Not the technical rules, just tournament rules. http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffg_content/warhammer_lcg/support/warhammer-invasion-tournament-rules.pdf

Big News: Format will be best of three, 50 minute rounds. No word on what actually happens when you time out, but I assume it is not good.

So, if you were wondering if FFG wants you to ever consider playing anything other than Skaven, the answer is "no."

And no sideboards (aka "crutches").

eeek doesn't bode well for "stall" decks. (they're "unacceptable" lol jk)

in reality no one is going to stand a chance lasting that long anyway with the current metagame...so it makes sense to me. And this is version 1.0 for a LIVING card game so if next year at this time everyone's running 40-min decks, im sure it'll be updated glad we got these

No sideboards is the worst decision they have ever made with regards to this game.

Hope you all enjoy Skaven. Literally nothing else is viable... if you don't maindeck all of your Skaven hate, you lose to Skaven. If you do, you lose to everyone else. Nice format.

And generally speaking, without sideboards there is no legitimate means to punish players for relying on overly narrow, otherwise exploitable strategies in deck design. Because there will always be bad players running bad decks, playing Haterator.dec means you will be a dog to 60%+ of the field. The most broken, narrow strategy is always dominant, with slight tuning to beat the mirror being the only room for innovation. Imagine Legacy MTG without sideboards... a healthy, vibrant format devolves into the most linear broken deck (Dredge/Ichorid) and a mishmash of maindeck graveyard hate and jank that loses to Dredge but beats the hate decks. That's all W:I will ever be until they revoke this terrible decision. Or, I suppose, until they show a willingness to ban format-warping cards (of which there will be a neverending stream without sideboards to balance them).

The negative effect this decision will have on W:I tournament play cannot be overstated.

ddm5182 said:

Fixed that for you.

But yeah, no sideboards is a bad call. It's not a total disaster right now but as more of the linear decks like the unitless bolt thrower decks get better, it will tend to make the metagame worse and worse. As you point out, MtG Legacy would be a joke with no sideboards due to the large card pool and the extremely linear decks that are possible in that format. WH:I isn't there yet but one day it probably will be.

Of course since you've played in dozens of multi-meta tournys in this game this is not hyperbole and should be treated as a fact by everyone...

oh wait, no you haven't. AGoT has a history of competitive play without the sideboard and without these mythical ultra-narrow decks beating the field... do you know how? Good game design and a player base who isn't willing to accept that every loss is do to RPS match-ups but instead some mix of their own deck deficiencies and play skills.

Before you sound the Skaven's Screaming Bell why not try playing with the rules and format and see how it develops. I'm interested in seeing how all the Magic players deal with the format. can they adapt or with the LCG cross-over players sweep because of their experience in the format.

I do not recall you having played tons of tournaments either. The tournaments for this game that have been played have been small and honestly won't tell you much since the sample sizes are small. However, I have played literally hundreds of games with and against Skaven decks trying to figure out the best way to beat them. Without sideboards. Hence the Chaos list I posted has maindeck Deathmasters.

I'm often told that WH:I is not Magic, and I agree. It's not AgoT either. I do not think that the lack of sideboards right now is that terrible, but going forward I think it will make the game less fun (which is the point, no?).

And as for the Skaven being dominant, Dormouse, please post a list that beats the Orc/Skaven list that I have up in the deck building forum. Theorycrafting is all well and good at the end of the day but I'm seeing you mention things which indicate to me that your decks are not very good (e.g. running Infiltrate! in all non-rush decks), which honestly makes me discount your opinion somewhat when you tell me I'm wrong.

I'd love to be proven wrong, honestly, but I am pretty sure at this point that Skaven are head and shoulders above the rest of the decks in the current metagame.

I didn't say "ultra-narrow decks beating the field." I said ultra-narrow decks would warp the meta such that the only viable deck choice is the most broken deck, or the deck most capable of stuffing itself full of hate cards while still (barely) functioning. And you'll note that I said the haterator decks are a dog to 60% of the field... meaning yes, most people are still going to play stuff that isnt the best deck, even though its a poor choice competitively. Two main reasons for this: first, because some weird quirk of human psychology makes people want to "express themselves" or whatever by playing something bad, and second, because a highly skilled player wants to exploit their skill edge over the field by avoiding coinflip mirror matches all day.

