Clamatius said:

Nah I am okay with Deathmaster right where he is...no more buffs to skaven lol.

Here is my two cents guys. Skaven have died down to be infrequent in packs. Not as many anymore. Yet the new factions get 3-5 cards a month. Neutrals being less frequent allows the designers to make the core factions balance and adapt to the new races joining the game.

I think Wood elves should be in the next cycle. They take advantage of being scouts/hunters with abilities that trigger when opponents cards enter discard from hand. Maybe the next box could include Ogres and Bretonnians.

LEAVE TOMB KINGS OUT!! They are neither order or destruction, in fact they are like Pandoras box, the ark, or the rewaking of the mummy from the stories and movies. Last thing this game needs is caskets of souls.

The game is fine...you guys love to cry for fixes ... that is until I link a new pic of an upcoming card or a major box set is announced lol. Just calm down. Seriously think about how many cards each side gets per battle pack to make up the balance for any one OP card in the last cycle.

The only change I would like to see in the game is a once per game ability on each capital then capital is flipped over to other side where the ability is greyed out.

Curator said:

I don't think that the game needs more factions - and I'm fine with the game the way it is (ok, except thrower and arguably warpstone). But I do see why the people coming to the game from figurine land are confused about the factions other than the core 6 being neutrals.

seconded for Wood Elves, Ogres & Bretonnians with also vote for exclusion of Tomb Kings. Pirates & zombies in the new deluxe expansion is already a little too much for me lol good thing there's no ninjas in Warhammer...as far as i know...lol they're the Rat (goblins) in Conrontation i know at least

doesnt L5R have a bunch of factions? if it's similar situation, i'm curious to how they approached it...

whatever FFG does, i really hope they successfully balance all factions (especially chaos, for those who are homofactionally inclined)

LOL so I have a sense of humor......shoot me.

Though there is a difference between what I am doing and others are:

I think the game is fine.
I think adding factions keeps me buying packs.
I played woodelves, so I would like them to be next and to fit the fluff. The reason I quit warhammer was because my woodelves were the last army to get the model and rules update. I didn't mind this until in the very same White Dwarf showing the new Wood elf army, they included the news of a brand new edition to the core game. So I don't want to have to sit and wait again Ya Feel Me?!
If I were ASKED to suggest a change to the core system, I would suggest the addition of a once per game ability on each capital to fit the flavor of the faction. Kind of like in the WoW TCG with heroes.

Does the game need any of these things? NOPE. Again I am fine as it is. Do I see a lot of thrower decks int eh turney scene? Heck yeah...and I remember when it used to be Skaven. But I don't JUST play for tournaments! Like with Halo, Madden, Street Fighter, SOMETIMES I play for fun! And...SHOCKER!!..so do my friends.



But these forums...the forums that make this game look broken just by looking at thread titles, is the first place new comers will come to check what the community thinks of the game. I play W:I about 3 times a day...sometimes more if we are waiting on Malifaux figs to dry. I think many of you (NOT ALL) are way to uptight. You think this game needs tourney scene to survive, you think you know what changes will make it better, and you think you know the future of the game based on what is currently available.

Most of the customers that are currently playing this game have never even entered this forum or visited the site. Most of the players I have met in various cities are using the card game to escape the sink hole that is "Games Workshop". They could careless about balance and they await the next battle pack because they must know what is in it!!! A player of a nurgle army is pretty into this new cycle since the greater demon and the diseases have cropped into the scene. Players of Lizardman may be upset Lizards are not a core army (myself included since they were my first army from their day one release) BUT, like myself, we Lizardman players will take what we can get. And we get a lot in one box.

Those same complainers of the core system and balances also seem to asume James doesn't read these forums or touch the game he is now leading the design of. REALLY!? so there is absolutely NO way to make Thrower decks less useful? Or no way to make a single neutral card stop the rush decks..REALLY!?

