So let me give you some background first. My game group consists of myself and 3 other guys, my best friends. Only one other guy and myself has any real experience with CCG type games (ie we both were MTG tourney guys back in the day, I also have a slew of other CCGs that I’ve bought, but played very little), our group was primarily board games until recently. I bought each of the guys an Invasion starter for Christmas and since then it’s gone crazy! All of us are buying new cards like mad to get our 3 copies of everything, building awesome decks for whatever faction we want to try for the week and get together regularly and pummel each other, it’s pure bliss. But something about Invasion is leaving me a little…flat. I mean it’s a really good game, and I really enjoy it, but I feel like there’s something better. So I am posting here to see if its AGoT and if so, I want to know how it is better and why. I’ve played AGoT a couple times before, and I really enjoyed it, but not nearly as much as I’ve played Invasion lately and I don’t know how it compares to Invasion when you really get deep into it.

So far I own two copies of the base game and each of the deluxe expansions. My original idea was to create a sort of “Board Game” feel for AGoT and build a deck for each house and play it that way with the guys, but having each of the guys really into Invasion, buying cards, studying strategies, building awesome customized decks and generally really getting excited about it, has literally been a dream come true for me! And I want it to be that way for more games so we have a bit of variety, and it’s not only about Invasion all the time.

So I am considering buying AGoT starters for the guys to try and hook them to AGoT like they are with Invasion, but I want to make sure it’s a game they actually will like, just as much if not more than Invasion. I’m a little concerned about the theme, I know not much can be done about it, but if the game play trumps the theme then there shouldn’t be a problem. And I say I’m concerned because, well, let’s face it the Invasion theme is much more accessible! Who doesn’t want to play Orcs, Dwarves and Elves!? I know I’m sold already on the theme, I love the Ice and Fire novels and love the whole world, partly why I really want to get into the game, and one of the other guys does as well, he’s reading the books, but we tried playing a 1v1 game and he wanted to stop so we could play Invasion, I guess it bored him a little. I know multiplayer is supposed to shine over 1v1 and we will try it that way, soon I hope.

So, what I’m asking from you, my beloved BGG community, is to try and give me an unbiased comparison (I know that’s asking a lot especially since I’m posting it here) between AGoT and Invasion from players who actually play AND enjoy BOTH games. I’m not looking for a bashing of either game, but a solid comparison from players who have a deep experience with both games.

Why and how are they different?
How does deck building compare to Invasion?
How does the deep game compare to Invasion?
How different are the houses and their strategies?
If you play Invasion, do you get the same satisfaction from deck building, creating strategies, etc?
How does the game play differ, as far as personal enjoyment goes, between Invasion and AGoT?

I know that the only real way to find out if my game group is going to get hooked on AGoT like we did with Invasion is to just try it out, but I wanted to post this to gather information and opinions just in case we miss something when we finally do try it out.

Thanks!

I play both AGOT and Warhammer Invasion LCGs non-competitively (ie. no tournaments just with friends) and find that AGOT is far superior. The game is much more strategic due to the Plot Phase and Challenge Phase. You really have to plan your overall strategy with your Plot deck. To me, W:I is more based on tactics than strategy. The other thing I like about AGOT is that you can play multiplayer, not just 1 on 1, so its great for groups. Melee's are handled pretty well in AGOT. Also AGOT is much more balanced right now as the card pool is much larger than W:I, allowing for many more deck types and strategies.

Overall I like AGOT better. For me its more of a thinker than W:I. I usually play W:I after a few games of thrones because its easier on the brain LOL.

-Jux

gdotbat said:

I don't know how well I can answer all your questions, but here's a try. I didn't play Invasion *that* much, so if some of my comparisons are a bit off, feel free to disagree. My board game group actually tried invasion before AGOT, but the invasion cards have been collecting dust ever since we tried AGOT. Our first game was multiplayer.

The games have many differences, but I suppose only a few of them are really fundamental.

