Recommend
42 
 Thumb up
 Hide
28 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

Warhammer: Invasion» Forums » Reviews

Subject: Warhammer: Invasion reviewed by a MtG player for MtG players rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Ryan Dicorato
United States
Chattanooga
Tennessee
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
This is my first review here on the Geek, so be nice please. 

This review will be written for Magic players using terms from the game of Magic: the Gathering. Why? Well, this game is extremely similar to Magic on a lot of different levels. In fact, if you are a great Magic player you will be very good at this. If you are a casual player you will love this game. This game takes the game of Magic, throws it in the Warhammer universe and makes some rule changes. I bought this game on Friday, read the rules on Saturday, played one time on Sunday, and am now writing a review on Monday.

First, let’s go over the card:

 


The first one is a Warhammer: Invasion “unit” card and the other is a Magic: the Gathering “creature” card. These are practically the same thing. Let’s look at the other similarities.

Card names. Warhammer – Boar Boyz; Magic – Gatekeeper of Malakir

In the upper right corner of the Magic card is the mana cost. This card would cost 2 black mana to cast. In the upper left corner of the Warhammer card is a 4 with 2 symbols below it. The total cost for this card is 6 (4 + 2 symbols), however you can reduce the cost of this card to 4. How? Well if you notice right above the name of Boar Boyz is the same symbol that’s on the Warhammer “mana cost”. Nearly all cards have a symbol printed on it. What it does is reduce the cost of your cards by 1 of that symbol. So if you had 2 of the Orc faction symbol in play, Boar Boyz would only cost 4 “mana” to play. Still with me?

In the lower right corner of the Magic card is the power/toughness of the creature. It’s a 2/2. Warhammer it’s in the lower left. The 4 on the shield is the hit points and the red hammer above is its power. Unlike Magic damage is not removed at the end of the turn from units. Think of it as though all your creatures had wither (Shadowmoor mechanic that caused creatures to deal damage to other creatures in the form of -1/-1 counters). Once a Unit (creature) has damage counters equal to, or greater than, it’s HP, it dies.

Then you have the rules text that tells you what the card does when it’s in play or comes into play (Magic now calls coming into play “entering the battlefield”).

There you go. That’s simple enough, right?



Above are a Tactic card and an Instant card. Tactics are instants unless otherwise specified. As you can see this tactic stays “Play during your turn” which is the Warhammer way of saying it’s a sorcery. One of the differences, though, is I don’t know if the “stack” (yes there’s a stack in Warhammer) has to be empty to play Flames of Tzeentch like it would have to be in Magic to play a sorcery. But if the card didn’t have the “play during your turn” clause it could be played “at instant speed”.

That’s pretty much the similarities there.



Above is a support card. These are your enchantments and artifact type cards. This one says “attachment” which would make it an Aura type enchantment. It does the same thing as an Aura which is attaches to a creature in play and gives that creature the benefits written on the card. Other support cards act as global enchantments as well as artifact type cards.

So those are the similarities. Once you see more cards you’ll notice a lot more similarities. I was looking through all the cards and I noticed a “Wrath of God” effect as well as a “Pyroclasm” effect. These are well known Magic cards so they will just sit right at home with the standard Magic player.

So in Magic you’re a planeswalker and the creatures attack you. Warhammer is similar. Here is your “planeswalker”



It’s called a capital. There are three zones to the capital. Kingdom, Quest, and Battlefield. In Warhammer battle is done similar to Magic and is broken into steps. Now, I’m going off of memory so forgive me if I forget something, but the steps are this:

1. Announce attack
2. Declare attackers
3. Declare defenders
4. Assign damage
5. Apply damage

Step one, you declare where you’re going to attack. You attack one of the three zones. After that’d been done, players have the chance to play actions/tactic cards, etc…

Step two, you declare what you’re attacking with. Now you can only attack with creatures you’ve played into your battlefield. The defender can only defend with creatures that are in the zone being attacked. So if I have a creature in my quest zone and you’re attacking it, I can only defend with that one creature. It doesn’t matter if I have 10 creatures in the Battlefield. They only defend when the Battlefield is defended. After this players once again have the chance to play actions/tactic cards, etc…

Step three, declare defenders. Just like declaring blockers the defender announces which units in that area will defend that area. The only difference is you don’t block (defend) an individual creature. So if I’m attacking you with three creatures you block with all your creatures I’ll assign damage how I want to your creatures and you assign how you want to mine, but that’s the next step so ignore that right now. At the end of it players gave the chance to play actions/tactic cards, etc…

