Hi,

I just wanted to share with you some thoughts I have about the game, and more specifically, about its wording. First of all, I like the game and how it's played, however, I think the game suffers some rule and complexity problems that are generated by a very poor wording design. Following my main concerns:

• Forced keyword: I think this is useless and confusing. Forced abilities are always trigger abilities; therefore, you just write the ability specifying if it's opptional (adding "may") or obligatory (adding "must"). For example, Banna of da Red Sunz is a trigger ability that must be applied, it is like a Forced ability, but without the keyword Forced. A ctually, I don't see any difference between this ability and any other Forced ability and I think this wording is easier to understand . On the other hand, if the trigger ability is not obligatory, you can write it down like the first ability of Ancient Vengeance.
• Actions with "At the beginning of your turn": If they are actions, why do they have a wording that make them look like trigger actions? Every "At the beginning of your turn" action can be transformed in "may" trigger actions, as explained before. For example, Abandoned Mine could read : Kingdom. At the beginning of your turn, you may return one of your developments to its owner's hand. As you see it's the same text, except that now it doesn't have the keyword Action. Adding the keyword Action only generates confusion, as it seems that the ability can be activated any number of times at the beginning of your turn.
• Actions with "When X attacks" or "When X defends": These actions also look like trigger actions because of the timing trigger and are also confusing. If you want to restrict when the ability can be activated I think another wording would be better. For example the ability on Archaon can be rewritten as: Action: You may use this ability only while Archaon is attacking, spend X resources to deal X damage to target unit. In this way it is clear that the action is restricted to a certain moment of the game, and it doesn't seem like the action is triggered when Archaon attacks.
• Other confussing triggers for actions: There are some actions that I do not know when to activate them. For example Asrai Longbow, when can I activate its ability? Only as a response to an action or event that deals damage to my capital or can I activate it later if damage has been dealt to my capital that turn? I think a more clever wording would make that ability more understandable, for example: Action: You may use this ability only if your capital has been dealt damage this turn, deal 2 damage to target unit in any corresponding zone. Maybe, with this wording, the way the action is played changes a little bit, but I do not think it would alter the general effect of the card.

There are some other minor changes that will need some polish, but I think that if FFG corrects these errors, the game will be more accessible for other CCG players that are used to clear wordings, that try to minimize any possible misunderstanding.

What do you think? Do you believe that the wording is clear enough as it is now? Would you add any other modifications?

Bye!

I think you don't understand how some effects work.

For example, you say "the ability on Archaon can be rewritten as: Action: You may use this ability only while Archaon is attacking, spend X resources to deal X damage to target unit. In this way it is clear that the action is restricted to a certain moment of the game, and it doesn't seem like the action is triggered when Archaon attacks."

You cannot use Archaon's action at any time while he is attacking. It IS triggered when he attacks, and can only be used during the action window following the declaration of attackers step. So your rewrite would lead to a misinterpretation.

You also say "Actions with "At the beginning of your turn": If they are actions, why do they have a wording that make them look like trigger actions?"

The have a wording that makes them look like triggered actions because they are triggered actions. Triggered actions are a subset of actions. They have a trigger condition and can only be used when the trigger condition is met (in this case, at the beginning of your turn), and only once per trigger condition met.

You continue by saying "Abandoned Mine could read: Kingdom. At the beginning of your turn, you may return one of your developments to its owner's hand. As you see it's the same text, except that now it doesn't have the keyword Action. Adding the keyword Action only generates confusion, as it seems that the ability can be activated any number of times at the beginning of your turn."

For starters, action isn't a keyword. Please don't criticize the terminology if you don't have a good grasp of it.

When you know what triggered actions are, there is no confusion. If you remove the "Action:" you would on the other hand generate confusion, since it would look like some weird constant effect, and it wouldn't be clear you can respond to this triggered action with other actions, and create an action chain.

As for Forced effects, they aren't optional like actions. You have to resolve them if possible, even if you don't want to. Banna of da Red Suns' effect is a Constant effect. It is not a Forced effect, and it doesn't have a trigger condition. It could be reworded as a Forced effect, but I don't think that would make it more or less complicated, it would only slightly change the timing, since Constant effects resolve before Forced effects.

In regards to Asrai Longbow, if you don't understand when you can use the action, how does your rewrite make that any clearer?