The point is, without sideboards, there is literally nothing stopping this kind of narrow deckbuilding. You pick the deck capable of doing the most narrow, broken thing, ideally stopped by as few otherwise good cards as possible, and you tune it to beat the mirror. Clamatius already pointed out the most obvious contender - how many more fogs/enablers do they need to print for the bolt thrower decks to mandate Skaven builds with Mob Up! in them? Once that happens, are they going to be willing to ban cards to balance the format?

For what its worth, I agree with you that excellent game design can avoid this kind of degeneracy. And FFL's design team has certainly done a lot of things right (though they did print Deathmaster, Clan Moulder's Elite....). But without sideboards, even tiny design/development mistakes will lead to format-warping degeneracy, at least among the top-tier of competitive players (the Johnnies are going to keep on building their crazy decks regardless). Call me a pessimist, but I can't see them maintaining an eternal (everything legal) card format for long without some broken strategy showing up and warping the format. Skaven may already be there, and if it isnt, its really, really close.

Clamatius said:

Wow. Chillax dude. My running one copy of Infiltrate in non-rush decks has won me games, and I've lost a few because Nate does almost the very same thing. When you plan on laying down a development every turn drawing your Infiltrate against a deck that isn't likely to be decked is just a card to drop as a dev or to bite whichever. When it is going to help it is money in the bank. In cases like this though it serves a tactical purpose rather strategic. I think your play style has been so warped by your previous play experiences that you simply can't accept that anything other than your way might not just be as right, but under certain circumstances may be better...

In our league we play 50 minutes swiss rounds, best 2 out of 3, so, no problems...We're going to use sideboard anyway.

dormouse said:

If I take Warpstone Excavation out of an Skaven/Orc deck and replace it with Squig Herders, sometimes those Herders will give me the extra points I need to burn a zone and win. But I still made the deck worse with that change. As long as the card does something even slightly beneficial, then sure, sometimes it's going to help. Doesn't mean you should play cards that are not good just in case they are helpful sometimes - but I guess this is your argument for effectively just piling what would have been your sideboard on top of your deck and calling it good.

I have to say that I am amused by the way that you tell me to chill out and then say that my play experience has so warped me that I can't see other people's point of view. I am not the first person to be irritated by your snide ad-hominem remarks and I doubt I'll be the last.

Playing against FFG people doesn't necessarily give you a free path to competitive knowledge either - and I've noticed that you often mention them as validation of your arguments. For comparison, the WotC staff "gunslinging" at Pro Tours are invariably not playing the most competitive tournament deck - instead, their deck is usually designed to get lots of fun games but be somewhat competitive. Playing a dull combo deck for 5 hours would get very old. So saying "well, I played against Nate/James/whoever and he had this card in his deck" is not particularly useful in terms of figuring out the best tournament deck.

The irony here is knee deep.

No one has yet to put forward a logically consistent argument about sideboards for this game. We get treated to the same tired meme based on a game which is mechanically, tactically and strategically different, and ignoring that at least three logical fallacies have been committed repeated in an attempt to prove that sideboards are a must for this game.

The argument you posted here about Warped Excavation and Squig Herder's is itself is an informal fallacy and I won't argue against a strawman.

All of this does lead to the conclusion that you do in fact believe that if someone's deck building and play style do not match yours you do not take what they say seriously... then again it could just be me. That I see value in a card that you don't and have used it to effect is dismissed because you find no value in the card. That others also well versed (to sat the least) find value in the card is ignored out of hand. Of course now I tread on the slippery slope of a logical fallacy myself, which I will attempt to keep from falling into.

The mechanics of the game allow for a flexibility that seems discounted or ignored. I find that interesting because the game uses several ways of rewarding a player for using the development mechanic and several more for punishing someone who is not developing, yet the is no discussion about what cards to develop. If every card is an optimal card and an integral piece of your deck what kind of effect does it have on your deck and your ability to play if you are losing a key piece every turn, or ignoring the mechanic and therefor missing the advantageous effects while increasing your susceptibility to the negative effects?