I can understand if the tourney scene is not as fun to the hardcore competitors for this game, but guess what? Every single one of you can quit this game and it will still continue. Warhammer: Invasion is the substitute for tons of fans of the genre that can no longer afford the minis and for that reason alone it will be awhile before it is dead. By the time this card game is ready to kick the bucket there will be so many cards that the chances of discovering a new deck style will still crop up among friends.

Don't belive me then ask yourself how does the spoiler section have over 10k views yet 30 or so replies? Some people come in check for news and drool over any new spoils then leave. They could careless about the opinions of the community. They also make up for most of the sales of W:I.

Artemus Maximus said:

I think Skaven in general are ninjas. They strike from the shadows, they make poisons using lotus, and ...well you lookata gutter runner and tell me that isn't a ninja!



L5R doesn't use the LCG format. They have a purposefully op faction to commemorate the faction for winning at worlds. Certain factions are no more (for example the Ratlings are gone. They all died). A new faction of 'terrorist' (is that word allowed here), called the Spider Clan. Each faction in L5R plays very different and mixing them up is harder to do than in W:I and Magic. L5R also has a horrible starter deck format. You buy a deck for your faction get some cards from the faction and rest are random. THEN because your brain tells you the deck feel incomplete with units from other factions, you go buy boosters to replace them.

Chaos will be balanced once all gods have been represented. Because then you will have the diseases, mutations, nuking spells, and temptation spells....along with the core demons from each god. My friend that played Chaos in the table top noticed this while playing chaos in W:I when it was released.

Curator said:

I see this same argument over and over from casual players - it's the casual players that matter, they bring in the $, so why are you talking about what's broken? They don't care, they're just playing for fun. So why do you care?

Yes, I would be shocked if casual players did not make up the majority of the playerbase (just like for every other deckbuilding game).

But I think that this argument misses a few important points in the casual/competitive divide:

1. It doesn't matter whether such-and-such a card is banned in tournaments to casual players anyway and therefore that whole thing is irrelevant to them. However, it's hugely important to the competitive players so obviously they want to talk about it.
2. On a dedicated forum for the game, the competitive players are always going to be disproportionally represented. And therefore the topics that are more important to that audience are always going to be disproportionally represented.
3. All of the players WANT THE GAME TO BE BETTER. No matter how good it is now (and for the record, I think it is **** good).
4. It is often the competitive players that bring in the casual players - they are more likely to be the evangelical ones who are going to tell everyone they know about the great game they've been playing.
5. Competitive players usually spend more on the game (for LCGs, this actually isn't nearly as big a difference as it is in CCGs where the difference in $ is vast - although competitive players will still buy a copy of everything where a casual player might just buy a core set and be done).

In short, telling people like me to just shut up, the game is fine from a casual point of view, is a waste of your time.

You seem to see discussions like this one or whether such-and-such a card is broken as OMG THE SKY IS FALLING but it's really not, it's just players wanting the game to be "more fun" and making their suggestions of how that could be achieved. If the game was dead there would be noone posting here.

One of the major reasons why I have been campaigning to get rid of the thrower archetype is because it is not fun. At all. It makes the game less fun for the players, and at the end of the day that's what I care about. And the players at GenCon said the same thing. If it was trivially beatable, that would be a different matter because you wouldn't see it in the competitive landscape, but it is a tier 1 archetype. You can beat it, but a bunch of otherwise reasonable archetypes don't have a chance, which makes for a less diverse metagame and less fun for the players. In a casual environment, it doesn't matter anyway because after a couple of games with thrower, the other players will threaten to punch you in the nose if you try to play it again.

And as for the Skaven, you will note that when Skaven were the best deck at no point did I say that any of our little squeaky friends should be banned.

Clamatius said:

Calm down you are not in my above list that my point was being directed at. Those that I was referring to know who they are. I would never tell a person to shut up and nor have I. For the record I am not casual at any game I play, sports included. I read all of the strategies, articles, forums. I watch demos and tutorials for basic must know's and essential combos.

However, I know when it is time to just play for fun, and sometimes that is all I desire.

