But tell you what, you can have your co-operative 40K game with Orks and Eldar exchanging hugs right after I get my competitive Tolkien LCG so I can build a Witch King deck and go smash some rotten hobbitses. Deal?

As much as I do love the LOTR LCG, I typically love playing the villians and it's extremely disappointing that I can't make a Witch King or Goblins deck. I would have prefered it to be competitive, but at least in this case the theme for LOTR does lend itself to Co-Op very well. I'm just happy they didn't decide to go Co-Op with Star Wars! Yay, dark side decks!

I would have preferred star wars to be co-op. Though only if you could play either side. The theme crosses many boundaries and is a perfect candidate for co-op allowing you to play with even non gamers. Also the childish deck building system suits a co-op casual scene.

Also the childish deck building system suits a co-op casual scene.

You obviously haven't played the game that much -- or even thought about it in any depth -- if you've missed the complexities of the pod building system.

If it's not to your taste, that's fine. But dismissing it as simplistic demonstrates a clear lack of understanding.

You obviously haven't played the game that much -- or even thought about it in any depth -- if you've missed the complexities of the pod building system.

If it's not to your taste, that's fine. But dismissing it as simplistic demonstrates a clear lack of understanding.

I would say I have won more competitions, regional and national than you with a near full collection of Star Wars swag from comps. Star Wars is a good game, and a game that requires skill to play that I enjoy immensely. But anyone that says the deck building is even a scratch on a traditional deck building game is a fanboy juicer completely blinded to the truth. The deck building in that game sucks, and sucks badly. That this game dose not use it is so much a plus that I can not even describe it.

If that's how you see the deck building of Star Wars, then I doubt you have won as much stuff as you say. Unless you're of course talking about your local casual tournaments. That's hardly the level of regionals though.

So, it does demonstrate your lack of understanding of the pod building system. Then again, you are approaching troll territory, so I probably should stop responding.

I recommend everyone use the Report post and ignore user functions and not engage.

If that's how you see the deck building of Star Wars, then I doubt you have won as much stuff as you say. Unless you're of course talking about your local casual tournaments. That's hardly the level of regionals though.

Of course I have. Nationals even, and I came a very respectful place in GenCon as well.

The fact that you think it has complex deck building is just baffling. You have 10 choices, not even that as you use doubles.. so lest say 6 choices... SIX CHOICES... how can anyone claim with a strait face that this is a complex decision. You do not even need to deck build.. or you need to do is use trial and error and test variations of deck designs. A baby could do it. But w/e believe what you want. those that play know. The only people who think the deck building in that game doesn't suck are the fanboys.

Just cause I hate the deck building doesn't mean the game is bad, I play games that have no deck building.. but claiming it has complex deck building is madness. .. luckily FFG recognized that it sucks and chose to not use it in this game.

Here's the deal with Star Wars.

People who play other card games keep pointing out how the deck building in SW is extremely limited. And it is. Not only does it have the smallest card pool out of the LCGs, it also uses the objective set system which hugely reduces your ability to tune your deck.

People who like Star Wars feel that this is some sort of attack against them or their game, so they feel compelled to argue. Usually this is done in the form of saying that Star Wars deck building is "challenging". And this is true too. But, challenging basically just means "difficult", it doesn't mean "rich and varied". Deckbuilding in Star Wars is difficult because of the restrictions placed on it. You're trying to build a coherent deck but each card you put in voluntarily brings up to 4 other cards you didn't necessarily want. It's great that a skillful player can work to reduce the damage this does to their deck (compared to a freely-constructed one) and this DOES require skill and knowledge, but you're just fighting an arbitrary system. Like sure, it's harder to pass a math test while hopping on one foot and dodging baseballs being thrown at you, but don't mistake that for having passed a higher level math test because those are two different things and their difficulty or "challenge" stems from vastly different sources.

Nothing like Netrunner. And co-op for 40K would be bad.

Not to mention that in the Grim Dark world of 40k......there is Co-op?

ok ok ok....Battle Brothers rules in 6th ed aside....

People who play other card games keep pointing out how the deck building in SW is extremely limited. And it is. Not only does it have the smallest card pool out of the LCGs, it also uses the objective set system which hugely reduces your ability to tune your deck.

