Any plans to include more factions for Warhammer Invasion? The Tomb Kings and Vampire Counts along with the Lizardmen would be a nice addition. It would also be nice to have 1 or 2 big expansions (each containing at least 60 new cards) per year. This is a great game and I love the mechanics.

I can't see why they wouldn't add new races in the same manner in which they did the Skaven. As to big box expansions, if it follows Thrones we can probably expect to see faction based expansions for the playable races a couple times a year. I'd imagine they would be done similar to how the Assault on Ulthuan is being done.

I sure hope so. The Warhammer universe is a rich one and I hope FFG exploits that in this game.

I've heard that Warhammer: Invasion follows the Warhammer Online: Age of Reckoning policy about playable races, so it will be onlye the 6 that already are stand-alone playable, and any new race would be added the same way that skaven were. Don't missunderstand me, i would love to see more playable races, but it brings a lot of balance problems and chapter packs with lots of cards that you won't ever play.

Tobogan said:

I could almost see a big-box release for Tomb Kings. Possibly as W:I's version of a "raid deck", with different stats/more HP per zone, and multiple players teaming up against it. Bonus points if the capital's double-sided, and has a "standard" capital layout on the reverse so it can be played in normal games.

I see Tomb Kings more like a full Battlepack cycle focused on undeads, reinforcements for all races and maybe new mechanics. Raid decks works nice in WoW because its TCG and hace 10 differents classes further than the faction limitation. In Warhammer you only have 3 races per faction.

Actually 1, max 2 large cardpacks is enough for me. I started collecting this in part for it being easy to keep up with and not being a super expensive thing.
A steady stream of cardpacks is fine, 1 a month. And every six months a large box.

I don't really think we'll see more capital boards either...but what do i know. 6 seems like plenty...i also think that introducing them as neutrals is just fine. It doesn't take anything away from Skaven in the least...in other words, having a Skaven capital board obviously inst necessary they way they've done it. The more races/factions, the merrier i say my votes (keep in mind i do not know too much as far as fluff goes):

Beastmen: Sure - but i'd be ok with them as part of Chaos or a Neutral set for that matter. (I personally think they'll just be Chaos cards, e.g. Savage Gors)

Bretonnians: eh...seem kinda boring...Cavalry rush with many weak units - seems too much like Empire but without the tricks. Interesting to see what else can be done with them. Like Beastmen i wouldnt be surprised if introduced as Empire units. But probably neutrals to balance out.

Lizardmen: Definitely neutrals, (or own board) but probably one of the last to be introduced i'm guessing. Seem very interesting though with magic & the Stegadons...would take woodelves over them i think

Ogre Kingdoms: hope these get released, and soon

Tomb Kings: THESE would be AWESOME

Vampire Counts: I personally not interested in them, especially with all the vampire movie & tv crap out lol and they never seemed to "fit" in the genre to me. But I'm sure they'd be a wicked neutral army

Wood Elves: Would be really excited to hear about them as well. Highly mobile, few, more elite units, spells that change things...sounds great

i was just thinking...i wonder if we'll see capital boards for any of the above races. Like for Ogres: Make it have Ogre artwork so youre not using someone else's capital and might not make much sense thematically (to me the capital boards give so much theme to this game already). In the form of an expansion, release all the Ogre cards (as neutrals) and board. Board would have none of the other faction loyalty symbols on it, but it wouldn't need one as the deck is meant to be a pure neutral deck. Or with Tomb Kings or whomever. Either that or have a loyalty symbol on the race it's most closely aligned with. Just seems like a missed opportunity to use say an Empire board when plaing a lizardmen deck. I feel like that now with Skaven.

I agree - Tomb Kings all the way. I told James this last night when we were playing at the FFG Event Center...I mentioned that most people seem to be wanting the Tomb Kings if there are any new Factions introduced.

Actually I would love to see Bretonnians unlike you Artemis.
A lot of counterstriking, mobility and heavy hitters. So pricey units. Cavalry, Pegasus Riders, expendable peasants and Maidens most importantly. If they're brought out I'll actually make an Empire-Bretonnia deck and give the 'good guys' a go.