Regarding Infilitrate, in a rush deck it should not be around long enough to make use of so should be left out, in a non-rush deck it acts as a narrow form of tactical card-advantage taking bites out of smaller decks adversely affecting the balance of the cards verse draw built into it, destroying its reliability and potentially breaking combos or discarding much needed answers. As a tactical tool to punish decks and deck builders who over-extend or overly rely on key cards it serves its purpose well. As a strategic tool to force the auto-loss condition a single occurrence of the card in a deck is ineffectual and inefficient. I'd go so far as to say if it is going to be a secondary means of achieving victory even three instances of the card is not enough.

I come from a different gaming background than you, as such I think, build, and play differently... different does not mean inferior. I can think you are wrong about a number of things, I can dislike your posting style, but I don't dismiss you or your opinion because it differs from mine, I read your posts pretty closely and use them as means to gain insight into another players mind. I sift and weigh what you say, test what differs from my own experiences and opinions, and see if it has validity. I do not mistake my opinion for truth.

ddm5182 said:

LOL. This post makes me chuckle. My mostly average Dwarf deck chewed up and destroyed every Skaven build I've seen posted here (I should know, I built them so I could see just how effective the Dwarves truly would be against them).

Maybe relax a bit and let's see what we learn from the Regionals. You could be right but then again you could be wrong.

One quick caveat, however, I have not yet tried and built Clamatius' (apparently) pretty nasty Skaven deck. It sounds pretty spicy though!

I have to say folks, I almost always find myself agreeing with Dormouse (and honestly not in an attempt to team-up or something inane like that - he just makes a lot of sense to me on a consistent basis and he nearly always backs up his points or arguments with clear supportive explanations to boot).

This has always been my chief concern - that players from other games would come in and bring tired expectations or experiential knowledge that isn't entirely applicable to this new game. I say that not as any kind of intended insult, just as an observation or concern for the mindset of the community. I wish folks would give it a year and let's just see how tournaments break down and such. As a famous character on a great show once said, "The Truth points to itself."

Peace everyone!

W:I ROCKS!!

Skaven Orc Blitz and Skaven Chaos Snipe, and of course Skaven-Skaven from any board are incredibly tough. The easiest to build, the easiest to pilot, with the fewest moving parts, and pretty much the fastest to play and win with... ignore or dismiss them at your peril. They are not unbeatable, and the decks I've seen beat them with some consistency are not weak and narrowly focused as anti-Skaven decks... the question is will anything like that show up at regionals.

I really hope to see some of the Magic players who also play this game (or converted to it) really just buy into the format and put their considerable prowess to solving this puzzle and see what they come up with. Most of the players I battle are players primarily of the other LCG's, the only Magic players I've played so far seem torn between loving this game for its uniqueness and complaining about how it needs to be more like Magic. None have quite bought into it as a separate game with its own identity, with its own unique problems to be solved, skills to be mastered. They see it as an extension of their hard earned skill set which can just be redirected.

I'm hoping someone here really turns that around. Question Everything.

I have played more Magic games in my life than any other game (and probably that will hold throughout my lifetime). That said, I really, really, like WH:I and want it to be the best game it can be. I think it has fantastic potential as a game.

WH:I is a hard game to analyze - mostly because the value of a card is (really) nonlinear. It's a tough puzzle to crack, without a doubt.

I have put up the puzzle that I am trying to solve. I am hoping someone has a solution - and yes, I'm willing to wait until after Regionals, since I don't get to play in them (sadly).

Wytefang: try it. Really. The corruption effect is huge for that deck, and having a bunch of supports means it doesn't lose to the decks that usually beat it, instead it just plays 2 more units and swings for 4 again. As dormouse has pointed out many a time at this point, deckbuilding in this game is complicated, but playing is not a trivial matter either.

I, personally, dont care whether there are sideboards or not. As a TO of a Regionals I want mainly clear rules.

The rules a big improvement but still haven't answered one of my questions.

How does the end-of-game-procedure work? We have a time limit, we have to have the EoGP.

My idea? Time stops. Current player finishes his turn, then 3 more turns are played. At the end whoever has more remainig HP wins.

What do you think about that?

Weird. I can scarcely believe that after this amount of time in the unfolding annals of hobby card gaming that there is anyone who hasn't played Magic as a main game. I've been in the industry since back in the day when there was a raft of quality card games not based on pop-culture licenses. There was a smorgasboard of card games that a player - new or old - could call his own. Nowadays, you've got Magic, Yugi-blo, Warcraft, and a few LCG's. V:teS and Redemption and niche games like those are serving a need, to be sure, as alternative games for alternative thinkers. But, by and large, you can count on 2 hands the card games that move a substantial amount of product in today's climate. To stand so resolutely against Magic smacks of defiance for its own sake, and there is something wrong with that. Don't mistake me, though. I'm not chastising anyone, per se. Every one of us has the inalienable right to eat the food, sing the songs, and play the games that we like. 'Nuff said on that.

