I agree. Interesting concept indeed. Personally I like it, from what little I saw & understood from their pretty well made (minus the voice of the man) tutorial video on that site. I wouldn't mind owning that game nor playing it
As for importing it straight off into WT (and I know that wasn't your suggestion either) I have the following objections:
- By forcing the player to choose sides (construct or destruct decks) Games Workshop will effectively cut down card compatibility to at least
50%. Most of the time it will be below
the 50% mark. If we for the sake of argument assume that there's an equal amount of construct & destruct cards in the game, it would translate into that only half of the cards would potentially work with each other. For Games Workshop this could be good for business as it allows more sibling cards cross-sides and opens up for double the amount of cards to be produced if they want to. For the players it means added theming, but, at the cost of something I find way more important: The meta game and creativity when building decks. I still believe that a DIY project such as WT with little resources to release new cards should strife to keep as huge card compatibility as possible in order to a) allow max creativity b) thus allow max individualization and c) get larger meta game and more deck builds into the loop.
- It seems very hard to balance and release cards for in the long run. But this is really a soft criticism and doesn't mean the game is unbalanced.
- For some reason (actually to appeal to people) they have a humongous box! One of my goals with WT is to make the game as portable, easy and unobtrusive as possible. Luckily, Warhammer Invasion can be perfectly well without the crap box. (Yes, I do want games that have nice boxes, and it's nice. But really, carrying around a half-huge box for a CCG makes no sense.I )
- Equally, using custom play maps/tokens as they do is always a bad idea for a DIY-game, for obvious reasons.
Again, WI can be played without that as well.
- Leaving really only one objection this far that relates to balance in a way: The system seems to be very susceptible to "fast swings" depending on what zone the player will choose to play a card in. It seems
at first glance, and keep in mind I have not tested this, to not have the "stableness" found in many other CCG:s. Then again, this is just a matter of taste and not much can be held against it objectively, unless of course, it would indeed mean that balancing is much harder.
- A possible way of mimicking the 3-zone/HP win/loss-condition is to simply release cards for it in WT (or MtG for that matter) that give a player the opportunity to go for such a setup. Speedy example:
"Kraal's Curse - Place one defeat token onto ~this~ every time an attacker is not blocked in this front. If there are 5 tokens or more on ~this~ you lose the game."
What I'm getting at is that cards can really change the rules in whatever direction one could wish for. The big question is if/when something should be a core game mechanic
. Using a card (soft solution) to accomplish what they do in Warhammer Invasion is not in any way equal to having the WI system in place. But... it begs the question: What advantages does that system have over the flexibility of MtG:s?
- Speaking of which: Superb call to make it an LCG. I am considering if we should start using that phrase, but fear that it's maybe only FF that uses it (or am I wrong?) and that it is a) not standardized yet and b) copyrighted or something.
- Nice template, would want to see it in reality to check how small details look. We could maybe learn a thing or two.
...even if I dislike much of the graphical style of the card art
(or actually, GW style in general)
Raven wrote:How fast is Warhammer? If I'm able to increase the amount of cards I draw each round, I suppose that you draw the cards you like/need to draw very fast?
Site says it playes a 2 player game within 1 to 2h, which wouldn't really make it a fast game at all and on par with a normal CCG. Personally I have no issues with fast/slow/normal games - I guess it's matter of preference and what the target group is.
Raven wrote:But I do not intend to have several card piles where you probably have unused gold each round. Each piece of gold should be spendable independently.
I think Warcraft CCG does it that way, correct me if I'm wrong. So do several others... which I think is a nice way to ditch resource cards from the game.
You are correct that a bad deck build or bad placement of resources in Propst-piles will lead to the player not being able to fully and optimally use all of her gold. However, I myself don't see that as a problem. On the contrary, it adds another dimension of resource management and planning to it, and also should effect meta game to some degree (i.e. something that would be WT's "manacurve") Also, it's totally mendable by re-configuring the resources in the piles.
I am not totally against the system you suggest, which is straight forward (good) and also one I'd opt for until I saw Propst-piles. Reason I would prefer the PP's is:
- Elegency: Solves summoning sickness issues (what's sick this turn and what's not)
- Added strategy: a) As above, adds something to resource management b) Has a very important effect of announcing certain cards 1 turn in advance to opponent, which in my opinion further adds to real strategy (compare chess, full info game, vs poker, partial info and partial bluff. Now compare this with how it's done in MtG or your suggestion...)
- Minimizes administration: No cards to mark and unmark. Only one card to move per pile per turn.
- Keeps virtually all advantages of your system. Actually, I can't see the problems with the Propst-system unless, as you write, the non-optimal usage of the resources every turn is a problem. It could of course be a problem, but if so, what's the logic that takes us to that conclusion?
I'm not sure if I've already asked this: Will there be threshold costs with mixed factions?
No, not unless we find a way to visually present that in an easy and working manner. Simply taking the logos and scaling them down, and show 3 leaf logos instead of 3 threshold "bars" seems to be a possibility but it probably looks bad.
Rule wise, there is really nothing that hinders us from allowing such cards. However, they do lower card compatibility, and that would be the main and strongest argument against putting them into the game this early. I think I discussed this with Torben in the blog comments somewhere... hrm..
It all breaks down to this: It's a bad idea for the same reason that a blue-black creature in MtG is really only playable in mainly Blue-black decks. Compare that to a creatiure that is just black, or just blue. These last two creatures have a higher card comp than the first blue-black one. If so, blue-blacks should be avoided in WT.
Lastly, when really desired in very rare cases, such info could be put in the card text. E.g. "This gaian card may only be played if you also have an Empire card already in play."