Step four, assign damage. This is basically stack damage (which is now removed from the rules of Magic). Each player totals up the amount of power their creatures have and takes that many damage counters and “assigns” it to the creatures/capital. You cannot assign it to the capital until you’ve assigned “lethal” damage to creatures. For example if I attack you with 3 power worth of creatures and you have a creature with 2 HP you defend with, I must assign 2 damage to the creature before assigning one to the capital. I can assign all 3 to the creature if I want, and there are reasons you’d want to because damage can be negated and if I thought you had a trick to keep that creature alive I may just do that. To assign damage you basically put it next to the creature you’re going to damage. After this players get the play cards actions yadda yadda yadda.

Step five, apply damage. That damaged that was “stacked” is now assigned (or resolved for Magic terms). You place the damage counters on the units and then units are checked to see if they have damage counters equal to or greater than their HPs. If so, they are dead and are placed in the discard pile (graveyard for Magic terms).

Each zone in the capital has 8 HP and when it’s down to zero that zone is “burning” and when you’ve reduced two zones in a player’s capital to zero that player is eliminated. Right now the game only has rules for a 1v1, but eventually multiplayer rules should be published because a lot of the cards basically show that they’re written for multiplayer games.

So that’s pretty much the heart of the game with the big similarities between the two games. There are a lot of “smaller” rules that I did not mention, but reading through the rulebook a Magic: the Gathering veteran will feel right at home with them and have no trouble understanding them.

I recommend the game highly and think that it’s worth it. There’s a lot of room for expansion, and I think that FFG will do it right. They rarely let me down with their games.
28 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
.
Well written and a good, solid review in general (I thumbed it) but I hate the awful comparison to Magic. There are so many ways that this game is NOT like Magic that it's not even funny. Furthermore, having played a few die-hard Magic junkies in Warhammer:Invasion already (who according to your review here, are supposed be "automagically great" at this game), I can say this remark isn't true by a long-shot.

Warhammer:Invasion is very much its own game, deserving of its own vernacular and honestly, just like any other new game, it has its own learning curve

To whit:

1. No Summoning Sickness
2. No Individual battles - it's all mass combat in W:I (as it should be)
3. No Land cards driving the economy - Units themselves, in a really clever design decision, power the economy.
4. There are 6 different factions in the game, not 5 colors
5. You don't "tap" anything

I could go on but why bother.

Please don't compare this game to Magic, it besmirches this cool new game more than it makes it look good.
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ryan Dicorato
United States
Chattanooga
Tennessee
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Thanks for the response and the thumb, I appreciate it.

While this game is unlike Magic in many ways, I think the similarities are just too much to ignore. I also think that this is a great game and a lot of people can find enjoyment out of it, Magic players or not. If one person who is familiar with Magic reads this review and purchases the game and enjoys it, I've accomplished my mission.

I think that the similarities to Magic is what helped me enjoy it. The rules were familiar with their own awesome twist to it. The differences between the games are also what I like. The mass combat was something I felt that Magic should be as well, but the game would be a different game completely. So this game does do things better than Magic.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
.
Well my comments come with the context that I've always hated it when people try to shoehorn a new game, movie, book, etc...as being more of the same when the new object may be just as good in a unique way. (If that makes sense?) I'll have to disagree that the similarities are "too many to ignore" as I feel the differences are far greater (though I can see that, as you've pointed out, there ARE a few notable similarities, too).

I've gone around a bit on this with Rykaar (Kevin), who raised some fair points, as you do - but I just hope that people allow this game to be its own cool, unique game rather than bringing previous expectations to it.

Of course in the end, all that matters is that this great game gets its due respect and finds success!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin Seachrist
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I had an interesting session on Friday with two previous MtG players (Chris and Jon) and one (Bob) who never played MtG but is one of the deadliest players I've met at just about any game we play.

I played Chaos against Chris, who chose my revamped Empire deck (with Infiltrate!). Jon and Bob squared off with Orcs and Dwarves respectively, though for Jon (an incredible MtG player who favors control decks) playing the Orcs was somewhat jarring (Orcs may look green, but for MtG players, they probably quickly look red with black and green stripes).

First game for Chris and I allowed him to get pretty established defensively, and even launch a couple forays since he couldn't get Infiltrate out. Then Chaos had a foothold for cards and resources and I started countering all his moves and eventually beat him. In game two, he played Infiltrate on turn one, but I managed to kill everything questing on it and eventually landed a Bloodthirster to eat the Empire's lunch.