You make a good point about how if most of the money is coming from casual's then why should I care about the forums they don't visit? For many reason but mainly because I don't think anyone on this forum (including me) could design a better card game than this. Also as a local game designer myself, I hate seeing negative thread after negative thread, because it puts pressure on the designer thanks to mixed signals. Profits say everything is fine, but forums are disappointed.

If you guys (this includes everyone reading) want to support this game, then just post your observations. The designer is usually smart enough and has a dedicated team for helping him change the scene, program, and/or art based on the points that need to be addressed. Personally, with the exception from above, I don't offer ideas for the changes I would make unless asked, but that may just be because I know what it is like to find imbalance in a product and then having to redo or alter parts of the product, only to discover now other parts are affected.

Curator said:

I agree that Eric did a superb job on the original game design. Similarly, I think Wizards R&D has done a great job with Magic - but that doesn't mean they don't make mistakes. There are an awful lot more players than there are designers and testers and sometimes the players find things that didn't get caught at the design & development stages.

As a game designer: you have to take negativity with a huge pinch of salt. Negativity does not necessarily tell you that your game is bad. Look at the volume. If the general volume is high and your sales are good then the game itself is probably fine. Also, players often suffer from the dog-chasing-a-car syndrome - they want something and complain about it, but if they got it it may not turn out well.

As long as you understand the difference between assuming you know the perfect change to make for the game and just providing your observations, then we are cool.

It is the people like Xerxes from 300 that come in, and not only tell you that your ideals are wrong, but also demand you listen to them and make the changes they purpose, that really upsets me.

Currently I am working on a very complex war and coop management board game. I hate when people tell me to change something because they think it will work better. If I just did everything anyone told me to do then the vision for the core game will become lost.

I look at it like this. Say you are an artist. You make a piece of work. You hang it up for people to buy or observe. Then suddenly a few individuals think they know how to make it better and rather than just pointing out the nose is a little off or the colors are too dark, instead they draw and paint right over the art. Now not only is it not original, but it looks like ****! Because they do not know the theory or meaning behind the original vision/concept you had for the piece, nor did they care.

You can tell them "see you were wrong" but that doesn't fix the fact that the product is now destroyed.

I may come across as territorial when it comes to this game, but I do it with what I feel are good intentions. I actually don't want this game to go on forever, I personally just want for it to last as long as it needs to in order to provide the perfect warhammer experience one can get without buy GW minis. Add the other races maybe a few new racial abilities, but end it when it is ready to end. Don't drag this game on IMO. End it on a high note while it is popular. My ideal time frame for when to end this game would be 2 cycles after all races have been introduced.

So a card pool of about 2000 (or about a 6 year run) of cards and that just includes buying one copy of each product. There are not even that many units + items + spells in all of the table top.

Unifiedshoe said:

I have to say that I don't agree.

That's true that some neutral cards (well I could mention only two : Deathmaster, Clan Moulder Elite) are seems a little overpowered, but this is NOT because they are neutral.

Hovewer based on experience from several other card games, I could assure you : including powerfull neutral cards won't make the game homogenous, and won't mean that we will have only neutral decks after several months/years/decades.

Yes, the cards will be used, and even we will see neutral decks (skaven / lizardmen / neutral mixed) even on competitive level. But the big 5 factions... err... 6 (I almost forgot about the half-dead chaos) will still be making powerfull decks.

Why ?

- Because for example 300+ different dwarf card always will have more deck building oppurtunities and possible synergies than 30 skaven + 30 vampire + 30 lizardmen etc. First, we have less neutral units than cards for any factions. Second, neutral units are almost halved by the "one side only" limitation. Third, even cards in the same side (skaven and vampires for example) has little sinergy with each other.

- There isn't a big power level difference (if any) in favor of neutrals. For every Zealot Hunter/Deatmaster/Clan Moulder Elite there is a Slayers of Karak Kadrin/Lobber Crew/RBT/Dwarf Ranger/Rodrik's Raiders/Wilhelm.