-First off, the resource model. In Invasion (WI from now on) you expand your resources very similarly to MTG, in that you play a card that generates a number of hammers in a zone to get a number of the resources that zone provides (money, card draw, offensive power). In WI you have more control over resource scaling than in MTG, but it's quite similar IMO. In AGOT, your resources primarily come from the plot cards. There's the money you use to play other cards, there's the initiative that may help you resolve timing conflicts in your favour, and claim, which decides how much damage you'll deal with your attacks. Of course, there are cards that modify these numbers, but the gold income on plot cards often mean the game sort of picks up speed faster. Rushes also work a bit differently. There's also more thought going into resources than how much money you want available in a particular round, as all plots have secondary effects.

- Victory condition. In WI, you want to clobber two different opposing zones, and when one zone is burning, further attacks on that zone are usually irrelevant. In AGOT, it's a race to 15 points. This means all attack types are relevant throughout the game, and the way characters are deployed in different "zones" is different. Now characters' usefulness are based on which challenge types they can participate in, in addition to just their strength.

- No stack! In WI, like in MTG, there's the principle of first in - last out. The infamous stack. This leads to a lot of situations that, to me, look a bit like "are not! are too! are not! are too!" type arguments. In AGOT, and effect usually resolves completely without anything being able to interfere. Only a very few cards can interfere with other effects, and they're usually of a MTG counterspell type flavour - cancels of different types. This leads to somewhat more predictable gameplay, with less of playing nasty surprises from your hand that people can't see, and more of outmaneuvering your opponent(s).

The AGOT gameplay, to me, seems less erratic and explosive and there's more room to screw up or play well with the same deck. I think deck building is more interesting, because the game mechanics themselves are more interesting. I like how characters don't take or deal damage but are killed by different means, and usually not directly by your opponent, so you have more control over when your important cards go away.

My bunch of friends started as a group playing board games, and some of us had played MTG in the past. We stopped by WI, played it a lot for a few weeks and then went back to our board games. After we got AGOT (a bit over half a year ago), we have played virtually nothing else.

I hope that's informative. I'll see about writing some more when I'm not falling asleep

A lot of what i'm about to say was covered by the previous posts, just going to flesh it out a bit

gdotbat said:

1) WI is a lot quicker, both in pacing and in game play. Its much more tactically focused. Sure it can be strategic in the choice of deck type (bolt thrower or rush) but the three different zones make the in game desicions decide the game more often. AGoT, while tactical, is much more strategic. often your challenge based tactic has a much more strategic value to it. Plus you can build decks that don;t care about tactical situations at all (if you listen to the podcasts, think the Queen of shadows deck)

2) 2 different animals. in WI you don;t have to include resources into your deck building. In AGOT there is no penalty for beingdecked so 60 is the ideal number where in WI its safe to go 75+

3) Its tough to compare this. Come say AGOT is deeper becuase of plots and challenges, but WI can be deep too epescially as they add more card options. the base line I always give to compare the 2 is WI is much better suited to those looking for a quick (or a series of quick) game(s). WI can be less complex but not neccessarly shallow.

4) for AGOt each house has different flavors and different in house themes. Some of the flavors overlap (i.e. Greyjoy can kill like stark if they want, or rush like bara if they want). WI has much more clearly defined roles for the factions, but since half can mix with each other you can intertwine the factions and roles if you want.

5) indeed. though its a different type of deckbuilding due mostly to the differences in the resources/draw mechinics/game conditions.

6) I enjoy them both and don't see them as two different types of games (unlike CoC and Lord of the rings, which both have much different feels to them). Just as an FYI I'd pick a Thrones tourney over a WI one, but that has more to do with my enjoyment of the respective IP's.

Both are good games - aGoT has a little more history, so I think most of their main mistakes are out of their system and they have balanced the factions more fully (~other than TLS of course ).

As Lars said, WH is usually quicker (although I have played some LONG Dwarf-on-Dwarf action).

I really like that WH has the 'chain'. The rulings in WH (for the most part) are more easy to understand therefore.

I believe the plot phase is the best part of pretty much any CCG/TCG/LCG so that puts it over the top for me on aGoT, but WH certainly has its strengths!

Good luck!

Thanks guys! Great info here, I appreciate it!