Granted, there are wording issues in Invasion, the more the further back you go, and there's certainly room for improvement, but your criticism seems premature and more based in a lack of understanding on your part - which I don't blame you for, it can be difficult to wrap one's head around the timing rules especially. I suggest you study the FAQ and try to understand the rules better though before you try to improve on them.

Hi Mallumo, and thanks for your point of view. I think my criticism is not premature (I bought the game few days after its release, maybe not played a lot, but I think I played enough) and yes, it is completely based in a lack of understanding on my part. That difficulty of understanding of wording on cards is what made me write these long posts

I have played more than 15 collectible card games, so without considering me an expert on the matter, I do think that I have seen many different ways of explaining effects and timing in card games and I believe that W:I can improve a lot on this aspect.

For starters, action isn't a keyword. Please don't criticize the terminology if you don't have a good grasp of it.

You're right, in the rulebook the word in bold Action is referred as "trigger on a card". I didn't want to use the term trigger to for the sake of clarity and to differentate it from trigger actions. Maybe keyword was not a good choice, because there are other things named keywords, perhaps just "word Action" is better

You say it is good that trigger abilities and activated abilities both have the word Action because both start action chains. I think that the fact that both start action chains is less important than the fact that activated abilities can be activated at any time and any number of times, and trigger abilities can only be activated when the trigger occurs and only once per trigger. Therefore, I think it is an error to label them as they are the same type of action and consider trigger abilities as a subset of activated abilities.

I just read again the FAQ and now I think I understand how triggers work in W:I. I don't like it. I've been activating trigger abilities somehow wrong, because I didn't wait for an action window to activate them. Why do triggers need an action window to be played? Wouldn't it be easier to activate them as soon as the trigger occurs? the trigger action is activated and its effect goes to the chain, opening a new action chain. If many trigger actions are triggered at the same time, the active player decides the order they go to the chain. I bought the game just when it was released and few weeks after they added a new phase "Beginning of the turn". If I remember right, they added this new phase because no one knows when to activate abilities like the one on Abandoned Mine. This rule modification affected some cards, making them more powerful (for example Troll Vomit) and I didn't like it. Changing the way triggers are activated wouldn't need phase 0 and some cards would be played the way they were meant.

Banna of da Red Suns' effect is a Constant effect

Are you sure? It sound more like a trigger to me that it's triggered when a player collects 7 or more resources. I can see a difference between this ability and others like Knight Training, which does look like a constant effect.

After reading your post, I have a question for you: if trigger actions have always the word Action , why is Ancient Vengance first ability written without the word Action ? Does it work differently?

Bye!

Because ancient vengeance isnt an action. For Ancient Vengeance there is no "action" or "forced" so its a constant effect. It doesn't go on a chain, when you got damaged you put it into play instantly.

Banna of da red stunz is a constant effect. For you straight from the rulebook:

Card effects that do not have a bold trigger are considered
constant effects. Constant effects continually
affect the game state, as long as the card is in play
and any other specified conditions are met .

It can have conditions that have to exist so that the banna's effect is activated.

It's not that complicated.

That some other games use a different approach, and/or that a different approach is intuitive to you, doesn't make the one Invasion uses bad.

It's perfectly fine to criticize and offer ideas for improvement (not that it's at all likely there will be a major rules overhaul like that). But before you criticize a system, you should make sure you understand it. And if you don't understand it (yet), that doesn't necessarily have to be the fault of the system. Sometimes a concept is bad, sometimes a good concept isn't explained properly, and sometimes people just have difficulty understanding a good concept even if it is explained well, because it's complex, and it takes time to get familiar with it. Invasion, due to it's often fast and furious nature, sometimes seems like it is or should be pretty simple, but timing can be a very complicated issue, and for some people, that's part of the charm. And while it certainly would be possible to do away with the distinctions between types of effects for example, and that would make the game simpler and easier to grasp, it would also remove some tactical subtleties, make it more difficult for the developers to adjust the power of cards, and reduce the long-term appeal for some players because the game as a whole would be less complex.

I hope you'll give it another try, rely on the FAQ and the rules questions forum here, and that you'll come to appreciate Invasion for the way it does things and the positive aspects of that way.