- Indirect evidence : in other card games, like Magic they already have hundreds of powerfull neutral cards. There are only one deck in highly competitive level based on solely those cards, but even that is because it is supported by 1-2 uberpowerfull mechanics (like they all make some of them cheaper, and you could draw a card after any neutral played etc), not because the fact they are neutral. i don't think FFG will make a fault like this. BTW, in other card games I know even that point weren't reached.

Skavens has all the tools that made them powerfull, please show them in the final 8th at Worlds. Thanks.

Curator

You should read the Skaven armybook I guess. Our verminous friends are not "ninjas", they are basically a horde army with zounds of clanrats and skavenslaves surging forward, supported with wicked technology (warp lightning cannon, poison wind globadiers), magic (Thanquol), and/or monsters (rat ogres).

They have some ninja units, but we already seen all of them : Gutter runners, Deathmaster (and fellow assasins) and in a lower level Night runners.

Numbers :

- The skaven armybook has 14 different hero/lord option (including named ones) 16 different units and warmachines, and 5 weapon teams.
- From the above 2 hero option and 2 type of units are "ninja wannabes" and 1 weapon team connect to them (basically a small tunnel grinding machine)

I wouldnt use MTG's card design as an example for anything. Those guys are the best in the industry; just because they can avoid certain pitfalls doesn't mean FFG can. (Even so, anyone remember Umezawa's Jitte? Sensi's Diving Top? Sol Ring? Moxes/Lotus etc?) More to the point would be citing the use of nuetral's in games that ffg produced: I'm told they are somewhat out of hand in CoC and I know for a fact the Infinity resource in UFS got super stupid.

Anyways, it wasn't my point that all cards without loyalty costs are bad/OP. What I was saying is that several of them are undercosted by about 1/2 resource. For instance: Errant Wolf, Greyseer, Moulder Elite, Warp Canon, Skittering Hordes, etc. In fact, it's highly unlikely that any card that has been printed nuetral would have 0 faction icons as a cost were they to be printed as part of some factions cardpool. For instance, what are the odds Errant Wolf would cost only 2 were he Empire? I don't think it's too likely.

I would not call MtG developers the "best of the industry" ... they are very prone to create broken cards. I directly mentioned them, that even with those errors they made there is no neutral-mayhem out there. Also, you are completely mix the "neutral" and the "power level" as a problem category.

Umezawa's Jitte, Sensi's Diving Top, or Sol Ring would all be overpowered if they would cost the same amount of colored mana.

Also, your list of examples is less than defendable. Errant Wolf is not much played, and at more than 2 it would be totally crap. Skittering horde is just an unreliable card draw, while WLC is a slooooow Choppa with +1 power... even skaven rush don't use it ! Greyseer is strong, but easy to deal with (he has a single HP) and even when he is in play he need support to be effective. The only 2 really overh-the-top neutral in Deathmaster (but even he could be dealt with many ways) ... and Moulder's Elite with it's amazing HP.

This one is clearly overpowered, but if there would be a skaven capital you would need at least 3 loyalty simbol to prevent it splased into orcs. But it would be still an auto include in every skaven deck, since the only unit with 5HP for 2, and having 2 power. If it would be a skaven-aligned unit it still would be the most effective 2 cost offensive unit, so in my book that the card is not balanced.

In short : The card is overpowered, regadless of any fancy symbols printed on it ! And look at RBT... it has all the symbols you could dream of, and still the most feared card out there...

"highly unlikely that any card that has been printed nuetral would have 0 faction icons as a cost were they to be printed as part of some factions cardpool"

That's true, because all card which is a part of a faction has at least 1 faction icon. You are pointing at the obvibious. But that in itself don't mean it would be good.

Another point of view : These cards are designed to be easily splashed... they simply don't print 3 different named units with exact the same stats and 3 different loyalty simbol... they print Errant Knight, Zealot hunter and even Wight Knight. It's they way to say : "hey, it fits all 3/6 factions we made !" Also, if they would print those effects that way, it would mean you could include 9 in a deck...

And using many neutrals in your deck (or even splashing another faction) mean you could harder and harder play your faction specific, and therefore high loyalty cards. It's easier to play Grimgor in a mono-orc deck, you could believe me in that.