It's absolutely limited. There are certainly fewer choices to make. There are also more factors to consider in those choices than would be the case when considering a single card, given that you're not just weighing how one card fits in your deck with each other card, you're measuring 5 player cards and an objective card for the various benefits they bring, and the way they improve or dilute synergy with the rest of your deck, while comparing that to an entirely different set of variables in another pod.

Sure, the barrier to entry is lower. It's easy to throw together a basic deck that has some degree of functionality, because basic decisions such as ratio of hitters to support characters, cost to resource, and that sort of thing is generally set within pods (although you can skew this some by selecting several pods with an extra support character instead of an enhancement, for example). But the best decks take far more thought and experimentation.

And note that the word I used was complex, which encapsulates the number of variables in play. Conversely, booored didn't use the word "limited," which would be true for any game at this point in its life cycle, and is true of Star Wars in any case (by design). The term that drew my objection was "childish."

It seems to me that children would be more frustrated by not being able to use any card they please. It's also perfectly legitimate for the system to simply not run to someone's taste, of course.

I think the difference board was trying to make in his oh so charming way is that you can build a Swars deck with trial and error. You do not need any ability to make or even truly understand the card pool. You just need to swap out a objective set witch replaces 20 cards in your deck and then see how it runs. This is not the case in traditional deck building were you have to design the decks holistically form scratch.

For me though the big problem with the PoD system is that the decks are designed not at the player table but by FFG. The synergies and combos are set in fixed card sets. The few that are down to player choice are as discussed able to be found through trial and error, because new sets are added as modifications to existing decks. So these deck slowly mutate over time but power decks stay around forever as power deck are always powerful (with slight trail and error tweaks) and are never removed until a new deck designed at FFG comes out to replace it or counter it... as counter decks can not be designed by the players. Now and then a big flux of cards come in with the deluxe, but again.. these are sets designed at FFG.. not by the players. As the pool gets larger the players will be able to make meaningful decisions that are unable to now as the choice will be so much larger.. but never will a power deck be able to be teched against. The meta is forever in the hands of the developers and not the players.

The pod-based system seems to be a hit among the boardgame crowd.

I'm sure most of us have seen plenty of posts by newcomers to LCG/CCG's who are interested but find deck building to be very intimidating. To be able to tell these people that you can build a deck by picking 10 cards from a chosen faction or pair of factions and end up with a playable deck is fantastic. Note though that the system guarantees a playable deck, not a competitive one! It will usually have a few tricks in it though due to a lot of objective sets containing cards that synergize with each other, and if they pick objectives that follow a theme the odds go up.

This gives newcomers something they've never had before - the chance to try out this type of game without being scared of falling on their face and ruining the experience. If you haven't been part of the board gamer crowd before, these are guys who play a LOT of different games. You don't get weeks to convince them that your new card game is a good one, you probably just get one try and opinions are formed. What do you think usually happens when someone who doesn't understand an LCG and has never played if before tries to build a set of decks for his buddies? Chances are one or more decks end up unplayable. Nobody has a good time, and pleas to "give me another chance" fall on deaf ears.

For a substantial audience, this is a revelation. But that doesn't mean it's for everybody. Some of us LIKE the process of deck building. We're tinkerers, and enjoy tuning and swapping cards as much or more than we do playing the actual game. For those people, pod-based building is not going to be their cup of tea. That's fine. Not everyone has the same tastes. Just understand who you are and what you like and choose your games accordingly.

The pod-based system seems to be a hit among the boardgame crowd.

I'm sure most of us have seen plenty of posts by newcomers to LCG/CCG's who are interested but find deck building to be very intimidating. To be able to tell these people that you can build a deck by picking 10 cards from a chosen faction or pair of factions and end up with a playable deck is fantastic. Note though that the system guarantees a playable deck, not a competitive one! It will usually have a few tricks in it though due to a lot of objective sets containing cards that synergize with each other, and if they pick objectives that follow a theme the odds go up.

This gives newcomers something they've never had before - the chance to try out this type of game without being scared of falling on their face and ruining the experience. If you haven't been part of the board gamer crowd before, these are guys who play a LOT of different games. You don't get weeks to convince them that your new card game is a good one, you probably just get one try and opinions are formed. What do you think usually happens when someone who doesn't understand an LCG and has never played if before tries to build a set of decks for his buddies? Chances are one or more decks end up unplayable. Nobody has a good time, and pleas to "give me another chance" fall on deaf ears.