OK, enough session report. Bob and Jon played five games to the two Chris and I played. With almost every card Jon pulled, he said "oh, this is like ___ " in MtG. I even pointed out Empire's Twin-Tailed Comet as a clear echo of "Fork" (even looks like it's forking).

I think it's inevitable, whether at the mechanics level or at the card level, to use the lens of MtG to see W:I. For a long-time MtG'er, I don't know how you could avoid this.

But here's the thing: Jon and Chris started seeing the differences pretty quickly too, and both enjoyed W:I more for those differences (basically what all of us have pointed out on various threads).

On the other hand, Bob had no preconceptions, and he was playing the highly defensive dwarves, so he didn't initially like the game all that much (he still likes Call of Cthulhu more, which he has played a few times). Yet for Bob what became clear as he played was the tactical finesse the game offers. And Jon quickly saw it exceeds MtG in this regard: it isn't just about WHAT you play, it's WHERE you play it.

MtG rocks, and certainly has layers upon layers of complexity, but I'm drawn to BATTLES, and I think as a game representing a conflict between nations, it won't be too many expansions along before Warhammer is burning down MtG's zones, at least for me. I'm not sure I could get Jon and Chris to say the same, but I'm only asking them to play W:I, not to like it best.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Reich
Australia
Western Australia
flag msg tools
mbmb
If this game is just like Magic I wouldn't have bought it (especially since I'm not a huge fan of fantasy)! I bought it because of the (dare I say it) 'elegant' mechanics (e.g. no mana screw), apparent loads of choices to make in the game (what to place, where to place, how to place e.g. as a development), theme strength and uniqueness of the factions, and the evident fun to be had playing it. What I like particularly is the placement of a card around a Capital dictates its function, giving cards a 'multi-function' aspect similar to RFTG and its kin - does that make the game similar to RFTG? :-)

Now, just to play it and hopefully confirm in my mind that it's definitely not just like Magic! :-)


2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Wagner
United States
Wood River
Nebraska
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I played this game twice, before and after games of Magic. So I feel that I have a good idea of the similarities and differences between the two games.

Differences:

1. Magic sometimes gets to a point where both players stall and cannot attack each other, because it puts them both at a disadvantage. In W:I, that never seems to be the case, because your units can attack and still defend at the end of the turn. Your units being able to attack the turn they come out helps a lot also.

2. Loyalty in W:I allows weenies to actually be more useful than in Magic. In Magic, if a creature is a 1/1 and has no other purpose, it's pretty much terrible. But in W:I, if a unit is 1 power/1 life with 1 loyalty, it actually helps with bringing out something bigger, while probably being very cheap on it's own.

3. Another thing I've noticed is that most units in W:I have special abilities, where there's a ton of vanilla creatures in Magic. Most of the time, unless they're cheap, those creatures get passed over a lot. I think overall, the usefulness of the cards in W:I is a lot better than Magic. It annoys me to no end when Magic puts cards in sets that they have to know are terrible. They probably add fluff to make the rares look even better.

4. Not having cards directly related to giving you resources is an improvement over Magic's luck-filled land system. Yes, I know you're in control of how many lands/resources you put in a deck, but you never know how many of those that you're going to get in a game. In W:I, you're mostly in control of how many resources you get. Same for card drawing, where Magic is typically stuck at 1 a turn, and in W:I, you choose how many cards you will be drawing per turn.

Similarities:

1. Both in Magic and W:I, you lose if you run out of cards in your deck. So there's a possibility to stall your opponent until they run out of cards. Which is boring in both games.

2. The bigger the baddies you control, the more likely you will win. In both games, getting bigger baddies out faster is usually a good thing. Although both games have wrath of God effects, both games have ways to build up faster from those effects.

3. As said before, the building cards are like artifacts and the attachments are like auras. Tactics are just like instants, except that tactics during your turn are similar to sorceries, although they resolve (I believe) like instants, just have to be played during your turn.

4. With that said, the timing system is nearly the same. There's a stack in both games. W:I also uses the targeting system. This is good, because the best part of Magic is the fact that it's been around so long, that the timing and targeting systems have been evolved into probably the best systems out there.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ryan Dicorato
United States
Chattanooga
Tennessee
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
SVan wrote:
3. Another thing I've noticed is that most units in W:I have special abilities, where there's a ton of vanilla creatures in Magic. Most of the time, unless they're cheap, those creatures get passed over a lot. I think overall, the usefulness of the cards in W:I is a lot better than Magic. It annoys me to no end when Magic puts cards in sets that they have to know are terrible. They probably add fluff to make the rares look even better.


