Nate was reaching decisions for his responses based on the rules the game was created with. In some cases it was obvious that there were card interactions that were not intended and that certain aspects of the game could become overly complicated. So what do you want Nate and the rest of the design/development team to do, ignore or rewrite the rules one rule at a time and one card at a time, not answer any questions at all until the official FAQ, or answer questions as they pertain to the current rule set and then see about streamlining the rules and creating errata that clears up most of the problems, even if it means that previous clarifications (notice none of the errata were changed), is invalidated?

Your answer ultimately does not matter, any more than mine does, because if we agree or disagree there will be plenty of people who pick one of the other two options from ours. I happen to think they way they went about it was the best way... even if it means having to relearn certain aspects of the game, or changing some card inclusions in decks because certain combos no longer work. If I had not gotten any answers to my questions at all I would have been pissed and shelved the game or quit. If they had completely contradicted rules in a piecemeal manner I certainly would have either shelved the game or just play using my own rules, and ignored everything and everyone else.

Either way, I just have problems wrapping my head around "assigning enough damage to destroy all defending units" as having anything to do with toughness or any effect that does not actively adjust HP.

It would probably be a good idea if others sent the question, as well. So that the answer will make it to the next version of the FAQ.

dormouse said:

Aykenger said:

I do have to wonder if the turn sequence is just a copy-paste of the Core Set rule turn sequence, as far the as the Battlefield Phase goes? They are pretty much word for word the same, only difference I see (apart from the end bit that's been added) is the different wording on how a Unit leaves play during the Apply Step. Tosses out the detailed description in the rules on page 9, that's for sure.

That was fast. Already got both questions answered by James Hata.

1) According to the FAQ during combat the attacker must assign enough damage to each unit to destroy it, before he may assign damage to the zone being attacked. Does the attacker have to account for cancellation effects (Toughness or Steel's Bane or the Warrior Priest's ability)? I.E. If the defender declares a Pistolier as defender and plays Steel's Bane on it, does the attacker have to assign 12 damage to the Pistoliers, before he may assign damage to the capital?

1) The short answer is yes. The attacker must assign enough damage to destroy any defending units before damage can be assigned to the capital. This includes any damage cancellation effects that are present when the damage is being assigned. (ie. Toughness on a unit). Your example is correct.

2) Like the turn diagram in the original rules, the updated turn diagram in the FAQ does not contain an action window between declaring the zone being attacked and declaring attackers. This contradicts the original rules (p. 12). Is the updated turn diagram in the FAQ correct?

2) No, thank you for catching that. There is supposed to be an action window between declaring which zone is being attacked and declaring attackers. We will update the FAQ accordingly.

Well, looks like the Dwarves just got a helluva boost !

It also removes what I considered to be one of the more interesting tactical decisions when playing against the dwarves. I'm sad.

Cool, maybe they brought on some more peps to help with all the rules questions they were getting.

Arma virumque said:

I was actually happier during the pre-FAQ days to be honest . Especially since I could go "la-la-la-la" on the "why no FAQ yet" whiners .

I was going to post the bit from James but I was playing a game with Mathulus when I got the message.

James is actually the new lead developer for Warhammer Invasion, Nate is still lead on Cthulu and Thrones. The question is if they decided three were too many for Nate alone or if they have him working on something new. I'm hoping for something new actually. I just love the LCG format and with the halting of their CCG lines to focus more on the LCG lines (and a hint in the article about the LCG distribution change) I'm voting on something new being in the works.

Well James in case you are reading the boards, I'd like to say welcome again.

Nate's not Lead Designer anymore? That stinks.

Anyway, I hope they're working on a Warhammer 40k LCG. If they are and it's as good as this game, I'd have to switch over. I much more prefer the W40k side of things. I wanted to like the old Sabertooth W40k game but it was way too dry and simplistic and the art was gawd-awful. FFG can fix all those aspects and really put out a cool W40k LCG. :::: crossing fingers ::::

Nate actually seemed pleased about the development when we talked, so I am really thinking it is something interesting that he is doing instead of W:I. James by all appearances is a great guy, talented, and a real understanding of the game and the universe. It is in excellent hands.

Wytefang said:

For those who did not get a chance to play WH40K CCG in any of its three incarnations, a couple of the key elements that made it compelling were hidden unit deployment, multiple uses for each card and most importantly - complex tactics at a battle. As much as I like WH:I, there is very little tactical complexity. You make a decision to save resources for tactics, then play what you have in a battle. In contrast, games like WH40K and Spycraft CCG have an "economy of actions" or "tempo pressure" and a richness of interactions that make the order of operations in a battle very important.

As to the "gawd-awful"artwork - the cards had a clean, easy to read layout and the fluff art was images from 40K box art.

dormouse said:

I tried to chat with him during their Event Center open house but he didn't seem terribly friendly nor too interested in speaking with anyone. Bad day maybe but from what I saw he wasn't terribly sociable. Of course being "sociable" is hardly a necessary trait for being a good game designer but considering how much these guys end up being the face of the game, he may want to engage with the fans just a wee bit more.

Dr.Cornelius said:

I agree, we all are going to have different opinions. My issue is that when you read the cards, especially as a new player, powers seemed the same, there didn't seem to be much room for cool Units or unique powers. It seemed too stick way too much to a rigid structure rather than offering a lot of variety and intriguing mechanics. I liked the hidden unit deployment aspect but nothing else seemed terribly original or different. In the end, it sold decently at first, based solely on the awesome Warhammer IP but it died more quickly than many CCGs simply because it wasn't a long-term hit with gamers (ostensibly for many of the reasons I've listed above).

