1st: Thanks for posting all this. From the decks, to the tactical analysis, to the opinions, to the suggestions.

2nd: Does posting this really only change the "most played, broken, dominant, way-too-crazy-good deck" to the next best deck in line? What I mean is this, Magic the Gathering just banned x2 cards in their standard enviornment. Extremely comparable in power to cards we are all having issues with. This is going to do x2-3 things.

1) The dominant deck will crumble. There are no "like cards" to add into the mix to make it competitive on the scale it's used to.

2) The next best deck gets to tweak itself to ignore the 1st deck and worry only about the next best deck after it. Which means it can smooth out the resource curve, aggro curve, or whatever it compensated of itself to fend off the Public Enemy #1. In any reguards, all things being equal, the 2nd best decktype WILL get stronger and assume the crown.

3) Best case scenario (and that's what I'm assuming you are hoping for) is that the next x3ish decks will become competive at the same time, or perhaps a new deck that wasn't viable because the first deck was a "hard counter" to it. I think this is a stretch.

3rd: I think the worst thing your thread brings out in this game is the underlying imbalancing issues with LCGs. If you asked me, I'd tell you that the ONLY thing your topic really truely did was bring a nasty light to how bad LCGs can be on a competitive level. Smaller games, with fewer eyes, leads to brokeness that either forces the company's hand to ban/errata the crap out of cards or let them run rampant and grind the competitive nature of games into the ground. (as your 8/8 Empire final proved).

Not blaming you for anything of course, you are doing what we are all doing and that's wishing this game takes a turn for the better. So far we've seen x2 incredibly dominant decks (bolt thrower and VTHC) come and ultimately go because the limited nature of Up-And-Coming type card games.

Honestly I'd argue that there have been 4 dominate decks so far. Orc/Skaven rush in the first regional season, Bolt Thrower in the second half of the regional season through Gen-Con, Dwarf unit sacrifice decks from gen-con until the restricted list, and now empire VTHC/Judgement.

I agree that one dominant deck type is partly due to the nature of the LCG. I dont know if having a sideboard would make a difference, perhaps.

I have had some interesting games against Empire lock down with a weird dwarf deck that used 'Reap What's Sown' to draw extra cards. Currently I feel like its important to have some alternative card draw in your deck rather than just things you play into your quest zone. Something like 'Minning Tunnels', 'Reap What's Sown', 'Lord of Change', 'Jade Acolyte' etc.

TL

I also wonder if this game gonna be improved by using a sideboard. it's pretty clear that some cards are made exactly with that intention: look for exemple at the courage of aenarion, an high elf tattic built against corruption. how many order decks know how to use corruption schemes?

Vitamin T said:

Orc/Skaven Rush was handled by the company putting out a much larger amount of cards to choose from. Didn't really need the errata/ban bat, it just needed a better sample size which the game would ultimately give us.

Bolt Thrower took the nerf/errata bat to fix. Which is bad because now the deck isn't even mentioned as a viable strategy. (unitless)

Dwarven shenanigans was ultimately taken down by a new card mechanic in form of a restricted list. Which is also bad because we already have a very limited amount of cards to choose by and this makes that card pool even smaller. (yes, it's for the better of the game but nonetheless annoying).

VTHC/Judgement is still on the examination board. The public outcry is for a blanket ban. I'd say mainly because there is no anti-quest meta (unless you think that unit kill qualifies) but the quest still remains, and it's engine is the problem. Placing it on the restricted list wouldn't do much since nearly none of the other cards on the list are required in the VTHC deck. /shrug.

I love the availablity of LCG's card pool but I think everyone having access to the same card pool will naturally gravitate them to playing the exact same archetypes (empire-VTHC decks) when they are obviously on top of the food chain. Not sure LCGs can fix this nuiance or not.

Sideboard is a viable way to fix things, but it's a double sided edge...We used it past year in our league and it was TOO effective...I mean...10-15 cards change out of 50 is changing the deck. It's like playin' with 2 decks: basically you can turn a Verena Quest into a Verena standard, i.e.

Sideboard has never been a choice for FFG and I don't think it would solve things up.

There's only a CURE to unbalance: TESTING. A LOT of playtesting. It's pretty clear that design flaws can be deleted by an accurate playtesting: I can deal with a little "assestment" between two cycles or in a moment of change, but I can't deal with a mistake.

VTHC is WRONG and so was Balista. I wrote down a description of how the game appears to me and I repeat the concept: this is a game of board control...Aggro-control is the standard archetype...Get the board, improve your income then smash the oppo. You can do it in many ways: you prefer a tactical and flexible approach? Go for Empire! You prefer to destroy and slow down the oppo? Get the Orcs! You prefer milling combined with some units control? Get Dark Elves!

But the core is the same: it's a game about board control and cards that give you this control ALONE are WRONG.