My point of view is : If we have problems with several cards then we must find a way to deal with those cards, not reimagine the whole game. If your car's wheel gets a hole, do you change to a howercraft, because wheels are clearly a bad design ? I don't think so.

Well if there ceases to be roads you change to a hovercraft... sometimes I think some games would be improved with the hovercraft upgrade (UFS, MtG...), game play only mind you. Granted they're lose their player base, but...

Curator said:

If you are not interested in other designers opinions on a product, you should stick with art. I like it, I dont like it, it is justed subjective.But games are far more than art, they (should) have systematics and they have rules. You can (and should) analyze games far deeper than art.If you have an old fashioned turn system with people doing nothing in 5 minutes another designer/observer can objective see this. There are trolls, but most people are polite and want to help and they start talking about the problem and propose changes. It is not that people think you dont know what you are doing (some experienced designers will think so about new designers, but most not troll players wont), they just want to be helpful. I am happy if someone talks about (my) games because it shows they found something at the game like spending time thinking on it.
Most designers I know do games because they specially like to be in touch with players and not sitting in their house drawing a picture alone.

I dont know if there are any game designer meetings in the country you life, but Göttingen(designers + publishers) in Germany is a great experience and the new HeidelbärenCon (designers with games going to be published + players testing and talking) too.

There is a distinct difference between the opinions of a designer who understands the theory, process, and method of game design, and a player who simply wants things their way.

Farsight said:

Isn't that what all of this is? Everyone sharing their own opinion. I don't think new capitals is a good idea. That's my opinion.

dormouse said:

Touché...

dormouse said:

What follows is not directly related to the above statement, but I think it gets at it in a way that made me want to include it. What follows is also obviously all my opinion. I'm going to make a few blanket statements. I don't expect anyone to agree with me.

The thing that designers tend to miss (at least in the smaller games that I've played like UFS and W:I) is that a player's expectations of the game are just as important (if not more important) than the designers. I recently read a post on these boards where someone posited the idea that maybe it was intentional that orcs can burn a capital on turn 2. Perhaps everyone who thought that that is a bit fast is wrong because the game is working as intended?

The problem with this idea is that if players feel like the game is moving too quickly than it IS moving too quickly. A game that is well designed and play tested can still feel wrong to those playing it. It doesn't make the players wrong to feel that way, it makes the designers wrong for delivering a game to their playerbase that isn't fulfilling. There is a range of expectation that you can try to hit to give people the game that they want. For instance, it's highly unlikely that a player who wants to win as fast as possible will be bored winning on turn 4. It's also unlikely that a control player will want to win on or before turn 4. So, if the fastest a deck can win is turn 4, that's a good starting point.

Your speed players will be happy with that. Control players will want a pace that is slower and more exacting (in general) and so turn 6-7 is a good starting point for the combo/control cards to win. Running the fast player into the slow player should speed them both down. The fast player will lose some ground due to control cards and the control player will have to disrupt their opponent rather than purely play out their win. That game should feel satisfactory to both since the fast deck winning would mean they are able to overcome the control cards and the control winning would mean that they are able to stave off the early win.

What feels bad is when the control player feels like they have to draw one of a couple specific cards in their deck in order to have any chance of survival against the aggro deck. It feels just as bad when the aggro deck gets past turn 2-3 and feels like they can just scoop because of the oppressive cards the control player has.

To tie this discussion more into the OP, if players are complaining that they want stuff like capital boards for certain races it falls to the designer to either give them those boards or else present such a concrete reason for not giving them the boards that no asks ever again.

As far as the ongoing idea of the game in the minds of the designers, keep in mind that this game is released month to month. The designers have complete control over what cards get released and in what order. It should be possible to keep things fairly balanced, fun, and interesting from month to month. A bit here or there where one side gets a bit over powered is fine, but it shouldn't swing back and forth every six months like it has. First Order was nearly unplayable and now Destruction is. Judging from Steve's comments at Gencon about Order 'getting good this cycle" I don't expect the last 4 battlepacks to do anything less than continue the trend.

