So what is the general thought on deck size? For magic people always used to say to build minimum size decks, but you draw a lot more cards than in magic. Would I run out of cards if I had just 50? My opponent almost lost last night because of deck size and did lose today.

The Empire Jumping Jacks and the Dwarf Ranger/Thrower decks can both control their draw amount, so it is fairly easy to stop drawing cards late in the game once you have board control and the pieces to finish them off. The Orc and Skaven decks (with either Orcs OR Chaos) are both fast enough that running out of cards is highly unlikely.

So stick to 50 cards, definitely.

Hi,

Most player i know play between 50-60 cards. My decks often falls in the middle (53-55 cards) and it seem working fine.

I recommend don't go above 60, because it will be harder to draw the cheap early cards in the first turns.

when I got the starter set my friends and I decked each other now and then, even then it was not common. With tuned decks, most decks can win before it becomes and issue. I like the treat of it happening, cause it does create a sense of urgency in a gaem that starts to last.

I have some close to decking myself a few times with an empire deck with multiple city gates, came very close, but didn;t happen.

That will depend entirely on what kind of deck you are going to run and how you plan on playing it. 50 card decks are fresh meat for discard decks and any deck that is control oriented and expects a longer game. It forces you to restrict your draw or run the risk of decking yourself. Because you control the amount of cards you draw you can get away with larger then minimum sized decks as long as you are not relying on a specific combo of cards or blitz in order to wqin. If you are playing a rather straightforward aggro deck with some versatility to break the locks of control decks a 50 card deck is not likely to be ideal, that extra 4-8 cards nmakes extremely little difference in your probability of seeing a card but can certainly make a major difference in your ability to respond to an unexpected tactic or sudden reversal of board position.

I've found that the most competitive decks are all relatively quick, and they also have ways to remove cards from their quest if it ever comes close. Empire just needs to stop jumping to Quest, or if they really need to, they could clear their Quest with a Judgement. Dwarfs simply sacrifice their men to the Thrower. Orcs and Skaven: If you haven't won by the time your deck is running dangerously low, you're not going to win anyway.

There's literally ONE card in existence that forces opponents to move cards from their deck to their discard pile, and nothing that I can remember that FORCES an opponent to draw cards. Decking one's opponent is not a viable strategy at the moment. If you or the players you play with are frequently losing because of decking, I'm pretty sure it's because NEITHER of your decks is that good.

So far we are just playing with the core set cards. So none of the decks we make are very good. Working on getting more cards and trying to figure out if the theory for this is different than the theory for magic that I'm more used to. Will go with closer to a minimum sized deck with cards that I'd willingly choose instead of going with what is simply available.

f7eleven said:

Not true !

Will of Tzeenetz FORCES you to draw cards. Also, there is other ways to increase your opponent power in quest (Forced March for example). Also, that single card you mntioned combined with stalling power could be enought, but it's still not a strong archetype yet.

f7eleven said:

I also don't agree - there are a few viable decking-strategy builds out there. I also find your claim that, "If you haven't won by the time your deck is running dangerously low, you're not going to win anyway." to be pretty specious also - but each to his own.

If you're losing because of decking, it could very well be because you're too focused or too worried about building your decks based on axioms learned from other games that are NOT Warhammer: Invasion and aren't necessarily as germane to how W:I plays.

I'm going to have to disagree with you, but let me flip this statement around on you to do so... 'If you or the players you play with are not frequently winning because of decking, I'm pretty sure it's because NEITHER of your mill decks is that good.' Give us your best example of a mill deck and explain how you would play it. I'm willing to bet a few of us can improve the deck or your playing of it to the point where it is more viable. One of the least understood aspects of deck discard is that, it is not all about achieving the alternate victory condition. If your opponent is playing a min-max deck that relies on combos and power cards you can break the deck just by removing the key pieces of the combo or his finishers. This is why I am such a huge fan of the Dwarf/Empire Alliance deck, I can move my opponents units into his QZ, I can up the power of his units in his QZ, and cancel and heal damage to my zones while I dismantle his deck. Add to that Toughness, Counterstrike, and Scout units and I have a rather maddening deck to face. Certainly not unbeatable, but one which throws a lot of people off their game, and only requires patience on my part.