As for W:I, it's still brand new with hardly any cards and it's already more interesting and enjoyable to play than Sabretooth's W40k CCG.

Having done marketing work in the past, I'll translate a few of your remarks into normal speak here:

"In contrast, games like WH40K and Spycraft CCG have an "economy of actions" or "tempo pressure"..." - TRANSLATION: You don't have much variety in Unit powers since we're trying to keep the game basic and focused on the core gameplay.

"The cards had a clean, easy-to-read layout...." - TRANSLATION: The art isn't that great or very detailed or very colorful.

Wytefang said:

Regarding diversity of unit powers - I would argue that the factions each had a distinctive feel and played very differently. For example, Space Marines were few but tough, Chaos had units that interfered with other units abilities, Orks and Tyranids had a lot of "swarm" effects, and Dark Elves had die roll manipulation and ability to easily "bluff" and move units between battles. IMHO the units and abilities were very different.

Regarding "economy of actions" - this is a concept that does not really exist in M:TG and its direct descendants. In Magic, WH:I, Cthulhu, AGOT, etc. each player's turn is discrete and he can generally take as many actions as he has resources and cards. Often there is an advantage to acting first, but tempo is not a key part of the game. In contrast, games like Sabertooth's WH40K and AEG's Spycraft and City of Heroes have more of a you go / I go mechanic. In a battle, there is pressure to use each unit's inherent action before it is destroyed or neutralized by an opponent's action. These games tend to feature more "battle actions" and the order in which you play your available options is very important.

Other local metas may be different, but around here battles typically feature a couple of tactic cards at most, and there is not much "tempo pressure" to get an action ahead of your opponent in a battle. In most cases you will get to play out all the tactic cards you have resources to support, and the ultimate outcome of the battle is not very dependent on the order in which they are played.

Anyway, there are really two points I was trying to make in these posts:

1) There are a lot of good card game mechanics that are significantly different from Magic.
2) Hopefully the FFG team is considering non-derivative mechanics for their next LCG offering.

Dr.Cornelius said:

I'm going to have to fundamentally disagree here with AGoT being characterized this way. I've been playing this game for years now, against newbs and world champions and this statement is just absolutely wrong. I get that it may be the way your games have turned out, but it is most definitely not a fact, and any talking to tournament players will get you at worst 9 out of 10 people who will disagree with you. The order of the challenges, the sharing of a turn (you go I go for each phase), the ability to respond to any effect used, be it passive or action, and the utter lack of LIFO, but the more intuitive, and far less tactically and strategically forgiving, first in first out, mean when you trigger an effect, or what order you choose to take an action is of paramount importance, and your ability to disrupt your enemies plans greatly affects tempo. The various methods of paying for an effect, gold, influence, kneeling (corrupting/tapping), discarding ensures that each build has ways to pay for events depending on how you build your deck, but no deck can have an unlimited supply of the various resources needed so you must figure out what you need to accomplish, in what order, and take into account what resources your opponent has available to determine the likelihood of them disrupting your plans.

Are you still playing with single copies of the Core and Chapter Packs, and trying to play off your own "balanced" decks with your play group? If so that is probably the largest cause of this sense. Extremely limited card pool coupled with purposefully crippling or excluding certain mechanics in an attempt for "balance" is going to eliminate very nearly any sense of the richness and importance of the various phases and the Framework and Action Windows that make them up.

dormouse said:

And I agree with your points that AGOT has a huge number of decisions that make a significant difference in how the game plays out. The fact that skill matters is a huge reason why we enjoy AGOT and why it has so much replay value. I also agree with the fact that in AGOT order of operations is very important. These elements make for an interesting, challenging game and there is definitely a tempo aspect, but I do not think you understand what I mean by "economy of actions".

In an economy of actions game, actions are a resource just like gold or cards. This is a fundamental part of the game design that generally does not exist in descendants of Magic. Barring a card effect each player can play out all of his cards and resources each turn. This is not the case in an economy of actions game.

It is not easy to describe economy of actions - but here is the basic framework:

1. Each player takes exactly one action, then the next player takes an action.
2. Actions are defined to be one of the following:

Draw a card
Play a card from hand (either put into play permanently or to discard pile for some effect)
Perform an action on a card in play
Ready (untap) resource

I encourage you to check out an economy of actions game. Good examples are

Spycraft - a great game with a weak license and too many fiddly bits.

City of Heroes - a good game that needed more "fun factor"

Warhammer 40K CCG - a truly innovative and excellent game that was run into the ground by poor brand management

Anyway, these games are all long dead while Magic and some of its descendants live on. My post was not meant to be a critique of AGOT or WH:I, but a note of encouragement to the R&D staff that there are players who appreciate novel mechanics.

I have to say I have no interest in a game that uses what you refer to as economy of actions. Being artificially restricted to what I can do regardless of what I have available would only piss me off. I would rather play a game that lets me leverage my own resources (in whatever form they may be) to determine what options I have available to me and how many I can use at any given time. It isn't that one takes more skill than another, it is about how interactive the game is and what it chooses to value. I will take a game with a lot of plotting, feinting, bluffing, and countering, with the playing of cards and changing of the gamescape and therefor player interaction (or at least increased chance of it) over deciding to play the best card right now or my second best card based on what I think my opponents single action is going to be.

This may be a widely used phrase in this context, but I would never personally refer to a game with such strict and artificial restrictions as an economy, there is nothing to leverage, to increase, decrease, and little management, and even less speculation.