I have to agree 100% on this. Every card you draw in your deck has some use. It may not be a card you need at that time (in which case it becomes a development) but it's not really ever a terrible card that never has a use. I like this. Also the lack of mana screw is also great.

On a side note I will say this. Playing a repack draft (draft with cards already owned and just made into 15 card boosters) with crappy cards is a lot of fun. I've done that a lot with a bunch of really really bad cards that you would otherwise never use. It makes for an interesting draft and deck building. That's another reason I enjoy Magic is the diverse formats you can play. I am excited about similar things in Invasion. :)

I've yet to try out the draft, but I'm definitely looking forward to it. Also looking forward to the first battle pack.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gary Bradley
United Kingdom
Unspecified
Scotland
flag msg tools
As a keen Magic player I enjoyed this review. While it didn't tip me either way into buying this game (I was always buying it), I found the comparison fun.

And btw "vanilla" creatures in Magic are very very rare these days and have been for some time. A pure vanilla creature (eg no abilities, just power/toughness) would have to be exceptional. Eg a 2/2 for 1 mana (Isamaru) or 3/3 for 2 mana (Watchwolf) are both way above the curve of what you'd normally get for 1 mana and 2 mana respectively.

And just as a fun aside, if your vanilla creature has the creature type "Wizard", it is affectionally known in Magic circles as a "David Copperfield" - i.e. a wizard with no abilities.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Great comments - this is such an interesting game - it sounds that most M:TG players or people experienced with M:TG who don't play it very much feel that W:I definitely surpasses it in some ways and feels the same in others while also maintaining its uniqueness. I can live with that.

Now if we could just get some new cards - I'm already eager to get some more fodder to work with. My Chaos deck still can't quite cut the mustard against dedicated Orcs or the Empire/Dwarf hybrid deck (which I consider the best deck in the game). Poor Chaos.

I don't quite agree that owning the largest creature in W:I is the end-all, be-all that it is in Magic. I'm able to much more easily handle tough creatures in this game than in M:TG (at least so far). Though you could argue that a tough creature placed in either the Kingdom or Quest zone will really ramp up your economy AND give you a tough creature to defend with...so in regards to defensive play, I'll say that big creatures ARE very powerful.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
ruvion .
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Massing vs Singleton Tough
Barring special abilities, usually a unit's hit points equals its resource cost. For example: one Grimgor cost 6 resources (5 loyalty tokens making it a mid to late game addition), have 6 hit points, and 3 power. Three Night Goblins each costs 2 resources (1 loyalty each), 2 hit points apiece, and 1 power each. Collectively the goblins compare similarly to Grimgor in that they cost 6 resources (3 loyalty tokens), have 6 hit poins, and 3 power. Card effects that they sport are comparable since both have forced effects that lay waste to support, except Grimgor's is indiscriminate and destroys developments as well, while the Night Goblins provide a more focused 3 targeted Attachment discards. Pound per pound one is not necessarily better than the other. There is a caveat that hit points and power can be lower when looking at low cost units vs a single powerful unit due to how some cards are designed...especially since it looks like power = half resource cost. But usually barring funky powers you can make apples to apples comparison between units (many weak vs single tough) with even numbered costs.

If a mass controlling tactic or support is played or in play, such as Horrific Mutation attachment, then massing becomes a problem. However, a universal booster such as the orc's infamous Waaagh! tactic card, allows the smaller but numerous units have the edge.

Lastly there is an opportunity and/or tempo issue. While it may be easier to draw into a singleton tough rather than several units of similar weight, the smaller units allow you finer control over not only your card drawing ability but your resource gathering as well. The singleton, on the other hand, allows you to get a quick makeshift defense or resource/card gathering/drawing going when your board presense is not looking good. The right tool for the job and all that.

I cannot comment for MtG, but for Invasion, it looks like the lasting damage tokens prevent the singleton brute from being overly better than massing smaller units. They are simply different, with differing strengths and weaknesses.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Anselmo Diaz
United Kingdom
Crawley
West Sussex
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I've played Magic in the past, and found that I lacked the interest in investing the money necessary to play it at a fair level. It bugged me that there were so many expansions out already, and the TCG model, which is a no-no for me.

