Jump to content



Photo

Suggestions for future expansion cycle


  • Please log in to reply
3 replies to this topic

#1 fraustaaf

fraustaaf

    Member

  • Members
  • 17 posts

Posted 27 November 2011 - 06:24 PM

Sorry for bad english

Howdy guys. First I will admit that I only play with my girlfriend on a regular basis, but we are actually so dedicated to this game that we have bought 6 exemplars of every cards just so we can build mirror decks :-)

We love this game and the variety and theme´s you can create. Rush orc, Selfmutilating orcs, masochistic dwarwes, indirect fire HE, corruption chaos, rushing skaven judgement of verena empire and so forth.

But one thing is bothering us. We feel that Control decks with cheap support cards and units combined with cheap support and unit kill cards is to superior compared to other tactics.

Yeah, you can build a really interesting and flavourful deck, but if you want to win there is really just one way to go: Cheapest cards possible with power icon to put in your kingdom together with cheapest possible cards to put power cards out of opponenets kingdom.

When we stop playing casual and get a bit to serious it usually ends with to control decks and who gets the right cards in the draw hand.

It is an ugly way of playing a beautiful game.

So what do I want to se in future expansions?

I suggest 2 types of cards:

1 Anticontrol cards that weakens control decks. One example could be like this

HIDDEN STORAGE: NEUTRAL SUPPORT COST 3 1 POWER this card can´t be targeted by card effects.

 

2. Some comeback cards that help you even the odds if there is a big resource gap between the players

I think Banna of da red sunz is an okay example but every race should have a way to punish a player that is heavy on resources.

Thinc about this card: GUERILLA WARFARE NEUTRAL TACTIC COST 1 Play during opponents kingdom phase: Action If opponents earned resources exceeds 6 opponent must give you every exceeding resource..

With cards that weaken control effects other playstyles should be more competetive.



#2 Doc9

Doc9

    Member

  • Members
  • 454 posts

Posted 28 November 2011 - 11:30 AM

I really like the 'Hidden Storage' card. It's strong enough to keep from getting pillaged, demolitioned, burned down, or taken by raiders. But is not so strong that Grimgore or Verena can't find it. Nice idea.



#3 fraustaaf

fraustaaf

    Member

  • Members
  • 17 posts

Posted 29 November 2011 - 12:54 AM

Factional rivalism: Neutral tactic: Cost 1. target player with resource exceeding 5 must take the exeeding resources as indirect damage.

 

Overstretched resourcelines: Neutral tactic: Cost 1. player must sacrifice all support cards except one in target zone.

 



#4 Curator

Curator

    Member

  • Members
  • 419 posts

Posted 29 November 2011 - 09:18 AM

This game still needs and should have had reserves. Units that get played face down as developments and can be revealed at any time, they most likely have reaction abilities much like instants from Magic.

It needs support units with powerful lasting abilities that are forced to turn into developments after X number of turns.

Then it needs cards that destroy/reveal/flip developments.

I posted this idea when the game was still under Nate's control. It takes an aspect no other game has and makes a very strategic and tactical game out of it. Only flaw could be slowdown as players keep checking their face down cards. I think this can be used to bluff. 

The main issues I have with this game is the lack of activity between the the players and the developer. You look at most expansions FFG has done for board games and they are pretty much reworked player variants or demands. Why this doesn't apply with the LCGs is beyond me. The other thing is this game SHOULD be tactical and not feel like a card game. Empire shouldn't be the only army to move units around. Instead they should be the only army that has units that don't corrupt when they move. Dwarves shouldn't be the only ones to encourage development building. They should just have more "sturdy" developments.

Warhammer is a very tactical table top game. It feels like a battle is taking place. Warhammer Invasion could have felt even more war like, especially if it had reserves and defensive face up developments that can be destroyed to protect zones like moats and tar pits for example. The ability to move non-cavalry units but have to corrupt them would have made for a very different but more realistic game and separated the type of units to feel unique (cavalry don't tire) 

...instead it's just "Magic with three life dials" and unfinished or underdeveloped concepts.






© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS