Faëria, 2 Gold and 1 Faëria, 1 Gold and 2 Faëria, or 0 Gold and 3 Faëria), will on average have Power 1 and Life 2.


As you can see, for Human Creatures, the Life is higher than the Power, which tells us that they do less damage than they can take. Straight combat between equivalent Human Creatures will last more than one turn, unless other elements are introduced (eg: Events and Structures pumping one creature’s Power, or multiple Creatures attacking the same target).

Note: No Human Creature has a GF Cost greater than 9, so I am displaying only the data up to this point in this chart.

This chart also includes a 3rd data series (line): the L/P Ratio for Creatures at each point on the GF Cost scale.
For instance, at GF Cost 2, the average Human Creature has 0.5 Power and 2 Life. The L/P ratio is then 4, which gives us an idea of how many of these average Creatures would have to be attacking a single equivalent average Creature to kill it right away.
As you can see, the L/P ratio line peaks at GF Cost 2 but quickly evens out at values between 1.5 and 2 for the rest of the spectrum. This means that for creatures with GF Cost of 3 and higher, if you manage to get 2 creatures to attack the same target, you should be able to kill it right away (of course we are assuming the target of your attack is of equivalent GF Cost).

Blue Creatures:

With Blue Creatures, the analysis becomes more complex. As for all non-Human Creatures, we have to account for the third type of cost: Land Requirements. Thankfully, at this time, we don’t have any card in the pool requiring lands of multiple types (“multi-colored” cards?).

The next three charts show us the Life and Power of Blue Creatures for a given GF Cost, as Chart 3 did for Human Creatures. The three charts account for the different Land requirements (respectively, Creatures requiring 1, 2, and 3 Lands).




Note: The last of these three charts is a bit difficult to read as the Life and Power lines overlap for most of the spectrum.

I have not included the L/P ratio in these charts as it may lead to a sort of visual overload (we’re already dealing with 3 charts at one time), and it is a derived ratio you can visualize by looking at the difference between the two lines in the chart at any point.
The Life line is above or matching the Power line along the spectrum, as we saw in the analysis of Human Creatures.
By looking at the three charts together, you can recognize a couple of details.

The maximum Life for a Creature is higher for Creatures with higer Land requirement (4 for L=1, 5 for L=2, and 6 for L=3). The maximum Power, however, peaks at 3 both for Creatures requiring 1 and 2 Lands, but reaches 6 for Creatures requiring 3 Lands.

The lines for L=1 and L=2 follow a similar pattern: they rise early on along the GF Cost, then dip and then reach their maximum values. However, the L=1 line does so earlier than the L=2 line. This means that among Creatures requiring 1 Land, you get more efficiency early on along the GF Cost (which also means earlier in the game) than for Creatures requiring 2 Lands.

The data for L=3, instead, shows us a fairly flat profile, with just a couple of peaks (one at GF Cost 5, the other between GF Cost 11 and 12). Clearly, these Creatures are a different sort of beast, and do not provide any sort of consistent curve along the GF spectrum.

The next chart shows us the L/P ratios derived from the previous 3 charts, grouped together. This gives us a sense for the relative strength of creatures requiring 1, 2, and 3 lands (at the same GF Cost point) when facing equivalent enemies.


The line for L=3 is a story on its own, of course, but the other two lines show us what we probably should expect: L=1 peaks earlier and at a lower maximum than L=2. I find particularly interesting the relative position of these two lines around a couple of spots.

First, around GF Cost 6: L=1 dips to zero, while L=2 reaches its maximum. This feels to me as a hint from the dev team: this is the point on the curve where you probably want to drop your 2nd land (if you haven’t already done so) to get the best value out of your Creatures. There are only 2 Blue Creatures at this GF Cost: Servant of Alua, and Tide Bringer.

Second, the subtle symmetry of the L1 and L2 curves between GF Cost 3 and 5: L1 dips, stalls, and will then dip again, while L2 grows, stalls, and then will grow again, headed for its peak. Once again, this may be an indication that, as you gather 3 to 5 Gold and Faëria, you may be in good shape to drop that 2nd land.

Note: of course, there are plenty of other reasons to drop lands at different points in your game. The suggestions above are based exclusively on the costs and attributes of the Creatures int he cardpool.

Finally, the L=3 series tells us that, to play Creatures requiring 3 Lands, you need to gather up 11 or 12 Gold and Faëria (the only other Creature of this type is the Ancient Kappa, with GF Cost of 5).

It’s also noteworthy that the L=3 series peaks at a L/P ratio of 1.25, well below the maximum values of L=1 (3) and L=2 (4). When looking only at Life and Power, Blue Creatures requiring 3 Lands are not very efficient.

Green Creatures:

The next four charts show us the Power and Life at the different GF Cost points for Green Creatures requiring 1, 2, 3, and 4 Lands.
As we’ve come to expect, the Life value is always higher than or equal to the Power value.





Another detail we can see from these charts is that, as the Land requirement increases, the maximum value for the Life series grows (Life peaks at 4 for L=1, 6 for L=2, 7 for L=3, although it peaks at only 2 for L=4), while the maximum Power is capped at 3 regardless of the Land requirement. In other words, Green Creatures requiring more Lands to be played are more resilient to damage, but don’t improve on their ability to deal damage.

The next chart shows us the L/P ratios grouped together.