W:I is, in contrast, a fresh new game, with incredible illustrations and set in a truly fantastic fantasy world. Rules are simple enough that you can concentrate in playing, not in being a rules lawyer.

I haven't played it yet (though I will shortly ), but I think the similarities are based on both games being customizable, combat-based games, nothing else. Both are very distinctly different.

There are several particularities with Magic's model of gameplay that seem to bother people who play it, whereas there are none regarding W:I.
W:I being more streamlined, tactical, no money-sink, new, LCG, wins hands down for me.

I can't wait for the expansions!!!!!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jason McFarland
United States
Shelton
Washington
flag msg tools
Don't believe the hype that there is no mana screw in this game I have dealt with it already a couple times. My first game with the Orcs, I drew a total of 5 to 7 unit cards the whole game and just got pummelled. It's not mana screw per se, but with the cards in the game giving you your resources, it ends up being very similar.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Um, you can get resources from one of many different support cards, also in that Zone (assuming you cleverly put them there)...hard to imagine how you get pummeled in light of that. I've really not seen the Mana Screw that you've mentioned here in this game. That's one of the things I love about it, too.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brad Miller
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Chasing CCG rares = bigger money sink than any LCG could ever hope to be...
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Windopaene wrote:
Chasing CCG rares = bigger money sink than any LCG could ever hope to be...


Exactly. It's hard to hear someone call any LCG a "money sink" especially in comparison to any other CCG. It's like getting a 50% discount on a new car AND cash-back AND a reasonable trade-in value and then still griping about the cost. Maybe it's time for a new hobby if you can't even afford the minimum price of entry to it?? shake
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
ruvion .
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
The economy
Hey, maybe it's the new economy speaking in all of us.

Even if Sony is willing to sell brand spanking PS3s for quarter of the price at the same present specs and throw their corrupt corporate soul on top of the deal, you'd have grumblers...the times are hard and gamers are harder.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ryan Dicorato
United States
Chattanooga
Tennessee
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Got to play my second game last night.

The first time I played was against a friend that had never play MtG before. He really enjoyed the game but had a lot of trouble grasping the rules.

The second time (last night) was against a friend I had taught to play MtG and we played quite a few times in the past with some really bad fun decks. :)

He had read through the rules last night and when we started playing he understood the game fast. He caught on quickly and really started to put the pressure on me. On turn 3 my Quest zone had already taken 6 points of damage. I had done a combine total of 4 points of damage to his capital with each taking one point, save the battlefield. I said to him, looks like you may beat me at this, and he responded, "I dunno. You're much better at Magic than me, so you should be better than me at this." I shrugged.

In the end I came out the victor. It was a close game. I drew my cards for the turn (8) and saw 3 were left. I said that I have to win on this turn or next turn I lose because I'll deck myself. I look at my cards, take about 3 minutes to plan out how to do it, and I ended up winning. Was it due to my experience in Magic? Very much so, in my opinion. But I will say that it's because Magic has taught me to analyze situations like this. A board with cards out and cards in my hand. How can I use these resources to my advantage?

I had already taken out his Quest zone three turns before this last turn. I had his Kingdom at 3 damage and his Battlefield at 4. At the end of his turn prior to mine I use the Orc catapult (can't remember the name) to sacrifice a guy to do 2 more damage to his Battlefield. It's at 6. I look at my hand and have Troll Vomit and the Orc hero that destroys all support in the zone. So I use Troll Vomit and play the hero and get the last points of damage in to the Battlefield and come away with the win. Seeing this situation is something that I learned from Magic.

I'm loving this game and can't wait to play more of it. I'm also looking forward to the way that FFG does their multi-player.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gary Bradley
United Kingdom
Unspecified
Scotland
flag msg tools
Windopaene wrote:
Chasing CCG rares = bigger money sink than any LCG could ever hope to be...


CCG rares are extremely good at holding resale value, especially the more expensive tournament staples, meaning you can cash out any time and get some of your investment back. I've cashed out Magic (paper cards) twice now and got back about 75% of what I spent. Let's see you do that with an LCG.