Lukas has impressed me very much so far in his time as lead designer. Its had to say without seeing the whole set but I have a lot of faith in the quality and balance of the upcoming capital cycle (I believe his first as lead designer). With as responsive as he is with rules questions I suspect that the playtesting of this newest set may have been more involved than previous sets. Of course even if these conjectures are true, that doesnt do anything about the current state of the meta game. Certainly quality unit removal that can be played on your opponents turn is a good answer to quests. Part of the issue currently is that not only is haunted city a great quest, but empire is also the faction that is best at preventing the removal of its units. They can protect them using Iron Discipline and Church of Sigmar. Also their units are usually pretty beefy in general and can shrug of Master Rune of Spite, Cloying Quagmire and several other decent answers. I personally dont want to see a card that outright destroys a quest. Maybe something that lets you name a card and actions on that card cant be used, or an attachment that blanks a quest's text, something like that perhaps. I like the idea that there is a card type that you can count on keeping in play to provide loyalty. More cards with immunities (cannot be destroyed, immune to tactics/quest or something of that nature) or more untargetable cards might help as well.

As far as the sideboard idea goes it is perhaps too soon for it to be implemented and I'm hopefully that someday W:I will move to a 60 card format (which I've heard they are considering at some point). With 50 card decks I'd expect the sideboard would be like 5-10 cards most likely.

Visit definitely should have been only units rather than both units and supports. Playing through one isnt easy but playing through two is nearly impossible. I personally didnt think that Repeater was an overpowered card until outpost of tiranoc came out. At that point something needed to be done about it, though it might be alright without the errata now if it were restricted.

I absolutely agree with your agro control assessment regarding W:I. Empire is basically the only faction that has a card that can control both your opponents units as well as there supports (and they have two). Certainly it is the case, at lest right now, that some kind of change needs to be made. I truly do not believe that Empire is currently unbeatable. I know that players in Italy do a lot of play testing, perhaps more than I do (which is quite a lot =) ) but I just cant agree that there is no other deck worth playing if you want to be competitive and I do think that there are some answers to empire right now. However, I dont think that their is anyone who would say that Empire is not the dominant deck right now nor do I think it can be denied that empire is currently too strong (especially Judgement and VTHC). We simply disagree on how much of a change is needed.

I'm confident that the next FAQ update will have some kind of change in it, hopefully one which can help to keep Invasion the exciting and fun game that we all enjoy.

TL

I hope that FAQ's will be published before worlds, so we will see a great change in meta.

P.S.

Vitamin T, were not you the one who criticized me when I said months ago that Empire was the strongest faction?

I dont believe so, but I suppose its possible. I've thought that Empire was the strongest faction since before Haunted CIty came out and before the restricted list.

BigV said:

what would be nice is that they FAQ it 10 days before worlds so there won't be OMG-spam-l33t-listing going on and perhaps deckbuilding will count for something.

what will happen is the complete opposite. i'm sure games will end after about 10 seconds. when the die roll resault shows who goes first and who doesn't. the game is a joke right now and i'm fairly confident in saying that VitaminT is on the right track that a quick-fix errate/FAQ will just make some other decklist not-too-fun-to-play-against. (hekari, if you ask me) hence why i think that there won't be any errata/FAQ'ing going on until after Worlds, when they have had adequate time to test and make a choice on what deck they want everyone to hate on next.

I hate to double post and I really hope that i'm not hi-jacking this thread in anyway (talking about tournament play really)...but IMO, this game isn't ready for competitive play yet. Period. That's not badmouthing the game but just an insightful observation. Look at M:TG for instance, sure people started beating eachother over the tabletop with decks from day 1 but those first few years where FAR from competitive in today's perspective. It's laughable really to look see Serra Angel etc in World's Decklists.

This game is in the same infancy. There just aren't enough puzzlepieces to make a competitive puzzle yet. Limited card pool is going to keep that a slow gring IMO as well. Not enough cards are going to come out that are going to have enough impact on the current meta. When the new cards can't change the balance of the game, then either the designers step in and make "other ways" to win the game (varietable win conditions) or they are forced to change how the game is played (think of Interupts vs. Instant speed, "the stack" etc) or worse, they change exhisting cards by errata, play limit, or banning.

I for one think it's crazy to post competitive lists on the internet but it's commonplace here on this forum. I think that is about as damaging to the game as having broken cards in the card pool. Don't get me wrong, I like this game. I like the mechanics better than most other card games i've ever had the pleasure of playing. The artwork on the cards are also very impressive. I however believe with all my 17 years of card gaming expirience, that this game is "Casual Only" right now. Tournament reports like this one are doing nothing to prove otherwise.

A Dark Elf deck wiht the quest that reduces HP can destroy this imperial deck if you do not take the force of will quickly. You do not get to play the quest even once.

I have found that to be true as well, but it doesn't matter now.