The most important part of the game is making them feel immersed. Arkham Horror is popular because it captures the feel of the Mythos.

Star Wars is about good vs evil, Jedi vs Sith, the Rebellion vs the Empire. This means there must be 2 sides, as shown in pretty much every game made about star wars. Either the game is co-op vs the empire, or it is competitive with 2 different sides as shown with the original TCG, the LCG, Imperial Assault, X-Wing, Armada, Legions, and Destiny. You can't have a co-op game of Star Wars where Luke Skywalker teams up with Vader to defeat an Imperial Officer.

Now you could theoretically have 2 separate scenarios, but that is basically 2 separate games in one, which is inefficient and makes no sense. You could have both factions face the same scenarios, but that means the scenarios have to work for both sides, which seriously limits design space. You can't have Vader fight Vader. You could create scenarios that you modify, but that still is limitting and basically means each scenario is 50% or larger than in other co-ops to allow for different sides.

People don't want to be random Bounty Hunters, most of whom worked for the Empire against the Rebellion, they want to be iconic characters from the story. There is a reason FFG uses named characters common to all their games, it creates familiarity and investment. It's why you don't play as random Gondorian Spearman in LotR.

The game has limits in resources, and in what they can do. Making both factions playable makes no sense, and would make the game unworkable.

The best option is to make it Rebel only, and the Empire is the scenarios.

This is criticism that I can work with.

"Either the game is co-op vs the empire, or it is competitive with 2 different sides as shown with the original TCG, the LCG, Imperial Assault, X-Wing, Armada, Legions, and Destiny."

It sounds like your contention is that nobody would play co-op Imperials versus the Rebellion. Am I correct? That's a value judgment. The Star Wars MMO (SW:TOR?) had TONS of players who chose to play co-op versus the Rebel via the PvE quests. In terms of the other games you mention...

• Original TCG - Never played it, so can't comment.
• The LCG - This game requires light side versus dark side, but also requires you to play as both. It's definitely a purely competitive game with a dark versus light requriement. This one fully backs up your point, with the caveat that Scum are treated as Dark Side and not as a third faction as with Imperial Assault skirmish and X-Wing.
• Imperial Assault - This game has multiple play modes. The campaign and app based modes allow only for Imperials/Scum versus Rebels/Scum. The skirmish version allows Vader to fight Vader or Luke to fight Luke. The skirmish version has ZERO requirement for two opposing factions.
• X-Wing - Imperials versus Imperials, Rebels versus Rebels, Scum versus Scum or any combination thereof. There is ZERO requirement for two opposing factions.
• Armada - Imperial versus Imperials, Rebels versus Rebels or any combination thereof. There is ZERO requirement for two opposing factions.
• Legion - Imperials versus Imperials, Rebels versus Rebels or any combination thereof. There is ZERO requirement for two opposing factions.
• Destiny - Dark Side versus Dark Side, Light Side versus Light Side or any combination thereof. I think you can even build fully neutral decks now, but I'm not sure if they're tournament legal. There is ZERO requirement for two opposing factions.

Imperial Assault, X-Wing, Armada, Legion and Destiny all allow for two opposing players to control Imperials with Vader fighting Vader. All are commercially successful. I do agree that a game with Luke teaming up with Vader would be a hard sell... I mean... you can do it in Destiny, but it's Anakin before he turns. My agreement is why I never once said that you'd have Luke teaming up with Vader. You'd either have all "Light Side" heroes or all "Dark Side" heroes, with some being neutral. All players would either have to pick Dark/Neutral or Light/Neutral. No Dark/Light combinations.

"Now you could theoretically have 2 separate scenarios, but that is basically 2 separate games in one, which is inefficient and makes no sense."

Agreed... which is why I never proposed this. We agree that this is silly. I mean... I'd buy both. More narrative coop Star Wars sounds great!

"You could have both factions face the same scenarios, but that means the scenarios have to work for both sides, which seriously limits design space."

Again, agreed. My proposal was for a third option... two separate scenarios that share many design elements, allowing them to share the majority of the scenario cards. To use Arkham Horror LCG as an example, you could completely change the narrative aspect of a scenario by swapping out the Act and Agenda cards (typically about 4-5 cards or so) and maybe a few of the encounter sets. What I'm proposing is the same. By having Dark and Light Side Act/Agenda cards and swapping the 5 card "Stormtrooper" encounter set for a 5 card "Rebel Trooper" encounter set, you have two different scenarios catering to two different factions. You'd need to change out a small percentage of the overall cards.