Also if you are talking Magic, your intial deck investment of $100 to $200 dollars will get you a tournament quality deck that you can play competitively for over a year. And if you are decent at the game, you can win cash prizes as you do so. Really good players break even or profit. And THEN can still cash out by selling off their cards!! Let's see you do that with an LCG.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gary Bradley
United Kingdom
Unspecified
Scotland
flag msg tools
wytefang wrote:
Exactly. It's hard to hear someone call any LCG a "money sink"


It's hard to hear people say it isn't. FFG seem to be planning one new expansion each month. Completists will need/want to buy 3x each expansion. If the game does really well, and remains populare for, say 10 years, you don't call that a money sink??? Wow.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Even a little bit of common sense, though, reveals that there's a world of difference between a CCG blind-purchase format (buying singles online or in FLGS is hardly cheap or even feasible as hot cards are frequently over-priced or unavailable, forcing people back to the slot machine of buying sealed booster packs at awful prices) AND between an LCG where you know exactly what you're buying. A world of difference.

Furthermore, people don't sit on one deck, they build multiples for different experiences and for different types of tournaments or games AND for friends to use. Also, your claim of reselling at 75% seems badly skewed based on eBay research and FLGS prices I've seen - perhaps your own group might buy cards back from you, to some extent, but overall, I suspect the percentage is more akin to 30-40% of value recouped, if that.

Using the argument that "really good players can profit" is also mostly specious - those quality of players represent perhaps the top 10-20% of all players (if that much) so while that may be helpful for top-quality tournament-level players, the average rank and file CCG player can't expect to win any prize money.

I realize, however, that the gist of your points is simply that LCGs are more expensive than people think (and to some extent I'd mildly agree with that - mildly) and that CCGs can be less expensive - and I can agree with that, also to a mild extent.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Wene
United States
Unspecified
Michigan
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
GaryB wrote:
wytefang wrote:
Exactly. It's hard to hear someone call any LCG a "money sink"


It's hard to hear people say it isn't. FFG seem to be planning one new expansion each month. Completists will need/want to buy 3x each expansion. If the game does really well, and remains populare for, say 10 years, you don't call that a money sink??? Wow.


Assuming, 1 core set per year, 1 companion/expansion set per year, and 10 battle/chapter packs per year (taking neither the highest nor lowest online prices):

3 x $30
3 x $30
30 x $8
total $420

Can a CCG completist get full playsets of every single card made in a year for their game for $420? Might be possible, but I doubt it. Is $420 a money sink? If it is to some, maybe they need to rethink their completism (or is it completistism?). Buying only one of each set/pack (oh the horror!) would cost what, $140? Is $140 per year a money sink? Probably not to most people on this site.

Even the tournament or constructed CCG player would only be able to put together two or maybe three decks for $420....rather than have a complete playset of every single card for the year.

And if the LCG DOES manage to live for 10 years, there will be significant enough market that you COULD cash out and recoup some of your cost.

BTW: thanks for the lively discussions.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
MikeDowd wrote:
wytefang wrote:
Even a little bit of common sense, though, reveals that there's a world of difference between a CCG blind-purchase format (buying singles online or in FLGS is hardly cheap or even feasible as hot cards are frequently over-priced or unavailable, forcing people back to the slot machine of buying sealed booster packs at awful prices) AND between an LCG where you know exactly what you're buying. A world of difference.


One such difference is that there is an inherent metagame in M:tG, which was intended by the designer. The fact that there exists far less copies of a rare card than a common card means that only so many people will be able to make a certain combo work. Obviously, when the game becomes massively popular and more and more cards become printed, that metagame was lost to an extent.

Another important aspect of the metagame was that all games were played for ante in the original rules. Ante wasn't a variant, it was the game as designed.

Sadly, alot of the fun of magic was lost as a casualty of being too popular and people taking it too seriously. It's still fantastic and can be played as an LCG with a fixed card pool.

M:tG is like religion, the ideology behind it is fantastic, but as it gained popularity, the community has gotten out of hand.


I do recall wondering why they dropped the Ante portion - of course it wouldn't have mattered to me, I'd not have found the game terribly entertaining back in the day regardless, but it did provide a nifty spark to what was nothing more than a cool concept, heavily over-hyped. A good game, unique at the time, nothing more than that.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brad Miller
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Because ante ran afoul of:

1) Gambling morals and laws

which added to the "satanic" nature of spells and wizards and such, wasn't helping sell Magic in the Bible Belt. Then there was:

2) The possibility you might cut your Black Lotus

Collectibility made this an untenable feature of the original rules.



2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ryan Dicorato
United States
Chattanooga
Tennessee
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Played another game last night. I don't think the core set is deserving of a rating of 10, however I am very excited about the expansions. If they come through with what I'm expecting, this can easily be a favorite of mine.

Anyone else feel this was as well?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.