Well, I have to agree with the sentiment that this game (in fact, almost all FFG titles) DO have horrible wording. Not the wording on how the rules are supposed to work or wording for the rules themselves necessarily, but simple wording errors/oversights/laziness on the part of FFG. In the past several years, the prices of FFG titles have gone up, while the content, quality, and quantity of the physical games have gone down. With this much extra cash flow, you can't tell me there's no room for EDITORS who do not know the intent of the wording to make sure it expresses what it is trying to express.

Perfect example; the recently revealed clause present on all Eternal War cycle Legends; The way it's worded would make it completely legal to have the new High Elf Legend in play, burn two of my opponent's zones, and then deal myself some indirect damage to burn one of my own zones to win (if my opponent did not manage to burn one of my zones first).

Also, in a 4 player game (not OFFICIALLY supported, but still) I could simply burn one zone per each of my opponents and win.

Were the above two situations intended be true for the upcoming cycle of Legend cards? Probably not, but unless they're given errata, both are technically legal.

Then there's the Unique Empire unit Ludwig in Days of Blood. He's a Knight. He's a Standard Bearer. He's… not a hero. Okay, so maybe there's nothing heroic about bearing a standard… but it's apparently something you get better at with experience. Now is this an error? Well, this isn't the first time this has been an issue… that has never been addressed in an FAQ.

There is absolutely no problem with unique units that have no hero trait. It makes sense that units that are strong get unique, but to many heros make it less fun to build decks.

Even in the tabletop they had unique units in the 6. edition (wasn't it?).

bitva said:

For me that's a perfect example not of bad wording, but of people being intentionally obtuse. The card says "… you must burn 3 zones instead of 2 in order to win …" Could you win so far by burning two of your own zones?

It's fine to make valid complaints, and there sure often enough is reason to, but if a wording like this is problematic, there won't be enough room on the cards. Every card will have to come with its own 5-page PDF so that the text can cover every way people might try to twist the wording. Of course FFG should be expected to word cards well, but the players in turn should be expected to not create problems out of thin air.

And you can't seriously complain about a card text not fitting your house rules.

As for unique non-hero units, Ludwig isn't the first of them, and why should it be addressed in the FAQ? What is there to explain? Do you also require an explanation why some supports are unique despite not being Capital Centers?

Gardine said:

Also, you can't trigger an Action on a card that is in an out of play state, like your hand, so this has to be a contstant effect. One thing I will agree with about the Invasion rules though is that Forced effects and Constant effects are redundant. Forced effects offer nothing to the game anymore, other than an effect that happens slightly faster than constant, but slower than Action. Also, I think it would have been nice (in hindsight) if trigger conditions and costs to activate an effect were more clearly defined. Something like "Trigger:" instead of "Action:" might even have been possible for Actions that can only be played when their trigger is met.

Mallumo said:

You could win by burning two of your own zones since… never. Not sure why you brought that up; I didn't make that claim. I also don't know what house rules you're referring to. I disagree that FFG should be expected to word cards well, unless you've never played an FFG game before. Their editing failure is legendary and basically a company trademark. This is exactly why its silly to declare players "obtuse" for interpreting cards with poor wording or terrible editing. There's what the card actually states, and what is assumed to be the intent of the card. I have yet to meet a gamer with other life commitments who would rather "create problems out of thin air" during any game than simply finish the game to have time for another. Then there's folk who might buy a game like WH:I and have no background knowledge or previous experience to guide them in deciphering what a poorly or mis-worded card "obviously" is allowing or disallowing them to do.

I also can't see how there's not enough space in a text box for proper wording. Can you really tell me it will take a multi-page FAQ ruling to expressly state the intent of the Eternal War cycle Legends? I think the inclusion of "an opponent's" zones would be good enough. And of course no one's going to argue that unique supports aren't unique unless they're Capital Centers… because unique supports existed well before capital centers (relics from Corruption Cycle). If FFG failed to print the unique symbol on one of the Capital Centers in the Capital Cycle but the other 5 had it, then, yes, it is completely logical and justified for some players to ask for the intent to be addressed. Yes, clearly Carstein and Ludwig are not Hero units. If FFG had a stellar record of not making omissions in their printed products, then it would less of an issue, but that's far from the case, and there is no descerable reason why the two unique uints I mentioned would not be heroes but other specifically named characters are. Not going to argue that every unique unit MUST be a hero, but if you call your unique uint Ludwig McSholabottoms instead of "Franz's Highly Skilled Standard Bearers", I expect that this fellow whom history will remember is to be a hero since that precedent was established in the core set. This is compounded by the fact that Carstien's creator stated the was intended by him to be a hero. FFG either doesn't want to own up to their omission OR provide a rules-related reason why this one unit "just couldn't be a Hero".

bitva said:

He brought up the fact that you couldn't ever win by burning 2 zones, because a card that says you must win by burning "3 zones instead" tells you that it is replacing the 2 with a 3 in the phrase "must burn 2 opponent's zones to win".

