I realize this isn't the regular 40k tabletop but I was wondering if you think there will be a difference between say DE (assault) and say Tau (shooting). Maybe different keywords like when you shoot you don't take damage but in an assault both units hit each other. Anyway any thoughts?

Since the game is about planetary conquest and not a skirmish of a few characters, I'd say there is no point in such subtle gameplay differences. But that's just a wild guess.

I agree with klaymen here, I don't think there will be any mechanical difference between melee and ranged.

wouldn't surprise me to see these kind of things as keywords.

Card abilities, keywords (like Area Effect on Marines and DE) and I guess, damage color. Dunno if you have notice that damage boxes have different background color (black or teal for damage, white or red for hitpoints). This may add some different options. Or it may be just factions colors.

Card abilities, keywords (like Area Effect on Marines and DE) and I guess, damage color. Dunno if you have notice that damage boxes have different background color (black or teal for damage, white or red for hitpoints). This may add some different options. Or it may be just factions colors.

Good catch! It's probably just faction colors, but I hadn't noticed it before.

Yeah, the scale of this game means that there will probably be no difference between melee/ranged. This might be disappointing for people from a micro perspective but I don't think they're going to over complicate the game with stuff like that.

Normally the main difference in tabletop games is that models with ranged weapons can get a shot off before the melee guys get to them, so maybe they will have some mechanic where ranged models fight first or an untapped ranged model can get off a final shot before dying if killed by a non-ranged guy or something like that.

I could see units with "flying" (like magic) only being able to be hit with by a unit with ranged.

I hope there is some distinction made between flying and ranged combat. It bothers me that that wasn't done with Star Wars.

I hope there is some distinction made between flying and ranged combat. It bothers me that that wasn't done with Star Wars.

It bothers everyone and there will be no distinction in this one either.

I hope there is some distinction made between flying and ranged combat. It bothers me that that wasn't done with Star Wars.

It bothers everyone and there will be no distinction in this one either.

Doesn't bother me.

That said, in a game where a single card can conquer a planet, I doubt if it's going to matter much whether that card relies on assault or ranged combat. It's just the wrong scale to be concerned with such things, IMO.

Doesn't bother me either. I love Star Wars lcg

That being said there is no basis yet to decide if this game will have ranged and flying distinctions.

I do not believe you 2. EVERYONE.. thinks the Rancor being able to hit star destroyers or using a lightsaber to deflect Tie Fighter fire is ridiculous. For some people this is impassable, others have accepted it.. but ALL would have preferred the game to be thematically consistent to the films.

Regardless of the thematic inconsistencies the game is very good. I would argue it has some of the highest skill needs of all the LCGs (apart form deck building) it is the very definition of a gamer that is "easy to play, extremely hard to play well"

Still it is my hope that 40Klcg will have none of these problems and be a nice thematic game with out large abstract concepts and game mechanisms are themed not just cart are / functions. The easiest way to get around this is to remove things like Flying and Ground units. So I doubt they will do it as I guarantee they are going to look at Swars and try to fix the problems that, besides a loyal few, is a real problem to many people.. even people like me that love playing the game.

Still in some thread it was mentioned about "keywords". It is not hard to have simple keywords on cards, and have other cards immune to them. Creating a sudo game space for flying and ground. I just doubt this will happen.

In literally every card game some abstraction occurs: in Cthulhu a little kid can hit an Ancient One with a crowbar, in Invasion two goblins can kill a huge invincible demon, in L5R you can win by making great origami cranes while your opponent burns down your provinces, the list goes on. Perhaps in Star Wars it was over done with Ewoks fighting Star Destroyers. I will bet you one million dollars that there will be something like that in this game. That stuff already happens in the source material (40K) with Imperial Guardsmen being able to shoot Space Marines to death with their crappy lasguns. People are already raising their eyebrows at the alliance wheel, or whatever it's called, so imagine their dismay when a Dark Eldar comes in waving a massive Chaos sword or Orcs ride around in Imperial Guard tanks.

In literally every card game some abstraction occurs: in Cthulhu a little kid can hit an Ancient One with a crowbar, in Invasion two goblins can kill a huge invincible demon, in L5R you can win by making great origami cranes while your opponent burns down your provinces, the list goes on. Perhaps in Star Wars it was over done with Ewoks fighting Star Destroyers. I will bet you one million dollars that there will be something like that in this game. That stuff already happens in the source material (40K) with Imperial Guardsmen being able to shoot Space Marines to death with their crappy lasguns. People are already raising their eyebrows at the alliance wheel, or whatever it's called, so imagine their dismay when a Dark Eldar comes in waving a massive Chaos sword or Orcs ride around in Imperial Guard tanks.

At least the Ork's in Imperial Guard tanks can be explained by saying the Boyz looted them.