"You can't have Vader fight Vader."

100% agreed. I've consistently said that a coop Star Wars game would need to use generic characters. Imperial Assault coop uses exclusively generic characters and it works fine. You wouldn't play as Luke or Vader. You'd play Johnny McX-WingDude and Mopey McLightningHands. This allows for the well known characters to show up as allies and villains in the game. With Arkham Horror, you play exclusively as the well known characters, who due the nature of the setting, would never be antagonists. In Star Wars, everyone is an antagonist... from a certain point of view.

"You could create scenarios that you modify, but that still is limitting and basically means each scenario is 50% or larger than in other co-ops to allow for different sides."

I don't see any reason you'd need to increase the number of cards so dramatically. The narrative in Arkham Horror LCG is driven largely by 4-5 cards and a couple of paragraphs in the accompanying rules pamphlet for any given scenario. The encounter deck is built by combining a series of reusable encounter sets. I'd expect the same from a Star Wars version, with dual faction support simply requiring a second set of narrative cards (4-5 per scenario), another page of text in the rules pamphlet and maybe a few extra encounter sets. Does this limit your scenario options? Maybe a little, but I truly believe any limitations could be easily overcome with creative game design. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, Blizzard does this sort of thing all the time in World of Warcraft.

"People don't want to be random Bounty Hunters, most of whom worked for the Empire against the Rebellion, they want to be iconic characters from the story."

Imperial Assault works just fine with generic characters. I would argue that while people want to see Luke and Vader, they tend to be OK with them showing up as story elements and not as playable characters. I'm sure there are others who think Imperial Assault is the worst thing in the world and an insult to Star Wars fans since you can't play as Luke.

"There is a reason FFG uses named characters common to all their games, it creates familiarity and investment. It's why you don't play as random Gondorian Spearman in LotR."

You can literally include a Gondorian Spearman in your deck when playing LotR. I've played a decent amount of LotR LCG. The Heroes start on the board and the game is over when they die, but they're really just more durable, more important Allies. LotR is fun, but I don't find it to be nearly as immersive as Arkham Horror, where you're definitely playing as a specific individual.

http://www.cardgamedb.com/index.php/lotr/lord-of-the-rings-card-spoiler/_/core/gondorian-spearman-core

"The game has limits in resources, and in what they can do. Making both factions playable makes no sense, and would make the game unworkable."

Assuming we're sticking to cards only in the game box, the game would be limited only by the creativity of the design team. You say that having support for two factions makes no sense. Why? Lots of people like playing as the 'bad guys'. Adding multi-faction support potentially expands the player base. You say that the game would be unworkable, but provide only limited reasons which I've tried to address. World of Warcraft is a rich and immersive world where it's possible to avoid PvP entirely and experience the same story lines from opposing faction viewpoints. The concept is sound and proven. It's the actual mechanics you'd need to hammer out.

"The best option is to make it Rebel only, and the Empire is the scenarios."

Best for who and why? I would agree that if you limit yourself to a single faction, choosing the Rebels as the player side would make it the most appealing to the average player. I don't agree the limiting yourself to a single faction is necessarily the best option.

To be clear, I think that if we do see a coop Star Wars LCG, it'll be Rebel players versus Scum/Imperial scenarios. I just happen to think dual faction support isn't a crazy idea.

I'm stirring the pot? I'm not the one who came back and necroposted on a thread that had been idle for almost three weeks just to attack someone who criticized me.

I have nothing to add to this conversation, positively or negatively. I think designing imaginary cards for games that actually exist is a waste of time, and designing entire imaginary games that someone else might create is pure masturbation. I couldn't possibly care less. I neither encourage nor discourage such vacuous wastes of time. You do you, man.

But that said, you haven't done anything to state how the criticisms leveled at your ideas aren't valid. Just because some criticisms are broadly worded doesn't mean you get to just handwave them away, which is all you've done. I'm not about to start participating in your onanism, it just irks me when I see people responding to criticism by making personal attacks instead of actually addressing what others are saying.

anyway, I'm done here.

