Hi guys.

What I really liked with this game when it came out compared tho MtG is the different play style. Warhammer Invasion is our should be about reactive, dynamic play. You play a deck that focus on the quest zone? Well if opponent harasses you with a rush deck you gotta need to play defending units in another zone anyway. It is less about searching your deck for that awesome 2 or 3 card combo that will win you the game.

My worry is that warhammer invasion will change more and more into a "find your good cards then play winning combo game"

Winning Stahleck was a combo dwarf deck. One of the strongest decks is the empire verena combo deck.

With the continued card releases more and more combos will appear.

The problem with this is the change of the feel of the game from a reactive game where you try to outwit and bluff your opponent to a more patience like experience.

So what is the solution?

What do you guys think about the neutral tactic card?

"BOTCH" NEUTRAL COST 3.

Tactic: Cancel tactic just played.

Nu fuss. Just a "blue" cancel card that is playable with any deck, fairly costly but protects you if you suspects you will be ousted by a nasty combo the next turn for a fairly hefty cost. If you have the right cards you can maybe recycle those spared resources at the beginning of the next turn.

Even if you dont have the card in hand you will still be able to bluff your opponent if he cant reveal your hand. As everyone knows, bluffing is fun.

Combos in decks would still be viable, you can play a "Botch" card yourself, canceling the opponents "Botch", there is still a possibility that the opponent does,nt have "Botch" in hand and your opponent i furthermost forced to spare 3 resources if she is suspecting that you will oust her your next turn.

The game improvement will be that combos are less effective and a strategy focused on attacking and defending with your units, what i think should be the core of the game would grow stronger.

What do you think?

fraustaaf said:

Verena package isn't strictly speaking a combo deck, because: verena doesn't kill people. Hemmler kills people with verena XD

But overall I agree that destruction should get some form of tactic cancel. If I remember correctly some guy over here (Wytefang?) was supporting this idea heavily.

I think that more really good but costly cards that you are supposed to play in your opponents turn should be designed together with more cards that can take advantage of resources left to the phase at the beginning of the turn. In this way the game would be more reactive and dynamic and bluffing would take a bigger part of the game. As it is now It feels that most of the time it is more rewarding using up all of your resources to play most of your cards, simply because of the games exponential resource and card system. Why Playing one card in your quest zone and save upp resources for a counter in your opponents turn to maybe save your investment in the quest zone to get an adittional card the following turns when you can play two cards in your quest zone and be quite sure your opponent cannot kill or remove more than one of the cards anyways?

I think the exponential growth of card gain and resources is an interesting mechanic but also potentially dangerous to the game because imbalances and imperfections in the game has that much greater impact than a game with an mostly arithmetic rise of power supply (like MtG) where standard is one more land per turn. As i wrote in an earlier post, what this game really needs is cards that punish players significantly ahead in the cards and resources races as comeback cards. That will make for a more exciting game. I think the biggest problem of this game is a high ratio of games where you know who will win after the second turn.

As you correctly noted, there is indeed an exponential growth in card/money draw. But that's what makes any price of a counter spell "too expensive". E.g., High Elves have High Elf's Disdain and Drain Magic, but your opponent would be more than happy if you keep not spending 1-2 of your resources in expectation of his tactic to be played. 'Cause every turn you do that, you don't play your unit or support, which in turn just increases a gap between your incomes/draws in exponential way. So if I'm playing against HE player and he keeps 2 gold not spent, I'm much less concerned than when a DE player has 2 gold unspent, 'cause he can have Black Horror or Sacrifice to Khaine. In first case all I have to do is to not play my tactic, but buy another unit, in second there is a chance that my unit will have to be destroyed.

So bottom line is that for a card mechanics of WHI, a good counter card should be:

A - cheap (2 gold max)

B - have some beneficial side effect for a player that played it (to cancel lag in development of quest/kingdom zones). E.g., play counter spell. If you counter tactic, draw 2 cards.

I agree with you if the argument is about the current game, where it is nealry always advisable to spend all your resources during your turn for the reasons stated by you.

However, I do not want that kind of game in the future.

Why? Because a game like that is more like patience, or maybe Pokemón gameboy game at its best.

Basically, you and an opponent meets with two clever decks you have built at home and then you play until any of you has been able to play their super killing card combo.

I better like a game of bluffing and being able to play defensively by conserving your resources and that is why I want the game to take a certain direction.

Warhammer Invasion has an unique game mechanic, the ability to spend leftover resources at the beginning of your own turn.

Some cards, like warpstone experiments http://deckbox.org/whi/Warpstone%20Experiments is an example of that kinmd of card.

If you have a zero cost unit in your kingdom or quest, like walking sacrifice, you can use your leftover resource to boost the next turns resources or card gain.

I really like that card and I do want fantasyflightgames to produce more like that card.

If you have enough cards that makes leftover resources more useful, we would have a more dynamic and interesting game where both players can be active at all times.

In this case I'm with you on releasing more of those cards, but it will be quite hard. Unless they start releasing cards which can jump into play at any moment by paying their cost (units/support/other stuff). Like, "Pay 2 gold to place this unit in your kingdom or quest at any time".

I think tactics that give hammers to units or supportcards is a good start.

But it is really a good idea to include simpler support cards and units that can be played at the beginning of your turn.

What about this Support Card?

Refugee camp Cost 2 one power. Refugee camp can be played at any actionwindow.

I also have a house rule consideration that I will try out with my girlfriend.

Think if you get your resources at the beginning of your opponents turn instead? So you have your treasury full of resources why your opponent have whats left from your turn to play with. Maybe the concept will give to much benefit to control decks, I dont know..