As for Blue Creatures, the L=1 series peaks earlier than the L=2 series. However, unlike for Blue Creatures, the maximum value among the various series is found for L=1 (at GF Cost 4), followed by L=3 (at GF Cost 9). From Green’s point of view, where a Creature is able to withstand damage, this means that the Creatures for L=1 and L=3 are more efficient.

The series for L=3 actually presents an interesting trend: the L/P ratio drops to zero at almost every other point on the GF Cost spectrum (2, 4, 6, 8, but then 11), while it hits high values in between. That means that there are Green Creatures for L=3 at almost all of the odd costs (3, 5, 7, 9, but then 10). Looking at the peaks found at these points, we can also see that (although the correlation is not exact), the L/P ratio increases as we move to higher GF Cost ratios.
Overall, the L=3 series shows that we may want to drop the 3rd Forest much earlier than the 3rd Lake, and that we will be able to obtain more value from this 3rd Land over time.

Red Creatures:

Red Creatures, like Blue Creatures, require 1, 2, or 3 Lands. Hence, we get 3 charts to visualize the Life and Power of the Red Creatures. In all cases, Life is Higher than or equal to Power, of course.




As we look at creatures with higher Land requirements, we can see the Life maximum does not necessarily increase (as it did for Green Creatures): the maxima are 5 for L=1, 6 for L=2, and 5 for L=3. Power maxima also move from 3 (L=1), to 4 (L=2), back to 3 (L=3). The higher maximum for Life at L=1 of Red Creatures (vs. Green Creatures) indicates Red can count on playing sturdier creatures earlier in the game, while Green’s higher maximum at L=3 shows its advantage (in this sense) in the later game. The Power maxima for these two colors are similar, but Red edges out Green in the mid range (for L=2).

The next chart shows the L/P ratio for the Red Creatures (separated by their Land requirements).


As you can see, the series for L=2 peaks earlier than the other two series, and at a higher value (L/P 4). This means you can get a lot of value early on by playing the 2nd Mountain. The same series is also lively all the way to the GF Cost of 10, indicating you can get value over time if stuck at 2 Mountains.
The L=1 series is also steady throughout the spectrum, but requires more Gold and Faëria to start delivering value (as it peaks at GF Cost 5).
Finally, the L=3 series appears on the extremely high end of the GF Cost spectrum (10+), hinting that you won’t need to play the 3rd Mountain until your other resources are accumulating at a great pace.

Yellow Creatures:

The next three charts show us the Life and Power for Yellow Creatures requiring 1, 2, and 3 Lands.




For the first time, we see cases where the Power is higher than the Life (for L=1, GF Cost 6, and L=3, GF Cost 9). This indicates Yellow is the most aggressive color available at this time, as we were expecting. Interestingly, the series for L=2 sticks to the “Life over Power” approach, meaning that Yellow Creatures requiring 2 Lands are not as aggressive as their siblings requiring 1 or 3 Lands.
The maxima for Life are: 4 for L=1, 4 for L=2, and 5 for L=3. This makes Yellow the color with the lowest maxima for Life.
The maxima for Power are: 4 for L=1, 2.6 for L=2, and 6 for L=3. This makes Yellow the color with highest maxima for Power at L=1 and L=3, but -again- a weak option under the L=2 constraint.
Yellow is also the only color without any Creature costing 10+ in Gold and Faëria combined (Humans also stop at the GF Cost of 9).
The series for the highest requirement in terms of Lands (L=3) is similar to what we saw for Blue Creatures (with a small peak early on and a big spike later on the GF Cost scale). However, both peaks in Yellow appear earlier than the Blue counter-parts along the GF scale, meaning Yellow can get value out of its 3rd Land earlier than Blue.

The next chart shows us the L/P ratio for the three series of Yellow Creatures.


Clearly, the series for L=2 shows the highest values, as those Creatures all showcase a Life greater than or equal to their Power (which is not always the case for L=1 and L=3).
If, as we did for other colors, we consider a high L/P ratio to be desirable, then the Creatures requiring 2 Deserts seem better than those requiring 1 or 3 Deserts. However, from Yellow’s point of view, the survivability of the Creatures is not a primary concern.
In addition, if we look only at the Power and Life attributes, we can see that among the Yellow Creatures requiring 3 Lands, the one at GF Cost 4 (Stalking Nightmare) is more efficient than the one at GF Cost 9 (Sandstorm Dragon), as its L/P ratio is higher.

Regarding the Method:

I grabbed the best list of cards I could find. Namely, that’s the list of all known cards from slowreflex post on the official forums (which is a port to MS Excel of The Cardlist .CSV by Kaelis on FaëriaWiki.de.

I filled the blank cells for missing data with zeroes to simplify the analysis formulas.

I used a MS Excel 2010 spreadsheet to calculated values from the raw cardlist and generate the charts.

Note that the list is subject to change, and I plan to re-run the stats as the cardpool shifts.
The current list may also be somehow incomplete, as the total number of cards accounted for is 244 (vs. the expected 250 cards total), with some colors having more cards than others.

This type of analysis was clearly inspired by the excellent work of Matthes Watkins (@oraymw) in his series of Ars Arcanum articles for PureMTGO. His work is clearly much more refined than mine.


2 thoughts on “Faëria Analysis 1

  1. Pingback: Faëria Analysis 2: Faëria Production | Francesco Rizzi

  2. Pingback: Faëria Analysis 3: Cost Normalization | Francesco Rizzi

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s