6 hours ago, Grimwalker said:

I'm stirring the pot? I'm not the one who came back and necroposted on a thread that had been idle for almost three weeks just to attack someone who criticized me.

I have nothing to add to this conversation, positively or negatively. I think designing imaginary cards for games that actually exist is a waste of time, and designing entire imaginary games that someone else might create is pure masturbation. I couldn't possibly care less. I neither encourage nor discourage such vacuous wastes of time. You do you, man.

But that said, you haven't done anything to state how the criticisms leveled at your ideas aren't valid. Just because some criticisms are broadly worded doesn't mean you get to just handwave them away, which is all you've done. I'm not about to start participating in your onanism, it just irks me when I see people responding to criticism by making personal attacks instead of actually addressing what others are saying.

anyway, I'm done here.

"It irks me when I see people responding to criticism by making personal attack", he says, in the same post in which he calls my posts "pure masturbation" and "vacuous wastes of time". Were you criticizing me, or making personal attacks? It's so hard to tell these days.

The one point on which we agree is that you have nothing to add to this conversation.

This discussion is like beating a dead horse....

Obviously, the only SWLCG Co-op design that could ever work involves playing as Jawas seeking to get the best salvage possible while evading Tusken Raiders and surviving Tatooine's harsh conditions.

57 minutes ago, qwertyuiop said:

This discussion is like beating a dead horse....

Obviously, the only SWLCG Co-op design that could ever work involves playing as Jawas seeking to get the best salvage possible while evading Tusken Raiders and surviving Tatooine's harsh conditions.

I would play that game.

11 minutes ago, KrisWall said:

I would play that game.

So would I.

I've already put in my brief two cents about why I don't want a Star Wars Co-op LCG (like the original LCG idea), but I'd be into something scaled down. Something modeled more after the AHLCG with a RPG style narrative.

1 hour ago, qwertyuiop said:

So would I.

I've already put in my brief two cents about why I don't want a Star Wars Co-op LCG (like the original LCG idea), but I'd be into something scaled down. Something modeled more after the AHLCG with a RPG style narrative.

Tend to agree. I'd play a straight re-skin of Arkham Horror with Star Wars card names and art. The thing I dislike most about the LotR LCG is that I don't get the same feeling that I'm the "hero" and my deck is full of my abilities, gear and allies. Arkham Horror LCG does a good job of that.

I would love to play an Arkham Horror like Star Wars LCG. I would be in 100% from launch.

As for playing with nameless rebels and imperials, I’m 100% fine with that. Create new heroes on missions to spy, slice, steal data, and even fight and escape all with a similar encounter card and threat token mechanics!

The popular and critical acclaim that AHLCG has received + SWLCG going away, makes a co-op SWLCG a safe bet. I think there's definitely a market to sustain Destiny and a co-op SW card game.

But there's problems with a co-op SW lcg from a marketing standpoint. What can they call it? Star Wars the Card Game? That'd be confusing. They can't even call it a 2nd edition, because it'd be unrecognisable from the first.

I'd like to see a separate game that isn't an lcg, with less frequent product releases. Something like "Star Wars: the Adventure Card Game" - inspired by Elder Sign and Warhammer Quest Adventure Card Game. Mainly card based, but chuck some imperial assault style dice in there

On 3/27/2018 at 8:32 AM, jonboyjon1990 said:

The popular and critical acclaim that AHLCG has received + SWLCG going away, makes a co-op SWLCG a safe bet. I think there's definitely a market to sustain Destiny and a co-op SW card game.

But there's problems with a co-op SW lcg from a marketing standpoint. What can they call it? Star Wars the Card Game? That'd be confusing. They can't even call it a 2nd edition, because it'd be unrecognisable from the first.

I'd like to see a separate game that isn't an lcg, with less frequent product releases. Something like "Star Wars: the Adventure Card Game" - inspired by Elder Sign and Warhammer Quest Adventure Card Game. Mainly card based, but chuck some imperial assault style dice in there

They could call it literally anything.

• Star Wars: Rebel Cell
• Star Wars: Fight the Empire
• Star Wars: Conquest
• Star Wars: Loth-Cat Squadron
• Star Wars: The Card Game 2, Electric Boogaloo

Naming the game is a very small issue. I think dice would actually work as a randomization method. You could just use Stars Wars RPG style dice and have opposed roles for the various skill and combat checks that would happen.