Please take Jar Jar behind the barn and put him out of his misery. THere are so many other good LCG's they could do. I know a SW LCG Could potentially move a lot of units per month generating great revenue for FFG, but, um, just no please don't. It's not worth all the criticism they would inevitably take from whatever fans were not happy that week, and after Star wars pocket models and other marketing endeavors from various companies, I just don't think they should touch it.

I have to agree with the others that say do not touch Star Wars. It has been done too many times in too many incarnations that is just bores me. Actually, after episodes 1-3 I could care less about Star Wars (I actually enjoyed Episode 1 as it did what I thought it needed to do: set up the story).

As a big fan of Decipher's CCG I would love to see that game recycled as an LCG!!!

As a fan of the Saga Edition RPG and the CMG, I was dissapointed to hear WOTC lost the liscence. If FFG gets it...that would make it up to me.

NO, I say to the cartoon and anything related. Hate the art, hate the stories, love Cad Bane, hate the corny Jedi, hate the awful dialogue, hate the sappy Mando'ade, hate the destruction and total ignoring of EU canon....

But, if they can actually do a LCG based on the movies...and if it could be unique...either mass combat or heroic/skirmish in scale....that would be cool. Man, I love these ellipsii. If I spelled that right.

I can see both sides of this discussion. Yes, Star Wars is kind of on life support right now, and Lucas's involvement isn't helping on any level. That being said, it's still a rich universe with a huge and diverse fanbase who LOVE buying merchandise. So while I'd prefer for the franchise to quietly fade into the night for a few years before seeing a rebirth (like Star Trek, or the Batman films), it's almost inevitable that someone is going to pick up the license (or that Lucasfilm will begin seeking out potential buyers, I'm not really sure how license acquisition works) and produce a new game.

If that's going to happen, I'd like FFG to pick it up.

In addition, if the relative success of Wizard's miniatures game is anything to go by (as well as the massive success of the KOTOR series of games), the fanbase is growing increasingly interested in both the EU and other eras of the universe's history. It has really grown into a rich and detailed epic of a franchise, with the potential for including multitudes of characters and concepts in a potential card game.

This is a huge advantage. A card games lifespan is based on two things:

1. The loyalty and involvement of the fanbase, which can be encouraged by regular support from the game manufacturer in a variety of forms (tournaments, league play, promotions, just plain listening, etc.) If the fans of a game don't support the game, it'll die. This is obvious.

2. Less obvious, but no less important, is the potential for longevity in design that a game's world presents and its design requires.

Let me break that second one down a bit. If you design a game that uses a lot of character cards, then the world you're designing that game for is going to need a lot of characters to fill those design spaces. If you don't have a large cast of characters, you're eventually going to run out of design space or will spiral into ridiculous ways to "reinterpret" that character from a mechanical standpoint. If you can't design new cards (or if you're designing new cards that are in some way displeasing to your fanbase) then your game is going to die. (Of course, you could always design your game to focus on only one or two characters, and thus prolong the amount of new material you can get out of a limited cast of characters. Score's old Dragonball Z CCG did this very well.)

Alternatively, you can make up characters that don't exist in the canon. FFG's new LotR game is doing this, so far as I can tell. It's one of the things I haven't really like about the game, but I can certainly see why they're doing it. While this gets around the design challenges of a limited cast of characters, it has the potential for angering your fanbase, thus producing the same effect that you were trying to avoid in the first place. (Also, with such a tightly controlled property as Star Wars and others, you run into licensing issues where the original owners of the IP don't approve of you making new characters for "just a game.")

Here is where we get back to Star Wars. There hasn't been a solid TCG for Star Wars that really tries to open up the universe for it's players. Delving into the wider mythology to form at least half a dozen different factions, each with dozens of interesting and beloved characters. This is what's so great about GRRM's "A Game of Thrones," and why it makes such a compelling card game. And I think this is a really viable idea for Star Wars. Naturally, you'll need to focus on the movies at first, and from what I've heard about the Lucasfilm license, you'll be required to include an Anakin Skywalker or Darth Vader card in every expansion. But as the game develops, the sheer number of possible cards that could be created from characters and vehicles alone could give the game an extremely long life, which is only a good thing for a publisher.