But I agree. Abstraction in a game like this is very difficult to avoid. Whenever I play these sort of games I can usually come up with something in my head that makes sense, to me anyway, and the rest of the time, I'm too focused on winning to split hairs.

But I haven't played the SW LCG, so that one might be seriously ridiculous, idk. A Jedi Rancor taking out a Star Destroyer by infiltrating it and dropping some thermal detonators in its reactor core does sound like a bit much too me.

I do not believe you 2. EVERYONE.. thinks the Rancor being able to hit star destroyers or using a lightsaber to deflect Tie Fighter fire is ridiculous. For some people this is impassable, others have accepted it.. but ALL would have preferred the game to be thematically consistent to the films.

You say, "thematically consistent," I say, "focused on extraneous detail at the expense of smooth gameplay." It's been hashed out in other forums (and, I believe, in an FFG article) what's being represented when a Luke card takes out a Star Destroyer or whatever, and it isn't that he leaps into space and cuts it open with his lightsaber or whatever ridiculous example someone wants to point to that week.

You're welcome to feel however you like about the game. But it's obviously inaccurate to say that the level of abstraction bothered everyone, because people in this very thread have stated otherwise for themselves. In fact, if it bothers anyone in the active meta I play in, no one has said so -- the seemingly ridiculous moments tend to be the ones that get laughed about later. Sometimes they're justified with little vignette stories, but more often they're fun *because* they're ridiculous.

I would go so far as to say, even, that most people don't care. But since neither of us have anything more than anecdotal data to back up our positions, there's not much point in arguing the opinions of the general player (or non-player) base.

On the subject of 40k, we have man-portable anti-aircraft weaponry today. Likewise, aircraft can and do deal major destruction to ground troops and vehicles.

In the grim future where there is only war? I'm sure man-portable weaponry is capable of taking out orbital craft, and vice versa.

Doesn't bother me in Star Wars either. All card games have similar thematic issues, and a Rancor taking out a Star Destroyer is no more distracting to me than Cthulhu driving a getaway car or any other example I've come across. Card games are abstractions, not meant to be taken too literally.

I don't know the 40K universe in detail so I don't know whether the alliance wheel is fairly accurate or not. All it is to me is a limit on deck design. I can pair these two but not those two. Hopefully it won't end up being too much of a limiting factor. Personally, I'm hoping that they are taking advantage of it to the fullest by creating cards in non-adjacent factions that would be too powerful if they could be combined, but I suspect that it's mainly there for thematic reasons rather than mechanical ones. Fans of the 40K universe will be happy there is a concession to the setting, fans of card games will wish they could make the decks they really want to make putting together ANY two factions (whether their favorite ones thematically or two that they feel mesh well mechanically). It's a tradeoff, but I feel it's a required one due to the theme, despite the decreased options. With unlimited choices you have 28 faction combos (including mono-faction decks). With the faction wheel, this is reduced to only 14 choices (again including mono-faction decks). However, a lot of games have the same characteristic. You can't make a Sith/Rebel deck either

i can only think of 3 ways to deal with thematic issues in games like star wars or warhammer

1.make rules to disallow certain cards interacting

-while it fixes the thematic issue it can result in overly complicated rules on what cards can interact and cause certain card types to go unused because they are so limited in there use

2.only make cards that work thematically with every other card in the game

-this would severely limit the card pool and slow down production as every card interaction would need to be considered from both a game mechanic and thematic standpoint

3. focus on making a great game and just laugh at the mental pictures you get when Luke attacks a star destroyer or a tau fire warrior kills an ork deffcopter with a thunder hammer and joke about how you converted some orks from gork/mork to khorn with the promise of more batle

Well looks like there is a difference after all.

Ranged units attack before melee units yay

Should add another layer of depth to the game.

Good! A distinction between ranged attacks as well as a distinction between flying vs. ground. See...not too hard.

I'm happy to see many of the newly revealed rules make a lot of "common sense". It really makes the game seem more intuitive. I'm really looking forward to this one.

E

Having the ranged attack step makes it sort of feel like the old Decipher Card Game version of Lord of the Rings where there was an "Archery" step during combat. Sometimes people got shot to death by arrows so they weren't around to deal their combat damage. I suppose in this game that could conceptually mean your "really good in Melee" unit might get shot to death whilst "charging across the battlefield" so they never get to assault. Hey, it's kind of like the minis game after all, LOL!

And I do like the "Flying" mechanic, too. Well done, FFG!

I like ranged attacks and flying mechanic, but there is one thing that I can´t understand. Why after you check your deck for a card you have to put unused cards on the bottom of deck? Its the best way to lose your single cards from signature squad. Why not shuffle in?

That's the drawback for looking at your deck. Not even a drawback, since you know which cards are at the bottom and lets you guess your incoming cards.