The idea of balancing 6 individual 'factions' is ridiculous. As I've said before, it's really an Order vs. Destruction game. Until they remove the rule that allows me to play all of Orders cards in Orders decks, the only reason to have different factions within it is cost control. They should be able to at least balance the big two.

Also, if you believe that everything is going according to plan then ask yourself if the designers knew ahead of time that Worlds would be so thoroughly dominated by Dwarf and BT. If so, are they doing a good job? is that the game you want to play? If not, are they doing a good job? Is that the game you want to play?

I don't think it would be hard to support more factions if they had chosen to do it that way. Instead of releasing the major expansions as they have, releasing 2 new factions with or without boards, they could have released preconstructed decks that were solo faction every 6 months and then have the BP's give a little support to each.

Unifiedshoe said:

darkdeal said:

So if they made a lord of the rings war based card game you would want the southern tribes to have capital boards even though they only join as allies by sending a few troops and the elephants. The war was focused on key capitals. Helmsdeep and White City for good and Isengard and Mordor for evil.

The allies pose such a little threat as a whole in the warhammer war effort for both sides. Why would chaos waste resources on wood elves that they could be spending of the focus against empire? On the flip side why wood the wood elves try to draw attention like that to home realm?

In my opinion keeping certain armies as just allies is better.

Curator said:

There's a world of difference between ccgs and what W:I is (essentially a boardgame). If you want to think of W:I as a ccg then, there are some points to be made.

First, a meta is generally comprised of different decks. Dwarf and BT are between 30-50% the exact same cards depending on lists.

Secondly, a meta is only so thoroughly dominated by a particular deck (in this case Dwarves) when something has gone wrong. There are several examples of this between MTG, VS, and WoW and all of them were mistakes.

Third, the "meta" for this game so far has been Orcs as the only playable deck, changing to Orcs being unplayable and Dwarf/Bt being the only playable decks. Not much of a meta from a ccg standpoint.

Fourth, Any game can live for 8 months on it's starting budget. We would have seen the release of the first 6 battlepacks regardless of how hard the game tanked in the beginning due to them all being printed at the same time. Getting releases isn't an accomplishment. The LCG system of release is so smart that I would guess that nearly any semi-well done game would be successful enough to print. Warhammer is a great game. It suffers at the tournament level. If you are playing at anything other than that I doubt that there's anything to complain about besides not playing enough.

jogo said:

In the end I guess I just fear changing this game will hurt it. I just don't want FFG messing up a great game (tho I will admit flawed in places) just because a few people think they know the system better than the designer. And as a result dividing the community. I would rather debate while playing a person that can tolerate the game, than not play at all because the player has a new system for the game.

Actually there was some discussion. I told Michael Hurley head of the LCG department that the two best decks were Dwarf and Bolt Thrower, with DElf Control (via Skaven) as a somewhat distant 3rd. That a Dwarf deck would most likely win the entire thing and that it would be based around Support Destruction, Slayers, and Mining Tunnels, and at least one or two decks would be giants and do well despite what a lot of players see as a violation of the most basic deck building tenet. Now I did not expect nearly so many Dwarf or BT decks, but I did expect them to do well and make up the lion's share of the final players.

As to why these decks showed up in these numbers? I actually suspect it has a fair amount to do with the posts here about how broken the decks are compared to everything else. Everyone wants to play the "best" deck, and most players would rather net-deck (some with tweaks some without) rather than come up with an original idea. Others would take the base concept and runaway with it (Dut's is an excellent example of this).

And yes I believe if the game is operating the way the designers intended it is not the game that is wrong... by definition, it is the expectations of the players. If I want a wild knock 'em down blood bath, chess is not the game for me. The game is not wrong and does not need to be changed, I need to either change my expectations or find a game that meets my needs. To expect the game to abandon its philosophy and the designers to abandon their vision, and the publishing company to abandon their marketing campaign and target audience, is... a tad myopic.