Jump to content


So what is the state of game?

  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 Ser Jorah

Ser Jorah


  • Members
  • 5 posts

Posted 29 June 2012 - 07:25 AM

Hello Warhammer Invasion Community,

I was wondering if anyone could  give a general summary of the state of the game at this time from a competative level. I played in the first and second tournaments at Gen Con when the game first came. I've tried to stay with it but fell out of the game out but haven't played in about 7-8 months. I also did not attend Gen Con last year. I was wondering if there is still a healthy community for the game, and how the tournament experience at Gen Con was last year. 

What is the meta like right now? What are some 'top decks'? Are the new sets (last 7-8 months worth) worth buying? Last I recall, bolt thrower had been nerfed and the meta switched up from Elf/Dwarf to  Dwarf/Empire/Judgement decks. Before I go and spend a few bucks on getting current, I wanted to hear a few thoughts from current players on the 'state of the game. With netrunner coming out I was wondering if staying with Warhammer was the way to go or to jump ship and sail into a new game.

Thanks in advance for the replies

#2 HappyDD



  • Members
  • 329 posts

Posted 29 June 2012 - 09:21 AM

I'm never sure how to answer these questions. There are no shortage of people posting on the boards, not getting a response, then claiming the game is dead, or dying, or past it's prime, or sold out, or there is too much power creep, etc. So my first point would be not to listen to that nonsense. On the state of the game:I'd say that the state of the game is the same it has been, but the unfortunate part is that the longer the game goes on, the more expensive it is for new blood to enter, so we better think of some way to grow our groups. As was probably the case when you were active (like, bolt-thrower days, which is when I first started) the local groups are small and thus the meta as it is classically considered is not really that well defined. It's more mechanics-based than deck-based. Bolt thrower is actually a great example, so is the Verena package, both are mechanics that were put into decks that tried to take advantage of one combo for a knockout. Reclaiming the Fallen is a Dwarf card that has seen lots of success with decks built around it, but those decks are played in environments that are totally foreign to me. At our regional tournament the Reclaiming the Fallen deck came last (small tourney), so I'm not sure what that says about the existing card mix. So I would humbly offer that there is no reliable source for a definitive ranking of decks, but I would say that the powerful decks do get mentioned on the forums a lot.

Chaos has seen success with a rush based on a card called Call The Brayherd, which is new-ish.

Dark Elves have lots of unit control, and I'm pretty sure they won GenCon last time, so they never cease to be cool.

Orcs have recently been getting attention for an insane punishment loop involving a newer card called "Fists of Mork" in tandem with Urguck and other supporting new cards like The Unending Horde and Baby Squig, or Skarsnik and Gobbla. (It's blending together, I'm not sure how new all those cards are).

Order, on the other hand, hasn't been showing up with any cool new tricks as far as I can tell, but they do have awesome versatile cards. High Elves seem to have a cheap awesome card in almost every pack and they tend to have one of the better "versions" of a card when a similar card is printed for each race.

Now, all that being said, I'd still say that the whole concept of a meta is a bit of a disservice to those who believe in its infallibility. Someone is going to show up at GenCon with a deck that hasn't been seen before and win, and then everyone will be saying that specific deck is awesome. Supposedly, that's what considering the meta-game should do, give you an advantage over those decks you expect to see.  I'd say due to the nature of the LCG release style and the diffuse and small communities, the idea tends to be that one deck is king versus a more rock-scissors-paper idea that would be prevalent in other big CCGs.


#3 SeanXor



  • Members
  • 40 posts

Posted 29 June 2012 - 10:02 AM

 I can only give you my perspective on the state of the game.  I will be honest though, even though I have been playing this game since 2009 I feel a bit like an outsider on these forums because I just don't get all of the obscure references to the meta, the "Verna package" ,etc.  

It is my opinion that the state of the game is weaker than it should be, but the potential for growth and life is still there.  In the Indianapolis area, we have one store that faithfully stocks the game (two or three more that have a couple of older battle packs on the shelf).  That I know of there 6 of us in the area with cards.  I say that I know of, because I feel like there needs to be more than just six people buying battle packs for the store to keep stocking multiple copies of them.  