I hate Magic, as it has mutated now. But I gotta say, fellas. The "Magic crowd" in here has been far more accomodating and open-minded than the "Resistance Fighters". For all of our talk of a community and honoring the game and whatnot, we haven't done a terribly good job of representing ourselves to players of other games. Shame on us. What benefit does it serve to snipe at experienced game players or show disdain for people whose viewpoints are crafted from something other than Invasion? Candidly, I thought that we were better than the other games' player bases who take that "We don't need their scum" approach to players of other games. Folks, we're not compromising our identity as Invasion players if we break bread with Magic players. What do you say we really GROW this game, eh? And please, nobody defend their stance by slagging me down. You'll only prove my point for me.

And Clamatius is right. When I was a WotC rep, we would enter events as a pseudo-team and try to make the most clever alternative decks we could come up with. We ran all kinds of shunned cards that fit our "themes". And we never failed to get a kick out of folks adopting some of our deckbuilds, since they were never intended to be more than gimmicks.

Wytefang said:

I'm just happier that a decision has been made. Never mind what the decision actually is.

On the point of Skaven being dominant, certainly I think they're strong, but until the tournament reports from the regionals come in, I think it's a little early to jump to conclusions. If Skaven decks are winning all the regionals, then I might even agree, based on the evidence. Until then, I think to base how you think the top decks are going to do based on you and your mate Bob sitting in a room having a few hands is a little disingenuous.

On the rules: I'm unsure about the comment someone made about the rules killing Stall decks. Theres a rule against Slow play, but nothing against a stall deck. I can play my stall deck very, very fast waiting for the switch to the kill mechanism. Though, certainly, the 3 games in 50 minutes will be interesting, as my stall decks win in about 20 minutes in casual play, and thats with both players going relatively fast. I can certainly see the possibility of just one or two games being played in stall vs stall games, and I can see lots of possible scenarios where I win the first game and we're playing the second game and time out etc. Those complications don't mean I'd stop trying to get Order (which are usually slower decks) to work, it just means that I'd better make sure I win that first game.

MichalKP said:

It's as good a suggestion as any, though I think we have to reconise that any arbitary rule of working out who has won at the end of time has the possbility of promoting timewasting, slow play and <cough> gamesmanship. Certainly if a player is in the 3rd deciding game of a close round, with only 10 minutes left, and knows hes playing a fast deck and the opponent is playing a stall/repeater bolter deck, I can easily see a spot of gamesmanship come into play if that rule was adopted. Indeed, anyone who's played a competitive card game at tournament level can see precisedly what they'd do.

I think my basis point is, there is no best rule, and whichever rule is adopted will be flawed, and cause arguments at tournaments. However I completely agree for the need for some kind of stated "Time's Up" ruling.

dormouse said:

This is simply not true.

Your only answer was to "no sideboard" to include your extra cards in your deck, and implying that won't hamper your deck anyway, which is simply also not true. (since you will draw much more narrow or "development only" cards even into your starting hand if you follow this path) Currently THIS is why rush decks are dominant, they don't have to include responses to win, so they are the most consistent archetype... over-powerfull

I'm happy that we have Tournament Rules at least... no matter that there is no sideboard... but that means a list of banned cards in the future, which I really hate. A degenerating metagame, or that.

I really like how you discredit everybody else who won't agree with you, and don't even recognizing it.

First, I'm happy to see there is no siding rules. Siding always has been a crutch for the poor deckbuilder. A tournament is much more enjoyable when a deck can surprise you and win against you because its player dared to play a few less-known or less-played cards or combos. You thought you wouldn't need an answer to that ? Too bad for you, your deck wasn't competitive enough for the new meta introduced by the daring player. If you can maindeck a response to that combo for the second match.. Well, you're not winning with your deck, you're winning with your side. In a tournament without siding, you really need to think a lot about your deck and take the risk to have a few dead-cards if nobody is playing that particular cards/combos.

Then, there is the "best 2 of 3" and "50 minutes timing". I'm not a big fan of the "best 2 of 3", mainly because "surprise cards/combos" decks suffer a little for it but I can live with it.. because there is no side. The second reason I don't like "Best 2 out of 3" is... you always don't have to time to finish 2 or 3 games in one round. In a very "rush" meta, it might be very easy.. but if your meta is slower, you don't really have the time to finish the second game. And 50 minutes is definitly of short time. Last week, most of our games were between 20 and 40 minutes long. A few were shorter (Skaven/Orc rush) and one was longer (Dwarf defense vs High-Elf defense).

And there, there is a big fault in the tournament rules.. What do you do when : (1) the game isn't over when the time is up ? What do you count ? Burning Zones ? If there is a tie here to, do you count the damage ? That's what we do here, but it wouldn't have been nice to have an official rule for that. Why bother to put an official time rules if you don't put a tie breaker ? (2) When there is no time to play a third game and that both player won 1 victory. What happens ? What do you count to break the tie ? We can count the number of destroyed zones for each players and the player with the less of them would win. Same remark as before, if you bother to put both a "2 out of 3" and a time, why wouldn't you put a tie-breaker ?

Supa said:

Actually, counting Burning Zones is a really good idea.

I'd suggest that following MichalKP's and Supa's ideas in a stepped order would probably be the best way to judge a Time Out situation

1. So you'd First, Could the number of Burning Zones each player has, the player with the least Burning Zones is the winner,
2. And then Secondly, if they're tied on Burning Zones, you'd count the amount of health they both have in each zone (out of the max 24 for all zones) and the player with the highest total health remaining is the winner

As I said in the prevoius posts, no Time out rule is flawless, and all have their downsides, but as Supa comments, if you're going to have distinct time rules you need a Time Out rule.

Supa said:

- No side

- Get happy to be defeated by an improbable deck or kind of deck that you meet 3 times during round whereas those decks represent 5% of the whole metagame, that's not a "new meta introduced", this is maybe a uneffective deck that only works against mine :x .

- No best of 3

Please go play snakes and ladders

Kidding aside , all those things best of 3, side, ... have the same goal, lower the luck factor too show the average winning chance of a player and his deck during a tournament.

Obviously, the winning rate of a fast deck is the highest of the game, who will come in a competitive environnement with a deck that has clearly no solution to counter a turn 2-3-4 winning strategy that occured more than 50% in the start hand of "fast deck" player? You automaticaly lose 50% of the first game.

Now show me a deck list part that give you in more of 50% of your start hand a way to counter a turn 2-3-4win

The best part of that is that it does not meant at all that this deck has no solution in midd/late game to gain control and take advantage against you (skaven / orc deck that can have support / unit control are a good exemple).

I don't agree that siding helps against "lucky win". "2 out of 3" does, no argument here.

But siding ? No, definitly not: it helps against deck-strategies you didn't want to take into account in your main-deck. You make choice when you deckbuild.. What strategies will I encounter at that particular tournament ? What can I do against it ? What part of my deck should I dedicace to counter the other deck ? Siding only lessen those questions. Should I take that card ? I don't know, I'll just put it in my [10 or 15 cards] side. It's really a poor deckbuilder's tool.

If a deck can effectivly win against your deck and not others.. Well, either that's bad luck for you, either you're playing a too well known decktype and your opponent should be rewarded to play a deck against your deck's weakness by a victory. He took a risk by building a deck against this deck-type. A risk you no longer takes if you have access to a side.

In Cthulhu LCG, Night or Day decks (decks based around the Day/Night mechanism where when a Day card enters plays, every Night cards are destroyed.. and the other way around too) should not be frequent in siding tournament. Why ? Because your opponents only have to put 3 cards in their side to stop you in the second match. You play Night ? Then, I'll play my Day cards now. Without a side, you need to take into account if Day/Night deck have a good chance to be played. No chance ? No cards against it. Good chance ? Put 2 or 3 cards against it. High chance ? Put 5-6 cards against it. Want to play a Day/Night deck ? Without siding, you've got a daring chance to win. With it.. Why bother ?

Siding lowers the sheer number of deck you can effectivly play in a tournament. Why take a risk when the opponent has a chance to rebuild his deck with a response to it.. Just play a more common deck with less surprises in it.