For a substantial audience, this is a revelation. But that doesn't mean it's for everybody. Some of us LIKE the process of deck building. We're tinkerers, and enjoy tuning and swapping cards as much or more than we do playing the actual game. For those people, pod-based building is not going to be their cup of tea. That's fine. Not everyone has the same tastes. Just understand who you are and what you like and choose your games accordingly.

+1.

When I saw 40K LCG on the main page I was so psyched. But then started to read and found out the game was like Net runner not LotR.

I understand Netrunner is a good game and I am sure this will be too but CO-OP is what we play around here. So much more fun.

He is hoping they some day make an expansion that adds new rules to make it a cooperative game.

Sorry to hear that. But I love it myself. Where I play we don't play co-op much and almost all of us prefer VS games rather than co-op. Plus, co-op in 40k? Wrong setting.

I think the OPs point was that there should be another cooperative LCG. I agree. I love LOTR. But I don't think 40K is the theme for cooperation. In the grim darkness of the far future there is only war.

And? Would space marines kill each other contantly? No? Then why can't it be a Co-Op LCG? Warhammer and Warhammer 40k would be a perfect fit for the Co-Op LCG.

Don't think on a grand scale too much. Think on the some more local action. Infiltrating the fortress, searching for heretics in the city, other stuff. Not some global space warfrare.

It is not unknown within the insanity that is the Imperium for Imperial organizations to come in to conflict with each other, even Space Marine chapters.

Doesn't means they can't co-operate, just offers more interesting scenarios and enemy probabillites.

The 40K universe is HUGE...Those familiar with Inquisitor will know that even the Emperium is fragmented and the Aliens are even more so.

I think the OPs point was that there should be another cooperative LCG. I agree. I don't think 40K is the theme for cooperation. In the grim darkness of the far future there is only war.

And? Would space marines kill each other contantly? No? Then why can't it be a Co-Op LCG? Warhammer and Warhammer 40k would be a perfect fit for the Co-Op LCG.

Don't think on a grand scale too much. Think on the some more local action. Infiltrating the fortress, searching for heretics in the city, other stuff. Not some global space warfrare.

Just because you can doesn't mean you should. All of the biggest 40k properties are competitive, the co-op properties are all much smaller. It is what the game is known for. Not that I don't want a new co-op game, this just isn't the best property for it.

Well, thats, like, just your opinion, man.

the problem with a 40k co-op game is that "in the grim darkness of the far future there is only war" and while races have been known to cooperate on occasion it it by no means the norm.

I think something like inquisitor would work better as a 40k co-op card game with each player controlling several inquisitorial agents

I want you Conquest, I want you so bad...

Well, thats, like, just your opinion, man.

Thanks for pointing that out. I had no idea.

Seriously, isn't that pretty much everything on these boards, opinion?

Actually, although my point isn't really verifiable by me, I think I have a pretty good reason to believe it's actually a fact. And that is one simple observation, how many co-op warhammer games are there? Not many. The Death Angel card game and the various RPG's are the only ones I can think of off the top of my head. And, I feel fairly certain saying that they aren't half as big as the actual table top mini's game, which is competitive. Then there is Invasion, Diskwars, all of the specialty games (i.e. Mordheim, Battlefleet Gothic, etc...) and so on. But ultimately it goes back to the table top mini's game, which is never co-op in nature. Teams? Sure. Co-op, never.

I too would like another co-op game in the pantheon of LCG's, just not a 40k co-op LCG.

I would like a new Co-OP LCG style game, if they made it 40K I would buy it, though I believe the theme fits a duel game much better.

working with an IP like warhammer creates many limitation on what you must and must not do as GW has to protect their IP and good CO-OP card games are harder to make than good competitive card games even without restrictions.

LOTR worked because the factions were easily grouped into 2 sides and most of the characters players wanted to use where on one side.

I think star wars would make a good IP for a CO-OP game for the same reason .

could a good warhammer 40k CO-OP game be made?

sure

is it the best use of the IP?

I don't think so

when working with a popular IP (and the restrictions imposed by that IP) the theme of the game need match the theme of the IP

and "in the 41st millennium there is only war"