Darthvegeta800 said:

well i would love to see them as well; they're just not as interesting to me since theyre very similar to Empire. If they were the next faction, i'd still be thrilled. I was thinking the other day something that would set them apart a little is like an offensive counterstrike, that would kind of mimick their [kights] abilities with lances. So as THE in-your-face attack force for Order, I see the appeal, esp. compared to what we have now. But really, they just seem much shallower than Lizardmen, who offer brute force AND cunning magics, which is why i'd like to see lizardmen before them.

I don't foresee any more faction capital boards coming out.

If anything (and its been discussed before), they will instead have agenda cards similar to AGOT LCG. Perhaps it will be called "Alliance Card".

There are multiple ways to do it.

Method 1 - The Alliance

Agenda/Alliance Style cards would alter the capital. Increasing/decreasing a zone's hit points and inherent power. They would also provide a bonus loyalty symbol or a special constant effect or Action effect.

Example:

----

Skaven Alliance

Kingdom and Quest Zone -2 Max Hit Points.

The cost to play a Skaven card from your hand is reduced by 1 resource. Card cost cannot be reduced below 1.

Action: Sacrifice a Skaven unit to uncorrupt all Skaven units you control in one target zone. (This ability can only be used once per turn)

----

Pact of Valaya

Quest, and Battlefield Zone -4 Max Hit Points

This Alliance provides one Dwarf Loyalty Symbol.

You lose the game when you have 3 burning zones instead of 2.

Action: Sacrifice a development to heal one damage to a zone.

Method 2 - The Stronghold

A stronghold would be a separate cardboard piece. It would be a 4th "zone" that can be defended and attacked. Each stronghold card/board would have different playstyles.

Example:

----

Skaven Stronghold

This zone has 8 hit points. When this zone is burned, destroy all units, developments, and support cards in this zone and remove this zone from play. This zone does not count towards victory and defeat conditions.

Skaven units in this zone may attack as if they were in the Battlefield.

Action: Pay 1 resource to uncorrupt a Skaven unit in this zone.

----

Stronghold of Valaya

This zone has 8 hit points. When this zone is burned, move all units, developments, and support cards in this zone to your Kingdom and remove this zone from play. This zone does not count towards victory and defeat conditions.

Stronghold of Valaya provides one Dwarf Loyalty Symbol.

Dwarf units in this zone gain Toughness 1.

Action: Pay 2 resources to redirect an attack to this zone.

Wow after writing that, I REALLY like the idea of Stronghold boards/cards.

The problem with more fractions imo is, that each following bb would bring to few cards so satisfy old fractions players, i guess.

Kako K. said:

Which is exactly what happened to Magi-Nation... (one of, if not the coolest, CCG's ever made).

I think it would be neat to have a neutral faction (With a board), that you could not play non-neutral faction cards in. There would have to be some way to balance it through more powerful cards, or a board that gave a little better bonus, or more HP per zone to make up for the lower deck flexability.

darkdeal said:

Good idea. Neutral factions could be good, like a mercs?

I like the idea of a neutral board, but to be a faction on their own the neutral cards would need to be restricted.

If Ogres and the new "factions" from Warhammer are neutral, you shouldn't be allowed to play all of them in one deck without a penalty.

I atcually would really like to see a big box expansion for the lizardmen and tomb kings, since they would both add totaly different play styles to the game,

Also, is it just me or are lizardmen pretty much never included in any game besides table top. =(

That's exactly the impression I get, no matter where you look, no lizardmen. So just include them FFG, please! =)

Two new factions would be cool, but hard to balance and they definitely would need a unique gameplay.

Compounding on the Neutral Board theme, maybe they could introduce up to 4 more races that are "neutral" and give them each a board, but have them be non-destruction and non-order. You could not play any destruction only or order only cards, including the normal faction cards for their races.

I don't really care what they end up doing, I just wanna see some lizardmen that are good to play.

Even if they are open to additional playable factions you won't see any for at least a year I'd guess. It would make no sense to water down the game that way so early when you still have 6 races that are needing to be fully developed and expanded upon. I suspect we will see more aligned neutral races as time goes by. The question is will we see any more Skaven in the next BP cycle or two?

We're talking about more factions for 2011, aren't we? ;o)

I don't think there will be many new Skaven cards in the new circle, perhaps one or two, because I think they don't need additional cards, they're fine.

f7eleven said:

Whoa...Magi-Nation? A great game I agree, wish they could have playtested a little bit more Forgot all about that game!