I would guess that the new legends are worded the way they are because no one in playtesting considered the possibility that someone would think they can win by burning their own zones. You can argue that is poor playtesting, but as Mallumo said, there has to be a line somewhere in terms of what needs to be explicitly spelled out, and what can be assumed. I don't see any good reason to think those cards would allows you win by burning your own zones.

As far the the Heroes that aren't Heroes. There are several possible reasons they might not be heroes. My guess is that the Hero trait (and accompanying "Limit 1 hero per zone" text), would not fit on all the heroes in the set. Usually they release 1 hero for each race, so if only one of them couldn't fit that text, maybe they just chose to make them all lose the Hero trait. Regardless, I don't see why this matters. Hero is not exclusively tied to uniqueness in the rules, even if it has been the pattern. Previously, there was no way to change the game end condition either, but this set is already breaking that pattern. Another possible reason for the missing trait is that adding uniqueness and Hero trait are both balancing tools for a unit, to make them weaker. Maybe they wanted you to be able to play these unique units alongside Heroes?

Look, I get that FFG makes mistakes on their cards, and I get plenty frustrated with vague or confusing wordings, but some of these complaints are just very nit-picky, IMO.

Well, I wasn't being nit-picky, just using the new Legends as an example of poor, or not exact, wording. The wording on things like actions and their rules as explained in rule books and FAQs are just fine. And I see now why opponent's zones isn't a necessary phrase in the new Legends thanks to your explanation; the condition has always been burn two opponent's zones, so this new wording only modifies that, so burning someone else's zone as your third won't count towards victory. Thanks for that insight.

The reason the Hero clause matters (now anyway, didn't make much difference when Cartein first came on the scene) is for things like artefacts. Say I want to make an undead deck without any race cards but want to make use of Liber Mortis. Right now, only Countess Isaera can weild it; Carstein cannot. I don't think its a big deal really; FFG could just put the errata into the FAQ or simply state the card's intention as not being a hero, but the other neutral heroes from that cycle did not lack the trait. I also think that if a unit had "too many" traits to print, Hero would not be the one left out as that trait carries its own rules. And there's always the possibility that even if these things are "errors" but don't matter, it could always end up mattering in the future.

Thanks again for the detailed explanations. Just wish FFG would play test more and pay better attention to editing and statements of intention.

bitva said:

The reason the Hero trait would be left off due to space issues (rather than another trait) is that it always has "Limit 1 Hero per zone" on it, and that is the part that takes up a lot of card text. Traits never take more than 1 line anyway, its that additional text that sometimes could make it hard to make a unit a hero.

I would say they have stated the intention of it not being a hero by not putting Hero as one of the traits. I don't mean that to sound snide, but I don't understand why they should put out a statement that says "really, we weren't kidding, this isn't a hero". I can also virtually guarantee that they will not errata it to be a hero. Hell, they still haven't errataed that stupid Sorceror/Sorcerer issue. If its not causing big rules or imbalance issues, its not getting errata. And cards that are unique and look like heroes, but aren't heroes, are not going to warrant errata.

In short, I agree with you that they could do a better job of playtesting and proofing cards, but I get the impression that they work with a relatively small staff and don't have huge budgets for these games.

We should get together, as a people, and decide to stop using the vague phrase "FFG should playtest more". That implies you know their playtesting schedule and find it lacking in rigor. In reality, this is brought up in giant tirades about a specific card and some crazy combo that may or may not work in reality.

I'm not singling out Bitva, tons of people say this and it's stupid.

