Looks like it actually has strategy to it compared to cfv.
I honestly wonder where this idea started up. Quite frankly, it seems the opposite is true (^ ^').
Like, here me out here. Let's assume that the Gauge system and the Counter Blast system are synonymous in function. Since Gauge is constantly loaded turn per turn with no notable drawbacks (actually, Charging Gauge seems to be an outright benefit considering the redraw), it's rather easy to call out not requiring much skill at all, quite frankly, whereas Counter Blasts are directly linked to damage - they are damage. The card advantage generated by CB is inversely proportional to your footing and/or mechanical advantage in a given fight, and especially considering how efficient it is to guard cheaper attacks that could have allowed more CB, it causes a constant strain between gaining CB but taking damage and potentially falling behind, or preserving damage and possibly card advantage without getting CB for a forward push.
'But wait Nacho! Do realize that because of the combination of that very redraw, and due to Buddyfight's leveling mechanics, your deck choices aren't limited or predefined by Grades! Look at all the options I have because of this, it must be an easy way to create strategies!'
See, and I'm like 100% people are going to catch onto this upon actually playing the game, but Levels have so much deeper implications than you can first imagine. Think of it like this, if the effectiveness of a given card scales to their levels, wouldn't that mean a single Level 3 unit should be about as valuable as three Level 1s? Okay, so for the exact same value, which of the two is cheaper? Fielding only one powerhouse unit that will probably provide an excellent buffer? Or three individual units that are individually very fragile? I really hope this is obvious to you by the way, but okay! Level 3 units. Easily, this could imply that Level 3s are the greatest means of providing an early game buffer, as their base stats are high and are relatively cheap to maintain. But then...you don't gain the offensive benefits; having units attack together and getting the Critical bonus, or surpassing your field's 3 Levels by placing a Level 2 and Level 1 on the sides and equipping an item to yourself. Okay, so after our Level 3s have done their job as a buffer, we're going to want to set up our offensive capabilities, right? And then crash.
See, there's a reason why we have to give a sh-t about Level 3s being the most efficient to maintain. With the main draw being the only constant source of card advantage available, only 1 card per turn, wouldn't it be incredibly tragic if you lost more than 1 card in a turn? Well, what if you jumped the gun, fielded three, easy to kill, Level 1 units, and the opponent immediately responds with fielding three of their own units to attack and kill off yours? Most likely scenario, 3 cards lost in some way or form. So...yeah. Similar situation with items, leaving the centerline open to attacks is just asking for trouble, and will most likely be extremely expensive to maintain as well defensively. So at the end of the day, we're still trying to do our absolute best to balance the ratios of the deck in order to give us the most optimal probabilities to play in order to have that constant buffer while still having access to that offensive power. Well, at least it's not Vanguard, where we are focusing on Grade 1s, 2s, and 3s and their proportions in the deck in order to maximize our playing capabilities while still being as consistent at performing so as possible, amirite? Hahaha...oh wait.
'But Nacho, couldn't you say that hullabaloo about Grade 1-I mean, Level 1s and jumping the gun and card advantage be the strategy that Buddyfight has that Cardfight Vanguard doesn't?'
Oh, of course it is. See, in Buddyfight, you have up to three zones of combat and usually up to three attacks to work with. Now, you can choose to attack your opponent's center column to whittle away resources and score damage onto the opponent to win, or you can choose to be a d-ck and kill of their units in the sidelines in order to gain leverage in on the fight. It's NOTHING like Cardfight Vanguard, where you have up to three zones of combat and usually up to three attacks to work with, where you can choose to attack your opponent's center column to whittle away resources and score damage onto the opponent to win, or you can choose to be a d-ck and kill of their units in the sidelines in order to gain leverage in the fight. I agree, Buddyfight's battle mechanics are so much more unique and deeper.
Satire aside, my point should be grievously obvious. The thing is though, in Buddyfight, your resources are so strained and (with the right attack force, of course) the opponent's offensive capabilities will often force out so much that you don't actually have a say in the matter, whereas in Cardfight Vanguard, because Damage is proportional to CB (and thus potential Card Advantage) AND because Twin Drive allows for far more card advantage to be spread around to be utilized, the latter game is actually probably going to have MORE options more often than not, and thus may in fact technically have MORE strategy (well, having the choice to utilize it anyway) than Buddyfight in this regard.
I think I got all the important points, be it the driving system of both games, deck composition, and battle mechanics/player interaction, so...yeah. Cardfight Vanguard's advantage system is far more in your face about deciding between potential card advantage for long term lost or vice versa, which requires far more thought and strategy to work with. Furthermore, because of how the game's MECHANICS (I will need to see more of the card pool before my suspicions are confirmed) are structured, it could easily imply that the decks in the game are going to start trending to very certain proportions, not unlike Vanguard's decks. Finally, Cardfight Vanguard and Future Card Buddyfight's battle mechanics are virtually identical on many levels, from the approach all the way to the outcome, yet Cardfight Vanguard is better designed for options whereas Buddyfight is way more strict in this regard, or in other words, restricts the amount of ways to employ a strategy.
Like, I'm not even hating on Buddyfight, because quite frankly, it does get a few points correct, or at least better so than Vanguard. But my point to take away is that even beginning to suggest Buddyfight unilaterally has far more strategy is a blind claim, and I'm ready to say borderline stupid if you're ready to argue without evidence or reasoning.
tl;dr: Buddyfight having strictly MORE strategy than Cardfight Vanguard? Yeah...no.