First of all, I am SUPER hyped about this game... having difficulty playing anything else nowadays.

I just read the rules and a few points I noticed:

1) So you draw cards equal to your power in the Quest zone? That seems like an awful lot. The capital starts with one power in the Quest zone, if I plunk down 2 units there with say... 2 power each (just to defend the zone), that's 5 cards per turn. The game could be over really fast that way, with only a 50 card deck. Imagine if you get 7 or 8 power in there, the game could be over before you even know it!

Am I understanding this correctly?

2) Does corruption affect "actions" on the cards, or can they only not defend/attack?

I realize that any discussion may be conjecture at this point but I'm curious what people think, especially about the first point.

Hi!!!

1- I guess it's fine as you'd rule it. The only thing is that drawing 5 cards per turn in the mid game is not that useful, especially with, as you said, 50 cards deck. Card advantage is awesome, but I don't think investing in card draw like that is useful in Game concept terms.

I think they thought about it in game design and there will be something, when we'll finally play this game, that we'll show us that noone is going to invest lots of power in the Quest zone for card draw, if you know what I mean...

But theorically, it's an insane card advantage possibility.

2- As stated in the rules: "Corrupted Cards cannot be declared as attackers or defenders". There's anything else about it.

Hope it made sense.

You'll be hardpressed to have 5 power in your quest zone. Such a deployment would likely unbalance your forces in your Kingdom and Battle Zones which would spell doom. Remember you have to have enough power in your Kingdom Zone to be able to put 2 two power units in your Quest Zone which in and of itself is a sizable investment unless you want to spread it out over a few turns investing first in your KZ then in your QZ and at the same time remembering that without anything in your Battle Zone your opponent is free to develop as he chooses, which will probably include at least one unit in his BZ to start knocking off your own units.

The game has a pretty nice way of creating an equilibrium, and only through strategy of deck design and your tactical deployment of units, support and tactics will you be able to unbalance it in your favor.

1) Yeah, you could start developing crazy draws. Mind you, the game also enforces a maximum deck size. If you want to focus on the Quest Zone you still can have quite a cushion to stop yourself get decked, at the cost of consistancy. But you'll be more consitant late game. It's up to you to balance this. Oh, and you'll have to defend the quest zone.

2) No, it only stops them from being declared an attacker or defender. Well, most of the time. If an action says you can't use it while the unit is corrupt, you can't use the action obviously. I haven't seen an action that worries about this though.

That's the situation I had in my first ever game, 2 units with 2 power each in the quest zone, I managed to win before I decked out but it was getting close.

I'm the original poster. I understand that you can avoid overdrawing and potentially losing by not putting too much power in your quest zone, but that means that that area probably gets burned first. Mind you, that applies to your opponent as well, so I guess it's even. It's just strange that a card game would, in a sense, penalize you for playing cards.

I haven't played yet, so this is more of a theoretical issue for now. Judging from other CCGs I've played, such as MTG, a game can last about 20-25 turns (obviously variable depending on deck type). That means you could only put 2 power in your quest zone to last a 50 card deck, and the zone actually beings with one power in it.

lol. I see where the problem is. No FFG games are VERY different than magic. They may take as long to play, 20-45 minutes, but you will have far fewer rounds before victory is achieved. I'd be surprised if you had more than a dozen rounds on average. AGoT generally lasts between 4-8 rounds. My games in W:I lasted around ten rounds I believe. I don't think I was able to get more than three power for any sustained amount of time in the Quest zone.

As far as a game that penalizes you for drawing, because you control how many cards are in your deck and how many you draw, it heightens the amount of resource management you have to regulate as well as building in a self-limiting factor to card advantage where most games simply limit the amount of cards you can draw in a turn (either through rules or lack of cards that give you increased access to your draw deck).

You find yoursellf wanting to close out the game or your opponent has you on the ropes? You can increase your chances of drawing into the solution. Possibly more than any game I've heard of let alone played there are more choices for you to make that will vastly changethe outcome of the game. It is going to be very hard to blame losses on things like lack of card draw or not enough resources, and that it is an LCG vastly reduces the lack of cards access due to cost or rarity. In short it is a gamers game. The best combination of deck designer and player should win more often than not.

Dormouse's last paragraph fantastically sums things up, imho. This is a wonderfully intriguing game where, to win, you'll need strong deck design, a bit of luck (certainly), and tons of tactical acumen on the tabletop, with your cards.

OP again... Yes, Dormouse, that last paragraph makes a great deal of sense. Not having the right cards or enough resources are the bane of other CCGs I've played. If the W:I Quest card draw mechanic can alleviate that... wonderful!

Remember there is always a bit of luck involved, it is a card game and statistically unless you can draw your entire hand there is always a chance you won't always get what you need when you need it compared to your opponent, but this game has reduced that factor to a point where it is still fun and unpredictable, but one which rewards skill and planning.

Haven't played the game yet, but from the impressions I'm getting so far...the Quest zone seems to be targeted quite often...see here .

The relevant quote is pasted below:

"Their ability to “fix” the part of your capital they enter can be a game saver, especially in the often targeted Quest zone. "

The people at FFG seem to believe that the Quest zone is more often targeted than the Kingdom or the Battlefield. Depending on your deck construction, you may even have a pyramid when it comes to defense due to unit investment: Battlefield > Kingdom > Quest.

If being decked out is a concern, you would have to include additional high hit point, low power units or cards that can bring further developments into play.

In order to give some "brightness" to the quest zone and in order to solve the problems we're arguing about, the good thing would be that you're not forced to draw the cards exceeding the first...

But in the other hand, if the additional card draw is optional, you don't face the "challenge" to be wise and develop only when needed...

I don't know, yet...Maybe we've just to play a bit.

I certainly tried to hit the Quest zone wherever possible, since crippling your opponent's card draw goes a long way to reducing his options.

However you can't neglect the other zones, otherwise you're setting yourself up for a counterattack.

DB_Cooper said:

I don't exactly know what you mean...are you talking about house rules? 'Cause you are forced to draw up to the number of cards as dictated by the number of power tokens present in the Quest zone.

Ruvion said:

Sorry, but it's difficult for me to explain complex concepts in english ;-)

I was just tryin' to say that it would be fine if the draw were optional for the cards exceeding the first (just a mental conjecture)...But at the same time, I think it could be weird and subtract some game depth.

;-)

Mind you, óne burning zone isn't much of a problem. So, they take some time hitting your quest zone. In the meanwhile you fortify your Kingdom and your Battlefield.

Also, you can defend with (low Powered) Scouts and Counterstrikers to whittle their offense. Or put a Toughness character to buffer some damage before they have to defend their zones.

It's not that bad that not all zones are equal. It's quite interesting managing unequal resources, since there will be no clear cut good descision.

Yes, you'll have conflicting goals. That's part of the fun!

Marius said:

Yeah, in the end you're right ;-)

This game is TOO intriguing (TOO is for: "Hey FFG: Ship it to me...NOW!"). XD

There's abit of an issue here... you say that if a player starts to build up card draw, that they'll have to defend it... well, when i've had some card draw going on that I wanted to keep, I just threw down a high HP dwarf, or threw some developments (from the extra cards I'm drawing) or capitol repairing (thank you dwarfs again!). Also, no one SAYS i have to defend the quest zone... let it burn. My dwarf hero thanks you.

I like dwarfs...

That is one way of doing it. Though heroes corrupt as nice as anyone and toughness doesn't stop discard.

And that is what I like about this game, move, counter-move, counter the coounter-move, which was a feint for this other move.