Another Thing v Thing-that-can't-fight-itself-and-must-fight-first-thing game is probably one of the best early TCGs out there aside from its binary play style, is Richard Garfeild's Netrunner. Oh baby that game was / is hot. Only two sets of it (three?) were ever released, but if you can get your hands on some of it, its hot. Both card stock, art, feel of the cards and rules. delicious.

Man we're off topic...

But yeah, like others have said. Thing vs. same-thing most likely possible. Don't think any gaming company is going to make THAT mistake again any time soon...

NetRunner is pretty much the gold standard in CCG design, as far as I'm concerned, but it was able to pull off the two-deck system because the game is actually asymmetrical. The Corps and the Runner are doing things that are completely different, and opposite (in both senses) to one another. WIth the two Star Wars games, it was really just a consequence of the source material, and the two sides were doing essentially the same thing, but with different colored cards.

I think, in general, two-deck games create some problems, particularly in organized play. I think this is why the later games which have a storyline-dictated good-guy-vs.-bad-guy setup (Lord of the Rings, Stargate, Conan, etc.) have taken the approach of combining the two decks into one (or having them play simultaneously, in Conan's case) and going for some kind of race-type win condition. As long as the starting-player advantage is neutralized, this is just a better way to do things, as the alternative is to play out both matchups between two players and then have some standard to decide who 'won by more' in the event of a split.

So, I would also agree that it's unlikely WH will go with any kind of two-deck setup, since it seems like it's not quite in the same camp as SW, LotR, etc. in terms of needing a good vs. bad matchup for thematic reasons. And unless the two sides are inherently opposed to one another at a mechancial level, it certainly doesn't enhance the gameplay to have two decks.

Oh believe me, I'm a Netrunner disciple as well, but you were giving the whole "can't play like vs like" in a negative light, so of course I didn't think of Netrunner, LOL. It is amazing, and it was probably the best CCG for a long time. I'm not entirely convinced that's the truth anymore. It did have one expansion before it died, and for a while it was on the ccgengine, which was awesome. It's definitely the single best CCG that WotC ever made.

Unfortunately we'll probably never see it again as it was actually the card game for Cyberpunk (which I didn't realize until years later), so because of the liscencing issues it's doubtful it would ever be remade. You'd think Wizards would wise up and reuse the engine. But I guess if it's not Magic... And I don't know if that horse will ever die.

The WotC Star Wars game was anathema to me for many, many reasons. I was surprised it didn't die faster, but it's the only one that I think we've listed that started off bad (I would argue the Decipher Star Wars became pretty bad overall after a few years).

I played WarCry, it wasn't bad. It definitely didn't take off locally for me as a CCG but I picked up the PSP game years later. It was pretty fun, despite the complete lack of a decent set of instructions (for the PSP game that is).

I think the first game that combined decks (that I can remember) was LotR CCG, and I think they just about perfected it the first time out. The game itself while I played it just melted into a rare-fest, but it would have been awesome as an LCG! ;^) Of course I think that's true for all card games.

I think we'll get like vs like but I don't know about the two decks. Both of Lang's other LCG's involve two different decks, and that seems to work, and the concept in general works as long as it is implemented well. Heck, it made Raw Deal from a meh game to my favorite CCG for a very long time.

I think the first combined 'thing vs. not-thing' was Middle Earth TCG. NOT LotR TCG. Middle Earth predates that... and IIRC its the first to have combined the 'thing vs. not-thing' in one deck to be played by both players (as far as a TCG is concerned).

Lastly, Cyberpunk DID have a TCG made by Social Games. http://www.siberpuhnk.com/cpccg.html is its remains... NOT a red team vs. blue team, or even one that combines the two in to one deck... it was a weird convulted TCG. Demoed it. VERY confusing rules and an almost impossible deck design...

How much more off topic can we get?

... I WANT MORE SPOILERS! (for warhammer invasion)

Going back to the topic of WH Invasion: As a WHFB Chaos player I'm really looking forward to this (as I do with Chaos in the old World). I just hope that I will find some people for playing it. It's not that easy around here.

And I don't think, that FFG will stick too much with the WAR setting, at least I saw a card of Valkia the bloody, which is a Champion of Khorne. Sure, I also saw a card with a Flamer, so I do think that it will be mixed gods for Chaos.

Some of these other characters (a champion of Khorne for example) are also found in the NPC side of the game...

vermillian said:

Well, I think, we will see if there are any "NPC-Units" (WAR-related). Also, we will see if the leaders of WAR will be present, or if it will be more in the "current" timeline with Acheron, Grimgork and Karl Franz.

I would prefer the second one.

Karl Franz is in the MMO... but as we now know, we've updates that they'll draw from all source materials, though mostly old GW books and their own creative whims (OH NO! lol)

I hope it will be good, as i loved Warcry (and was very sad, when its suddenly died). Overall idea sounds great.

100% totally stoked by this - looks genuinely exciting to me. When does it hit the UK? Or do I need to fly to the USA to pick up a copy? Or even a few cards / rulebook in a downloadable form to make a mini-demo deck so that we can get people excited?

[i am biased of course as an old WarCry hacker who stills has cards sat in piles on the bookshelf behind him].

Must go and kick Tearmat to make sure he knows about this...

deejay said:

If you don't, I will

Gameplay seems completely different to WarCry though. Would like to see a copy of the rulebook, though probably going to have to wait until after Gencon for that.

That's because this game isn't warcry? Is that a problem? ?

It is just nice to have a new card game based on the Warhammer universe to look forward to...

Even better that it is in an LCG format. I had better clear some space (in my schedule & on my shelves)

vermillian said:

Absolutely not. However in a conversation between 2 former Warcry players about another former Warcry player it seemed pertinent :-)

Don't get me wrong, I'm interested in this game in its own right.

Ok, I really like what has been shown in the Empire preview, both in gameplay and in art. Looking forward to more stuff.

I don't know I like the look of the cards, I like Warhammer but I'm not sold on the idea of card games in general.