Entropy42 said:

I understand what you're saying here, and I sure don't expect to find an errata for Carstein. However, I'm sure he was meant to be a hero, as the creator of the card intended, but either it was a complete error/oversight, or your theory is right, and the extra text that comes along with the Hero trait just wouldn't fit the card well with the text-heavy discription of Carstein's action. Mistake or not, they won't bother to address it by making "actually, he IS a hero" errata or specifically stating the card is created as we wanted it. I can find no thematic, gameplay, or balancing reason why Carstein is not a hero while all other named, unique units are (or were until Eternal War). Why didn't they just print Carstein as he is, but not as Carstein, or anyone else. Would love to hear/read Tim's purpose and ideas behind the card he created. Is he a fan of the character and designed a card to reflect Carstein's fluff and/or abilities in the tabletop game or other source? Or did he come up with the ability and stats and simply leave it to FFG to fit those into a WH character, race, or unit type? Would be an interesting read!

Ludwig, I've figured out, has a thematic reason not to be a hero. He's a standard bearer. If he was a hero, by the rules, he could not be in the same zone as the hero whose standard he is bearing. Anyone know or guess why heroes could never occupy the same zone since the game's inception? Outside of thematics, are/were heroes simply better for their cost than non-heroic units?

HappyDD said:

Well, can't speak about how this affects particular cards; I think it's not just FFG card games where a card gets published and is considered broken or auto-include in almost all appropriate decks and the company/designer is "yelled at" for improperly or insufficiently play testing.

I do know that FFG does not playtest as much or as variedly as they really should. This is my realization not so much from WH:I or other LCGs I play, but rather some board games. In this regard, I think the obvious lack of playtesting was most damaging to two items that will live on in infamy in my mind, and probably many others; First, the 2009 release of the Descent Quest Compendium, where many quests were so bad to the point that they were unplayable or could not possibly result in a hero player victory. An extensive FAQ/Errata was posted to fix the whole book. The other, Forbidden Alchemy expansion from Mansions of Madness, is perhaps more famous, from last year, which Peter Christensen posted a letter about and a revised quest book and components were produced for those who bought the unplayable first printing of the expansion while the revised edition was being printed.

Sorry to digress there. Its true that FFG probably doesn't have the time and resources to playtest thoroughly, but that's the price that's paid, I suppose, when a company like FFG keeps putting projects on their calendar, keeps planning expansions for what already exists, and has a tight production schedule due to the huge amount of creations they make. I remember several years ago when an FFG release date was considered "fairly accurate" by the community if the game actually released within nine months of the originally posted date. So if it's not one complaint, will be another

I was a little miffed when, at my last GenCon in 2011, FFG staff had people excitedly offering ot playtest for free many titles FFG was still working on, stating they were nearby and could do all testing at FFG HQ, and were summarily dismissed due to having enough playtesters, when really, it just isn't the case. No budget issue for free playtesting, but now I realize FFG is just trying to run a tight ship and won't take just anyone into a project if they're not sure leaks won't happen.

Anyway, I think the biggest issue with WH:I and LCGs in general is not playtest quality, but simply editing and proof reading, which FFG has usually either not done or is an afterthought for them. When you create something, I think it's easier to overlook how exactly you're explaining how it works, since you already know and may not realize that your chosen words don't fully or accurately confer your intnet to the reader. I think card games are particularly susceptible to non-standardized or loose wording as the exact wording and terms used is so vital to how the game works and how each individual "bit" (card) affects the game as a whole, and all the other "bits" in the game as well.

bitva said:

Heroes are generally much better in terms of cost/power ratio than non-heroic units. Unique units often are stronger as well, but I think many of the unique units/supports are unique because they would be too strong if you could have more than 1 in play.

Oh certainly the uniques would be ridiculous if they didn't have the one-in-play restriction. 3 Tor Elyr in play would just be silly.

My copy of Days of Blood arrived yesterday, and I noticed two things: Flavor text for Bride of Khaine says you're instead of your (obviously, no affect on the card or game), and Ludwig is typed as Schwarzheim (Blackland?) instead of Schwarzhelm (Blackhelmet?) Not sure if that's intentional or not, but only a search for Ludwig Schwarzhelm returns results (detailing hte character the card looks to be representing).

Doesn't matter really, just kinda snickered that the first FFG item I received after a long-winded post about FFG forgetting to edit and proofread in their hurry had two typos.

bitva said:

Yes, they are really undermining my efforts to defend them. You'll also note that Banna Bearer should have immediate errata, since it has an Action you have to trigger from your hand (which you can't do).