Wait what characters is their LotR game inventing? I know the Gencon preview was not a finished game, but all the heroes were straight from the books, only the allies were generic characters, and presented as such. They didn't invent any new names for any of them. Have you got something that points out that they have changed this?

Penfold said:

So that doesn't refer to Sam's oldest child?

Penfold said:

Funky. Well it will be interesting to see if they continue with that. I was under the distinct impression from talking to them at Gencon that it was going to be entirely on the books. *shrug* I guess time will tell.

Blutsteigen said:

Deciphers Star Wars TCG is one of the few TCG's that's come anywhere near Magic the Gathering in terms of sales. I do think however that if a new Star Wars card game were to be made then it needs to be completely new and fresh.

It got there because of the lcense, IMHO, not the game play. It was clunky. Too many moving parts, and some just really weird decisions design wise.

I had the same problem with both Star Wars games (Decipher's and Wizards'), and that was that while fun, neither truly felt like Star Wars to me. The way I see it, a game should be galactic in scope, like Decipher's game; but it should also focus on a back-and-forth interplay between opposing characters, like Wizards'. And I'm in the camp that says this game should be a fresh new concept.

The game needs to be fast-paced like the films, but still have plenty of strategic depth. And each deck should have its own feel: an Imperial deck (Sith or Galactic) should be unstoppable but slow; an Alliance deck should be fast and ragtag, and dependent on card synergy to survive; and a Bounty Hunter deck needs to have lots of tricks to get the drop on the opponent(s).

Finally, to be infinitely expandable, they would have to incorporate factions from the Expanded Universe, and the best way I see to do this is by arranging cards by their Light/Dark affiliation rather than faction. So for example, a Jedi would be Light; an Imperial Officer would be Dark; and a Clone Trooper would be Neutral (because they serve both "sides" in the Star Wars timeline).

But the deeper and deeper you get into the EU, the more grey allegiances become, especially when it comes to the Empire. I still think a more factions-based approach, like Warhammer or Game of Thrones, would work the best. That way you can focus on the distinct flavor of each group and allow for some cross-play between the factions (maybe).

I don't see a Star Wars LCG fitting in. They'd probably use movie stills as artwork. I'd rather appreciate original artwork on a Star Wars LCG. If FFG would ever manage that and keep the feel of the movies... Why not?

I don't see why they would use movie stills. I've never seen them use them for any other games. And if you look at the Star Wars Galaxies Online TCG that artwork is freckin kick ass.

I'd also prefer artwork, because then it could tie in the EU and not just be about the movies. Although since they always seem to have problems with how to handle "prize support" for their LCGs, photo versions of regular cards would be fine with me. You wouldn't need them to play, but they would be desirable.

Somebody does have the rights to do a Star Wars card game. It's just that nobody is admitting who it is.

Who was it that had it last? Wizkids with Pocketmodels? I'm hoping that if it does wind up in someone elses hands it will either be FFG or AEG. Although It kind of makes me wonder if the SW Galaxies Trading Card Game might be it for now. It actually isn't a bad game, but I prefer my card games to be in person.

It was Wizards of the coast who had it last.

If a LCG is based upon a TV and/or movie property then they should use stills from it and not use their own artwork.

The_Big_Show said:

But Star Wars has so much more to the property than just the movies now, and tapping into that Expanded Universe would be essential to a game's longevity. Using movie stills wouldn't be enough to represent the wide variety of characters, events, etc. that come up in the Star Wars Universe. A restriction to stills would be a detriment.

In fact, this kind of happened with Decipher's Lord of the Rings game (which was fantastic). They used movie stills while the movies were popular, but then when they wanted to portray characters from the books (but who weren't featured in the films) they had to use "random elf #2" from a background shot to stand in for important characters. It was great to get the characters in the game, but it was still a little silly when he was given a blurry shot or the face of someone who never even talked.

Decipher did it fine with the Star Wars CCG back in the day. If they needed to make a character from the books that had never appeared they hired a model, photoshopped and it worked fine. I can't see it being a problem with FFG either.