That leads to the first problem I see with the game, there is not enough store support or company support to create a community.  There could be more players in the area, but there is not enough support to get us all together.  

The second and biggest problem I see with the game is that the barrier to entry is too high.  Some of the best and most versitile cards are from the base set, but someone with just a base set is going to have a hard time going up against any of the decks I currently have.  For someone to really get into deckbuilding there is a big back order of cards to get.   People can not just get into the game and start deck building without a fairly good sized investment.  I have taught this game to several people who all liked it and wanted to know how much a starter deck of the faction they liked cost.  I wish they would release some pre-constructed starter decks that new players could buy so they could get going in the game.  Along the same lines it would be nice to see some of the cards from previous cycles bundled together and sold as faction specific battlepacks, so for example I could buy a battlepack that had just the Empire cards from the first cycle.  I think small moves like that would really open up the accessibility of the game and encourage new players to jump in.  

As far as what decks are dominant, I can really only speak to where I have played which is the Indianapolis area and a couple of times in Louisville.  It seems in general, there are two dominant ways to play.  The first, which has always been reliable, is to rush.  Orc decks are still very effective at rushing and new cards like vampire bats mean a good draw can lead to an orc win as early as turn 3 .  However, Empire, Chaos, and high elves also have some rushing ability.  It seems the other effective way to play is control.  These are decks that seek to take away an opponent's units, hand, support cards, or whatever else so that the opponent can not do anything and get picked off at the controling player's leisure.  Empire can realy control things through the manipulation of developments, dark elves can sap away hit points or cards from the hand, and Chaos can cripple an opponent with a first turn Sorcerer o f Tzeentch.  The third effective way to play is to go for massive damage.  The idea of this is to overwhelm an opponent with such a huge attack they can not stop the zone from burning.  Reclaim the Fallen in Dwarf decks is still away to do this.  High Elves continue to get more indirect damage options for this purpose as well.  There is also a way to utilize Dwarf/Empire/wood Elf cards to get massive damage in one turn. In my experience, these decks are the most fun to play but if they do not trigger quickly they can be swarmed by a rush deck or locked down by a control deck.

 It seems the one victory condition that is not yet really viable is   decking an opponent.  The Dark Elves have been given the most cards to do this, but it still seems to move too slow.  The most recent cycle is finally making quests more viable, but it is doing so by radically redefining how a quest works.  I do not think cards like Snolting Invasion were the original intention of how quest cards were suppose to be used.  Despite that, I am glad that an often ignored facet of the game is being given some new thought and better included into the game.  

Overall, I still like this game a lot.  I track my plays on boardgamegeek.com and I have played this game over 100 times just this year.  I will continue to buy the battle packs as long as they make them, and I will continue to play the game.  So for me the state of the game is still fun, I just wish it was a bit more competitive.  

#4 Mallumo



  • Members
  • 524 posts

Posted 29 June 2012 - 10:41 AM

Simply looking at faction strengths, I'd say the game is more balanced than it has ever been. Five factions are about equal in strength, the High Elves are still a bit behind, but they have been treated very well in the current cycle so far. All factions have more options, you can have a competitive non-rush Orc deck for example. Tournaments aren't dominated by a single faction or deck type anymore. So I'd say the quality of the game itself has definitely improved.


It is still a product for a small niche though, and doesn't have as big a following as say Game of Thrones. If you're okay with that and all it entails, and you enjoyed Invasion in the past, I can only encourage you to get into it again, because it has improved on all counts in my view. Netrunner might well turn out to be a great game too, I'll definitely check it out myself, but it doesn't have to be either/or, and with Invasion, you know what you'll get. The same as you used to get, only better.

#5 Virgo



  • Members
  • 707 posts

Posted 29 June 2012 - 09:04 PM

Mallumo said:

the High Elves are still a bit behind, but they have been treated very well in the current cycle so far.

Actually they're probably the strongest faction right now


#6 Doc9



  • Members
  • 454 posts

Posted 30 June 2012 - 04:25 AM

I have to agree that the High Elves have come a long way. Strongest? Not sure about that. But they are definitely doing very well.

#7 tako



  • Members
  • 124 posts

Posted 06 July 2012 - 03:45 PM

Well, the game looks quite alive to me…


© 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