Never mind. Too early in the day for thinking straight .

Aryan said:

Grasping Darkness - awesome. DE seems to be using sacrifice a lot. and as someone before has said, opponents attacking unit can be used for our defence. how could it work when using this skill on Ugrok ? :) 6/5

I'm not sure that's what you suggest, but you couldn't play Grasping Darkness on Ugrok since his cost is higher than 2.

Corwin1980 said:

Oh, my bad... i didn't read it carefully. So it's not as good as i assumed. Yet, it's still fun to use your opponent's units against him . It will not be fun but i believe it can be used in various ways: cut his either kingdom or quest zone supplies and improve yours (even one turn can be decisive), u can weaken his attack or defence (sometimes even 2 cost unit can be of much importance) or just sloer his development by cutting his cash flow early on.

mathulus said:

LOL... and what's the diffrence? does it change anything when u call it 'cost' or differently? the effect is that your tactic WILL cost u 4 resources MORE. Usualy it will CANCEL this tactic as it would be impossible to wait every turn to your battlefield phase with 4 resources in your pocket just to check if your empire opponent doesn't have Iron Discipline up in his sleeve. You play this way?

Aryan said:

Mathulus was responding to my post (2 above his). The argument I was trying to make (which he disagreed with) was that perhaps the 4 extra resources should be considered an additional cost that has to be paid at the time the action is taken, rather than at the time the action is resolved.

If I had been correct, Iron Discipline would have changed from a counter-spell to something that would have to be played pre-emptively to protect a unit. This in turn would have completely eliminated your concern about needing to hold onto 4 resources just in case your opponent has Iron Discipline up his sleeve (because you could choose to target your actions and spend your resources elsewhere).

I realize the argument was tough to follow, because Artemus Maximus got a post in the middle between mine and mathulus's, but LOLing mathulus without trying to figure out what he was responding to was really juvenile.

Arma virumque said:

I'm afraid you are the one having some difficulties here. I did read your post and understand what you want to consider. Furthermore, I agree with you. It wouldn't be as overpowered as it seems if it was impossible to use it as a counter-spell. Chaos would not stand a chance against empire equiped with this spell.

And again I did try to figure out what was on mathulus's mind and still I think his attempt to prove that this tactic doesn't mean bumping the cost of an opponent's spell is funny. It's like telling that putting a dagger in someone's heart doesn't mean killing him - it only stops his heart beating. ;D

Unifiedshoe said:

I absolutely disagree. There's every reason to NOT try and borrow what you might thinked "worked" for some other CCG, regardless of how successful (and over-hyped) it might be. This is an entirely DIFFERENT game. Bringing pre-conceived ideas over to this game is only going to lead to disappointment and confusion. It's like going to see the latest Star Trek film (the revamp by JJ Abrams) and then discussing how it fits into the Star Wars mythos and film series. It's entirely different. Yeah, it's a film and yep, it's a sci-fi setting, but that's where the similarities end. Same with Warhammer: Invasion and M:TG. Different games, different mechanics, different setting as well.

That's part of the issue with today's card game market in the first place - too many people trying to either recreate Magic or thrusting their unrealistic expectations onto some other poor game.

Yeah, you can look at the strengths and failings of the top games in the industry, sure...it can't hurt. But that's something for the developer himself (Eric) to have done. At our stage in the process, as fans, it does little to no good to proclaim, "But that's not how MAGIC did it." OR "But that IS how Magic did it." No one really cares. Different game. If I wanted to discuss Magic, I'd be in the Magic forums. If I wanted to play Magic, I'd be playing it instead of Warhammer: Invasion. But I'm not.

/Rant Off.

nice rant

Thanks. LOL

It's hard to RANT though, without making the other person feel insulted - which was not my intention here. I just want this game to be able to develop its own personality and following, rather than constantly be compared to previous drivel. That's all.

Wytefang said:

The similarities to M:tG are undeniable. Just because it isn't the same game doesn't mean that it isn't similar in play. If you want something that really IS NOT M:tG, play Shadowfist or something. I also don't understand what you mean when you say M:tG is "Over-Hyped". Its as if you are just willfully denying how popular the game is.

To contribute to the real discussion, Iron Discipline is extremely situational and that makes it not really worth the spot in a deck currently. Maybe in the future when there are more viable Unit targeting tactics, but as of now, its kinda meh.

The card I find to be a little overpowered is Dragonmage. According to the new FAQ, you must assign enough damage to him to destroy him before you can assign any to the capitol where he is defending. That means that you must assign an infinite amount to him, thus not being able to assign any to the capitol. So if you happen to get 1 of these out in 2 of your zones, and you have an Archmage of Saphery in play, your capitol is pretty much immune unless they can corrupt your Dragonmage. Even then, you could potentially be holding another card to prevent damage for that turn.

There are similarities but then you could say the same about Magic and any other game - everything copies something from someone else. Rare is the game, book, movie, play, poem, or song that's utterly unique. That being said, this plays completely different and has a clearly different feel than M:TG. That's one of the reasons that many gamers have said they like it so much.

And yes, I used the term "Over-hyped" because based on my experience with Magic, it's nowhere near as good as its fanboy's would have us believe it is or ever has been. Thus the usage of "over-hyped." Claiming that something isn't as good as popular perception may have us believe isn't the same as willfully denying its success. Sure, it's been successful, we all know that. So was Brittany Spears.

If you're coming to these forums to discuss this particular game, why not focus on THIS game, not some other drek. Focus on what makes this a great and unique game rather than some perceived similarities to another game.

thx very much for posting the spoiler

No problem - glad to do it.

Wytefang said:

well since we only got Zealot packs like 2wweks ago here in Aus im expecting not to see this pack for another month....
so its good to have these spoiler lists so i know what the hell u guys are talking about the deck building threads and other stuff

Wytefang said:

Sure, it's been successful, we all know that. So was Brittany Spears.

I'd still do her, though. So what does that say about Magic: the Gathering?

Wytefang said:

you could, but the amount of similarities between Magic and WH:I is pretty big. Bigger than to any other fantasy card game I know. In my book this is a good thing, they managed to take all the pros of Magic while discarding the cons.

In my opinion, Magic the Gathering and Warhammer Invasion are two completely different beasts. They are similar in that they are strategic war games using a card mechanic.

Big Differences

Resources

W:I uses a completely different resource system than M:tg. The mana system of M:tG is an outdated resource system. By allowing nearly every card to provide resources, whether in loyalty icons or in power icons, W:I completely negates the overused "turn your card sideways to get resources" mechanic. The new layers of deck building that W:I allows is great since you no longer have to gut your deck with resource cards.

Damage

W:I uses persistent damage, M:tG does not. The win game condition to M:tG is reliant on one pool of health, W:I's win game condition is multi-tiered into two out of three possible pools of health, making strategy much more important.

Card Placement

W:I has three zones, M:tG has one zone. Similar "zone" mechanics have been used before in other card game systems, but W:I takes the next step in making "zones" completely different from each other and a part of the resource mechanic.

Hand Size and Drawing

W:I has no hand size limit unlike M:tG. W:I can do this because drawing cards has become a resource. This system greatly enhances strategy and options during a game. M:tG's system is outdated and has been revitalized many times with mechanics such as Threshold, Madness, and Unearth just to name a few. With W:I's system, adding mechanics such as Threshold and Madness would make an already robust mechanic even stronger, as opposed to M:tG which introduces new mechanics to improve on an outdated mechanic.

There's lots more comparisons that can be made. But Warhammer and Magic are completely different, both in design and implementation.

Of course, Magic deserves a nod as a forefather of modern card gaming, but it is still outdated when compared to newer card game systems.

I personally love Warhammer far more than Magic if only because there is no way to get "mana screwed" but also because I don't have to worry about broken combos that result in one turn wins or infinite loops.

Does anyone in this thread still think that "Iron Discipline" is a counterspell?

locohost said:

IT's me.

By the way, we had a small "happening" with 6 players last weekend. 4 Chaos, 1 Ork and 1 Empire player. Everybody played 2 match with everybody else. Guess what happened ? The empire player won 10:0 mostly thank to Shrine to Taal + City Gates in Kingdom and Repeater Bolt Thower + a single development in BF. (he also played Judgement combo)

The only way to slow him down was to remove his units in Kingdom one by one with sniping... but this Counterspell even takes away this weakness, while the weaknesses inherent in other deck types stay.

About the comparison to MTG :

People compare cars, boardgames, shoes ... why the cannot compare 2 cardgames with similar mechanincs ? Btw, I still think that free denial is a bad design idea, and a real chaos and DF killer. The only thing that limit this card that your opponent MAYBE wont pack any tactic directed to your units.

I almost forgot :

It's also works against actions targeting your opponents own units... like playing attachments for example.

tech7 said:

Actually it is Warcraft TCG that was almost a complete copy (the few thing that weren't the same was the hero mechanic as replacement for colour (combined with faction), every card can be used to pay for stuff and persistent damage.

We even used the MTG rules to settle rule issues.

The thing I like in WHI is the diffrent zones and how almost every card can be used to generate income, card draw or hitting and staying power.

Now back OT

Iron discipline is a great card and I understand your concerns since it's also quite 'borderline' IMHO but I think Empire will be like Martell in the LCG, so many great action cards that you can't take them all.

Infiltrate, Iron Discipline, Judgement, Will, Sigmar's intervention immediately spring to mind and these are infaction, since they can even used dwarven, high elf and neutral card the competition between action is fierce.

Cain_hu said:

Well it's definitely no where near the power of an MTG Counterspell. Iron Discipline is more like a limited Mana Leak. It can only protect one unit against a spell that targets that unit. It can't stop Verena or Vomit or stuff like that so it's not awesome. Don't get me wrong, I still think it's pretty good, just not CS or ML good

Cain_hu said:

You can only have 3 copies of Iron Discipline in your deck in the first place, it seems odd to think that 3 copies of this card are that over-powering to your group. Very strange. ?

Cain_hu said:

Right now Empire is winning more than 50% against everyone for us too. A good Orc draw is fast enough to take him down if he doesn't get an early Will/Judgement but everything else seems too slow. Locking out the units doesn't work any more thanks to the Bolt Thrower and nerf to Shrine to Nurgle. Previously the Chaos deck beat up Empire badly but now that deck is an auto-loss to Empire.

There is no nerf to Shrine to Nurgle - what are you referring to? Plus that barely works anyway...

Empire isn't so great on its own but sprinkled with a bit of Dwarf help and a couple of High Elf cards and it's pretty sweet (at least it is if you know how to play it, imho).

A good, fast Orc deck is still winning a bit more than the rest from what we've seen around here with our small group.