It really seems like they could have made both co-op and head-to-head play possible with the same components. There are lots of games that basically have two decks (intermixed or not) where one deck is just missions/baddies for your opponent's good guys to fight. This would also be a type of game that isn't represented in FFG's current stable of LCGs, so it seems like it would have been a good fit.

Anything with the SW logo is going to move plenty of cardboard, but I really wonder if they didn't pass up a major cash cow by not including a competitive play option. Decipher's SWCCG was HORRIBLE for the first several years of its existence, and there were tons of players and tournaments to be found.

Narsil0420 said:

Narsil0420 said:

Narsil0420 said:

There's gotta be room for both! As long as they stay on the stick with getting expansions out and have a somewhat innovative way to present the turn structure and resource generation, I'm sold.

Edit.... OK, how about I post the crap out of that quote....

Most of the really cool/interesting characters are Dark Side.

I mean, who DOESN'T want to run a deck full of bounty hunters?

Xenu's Paradox said:

In the movies, anyway. In the expanded universe, the Light Side has got heavy-hitters of its own!

MarthWMaster said:

The scenarios lack replayability the way the game is designed. One new scenario a month at 15 bucks a pack is not enough to keep my interest. I have beat all the core set scenarios a few times each. After that the excitement is gone from them. This game looks like it just reusing the same mechanics so will have the exact same problem. I would rather this be competitive like AGoT which I love to death.

I think people are jumping to conclusions by saying it is a LotR clone. It's a co-op LCG. Not every competitive LCG is a clone of the other. The four different zones of play alone should be enough to alert the skeptic that this is not the same game with a different coat of paint, and we know nothing of how the AI works, how missions are completed, how combat works, or what kind of resource system the game uses. It also seems to take a cue from Death Angel with event cards that one player must resolve without discussion. A thorough read of the description page did a lot to shake away my doubts.

It sounds like this game may have a more involved system, and it has the better universe, so I am pretty excited and hope to replace Lord of the Rings with Star Wars. I wouldn't object to a single-deck or deck-building Star Wars game for competitive play, but this is a great start. And who knows, with luck they could pull a Ghost Stories and make an expansion that adds an Imperial Player to make the missions harder, though in my experience, there's no such thing as luck.

Katagena said:

If like me, you prefer dual LCG, sign in

Utter. Disappointment. Co-op. Is. Fail.

MarthWMaster said:

Actually they have already stated there will be Demos at Gencon. I'll do my best to post any info they'll allow me to Friday if I can get a demo.

Couldn't agree more. Decipher's SW:CCG is an awesome game that will never get old.

I'm am extremely excited to try something new, and to have a chance to play solo. Getting older and starting a family does not really afford me the time to hang out with friends or play tournaments in games stores that last for hours.

I'm looking forward to this co-op very much. People who are already disappointed because they think LOTR is no fun shouldn't be so quick to judge. LOTR is still in it's infancy. How many games do you know of that are way better after their 10th year in print than they were after their first 3 months in print? I'd say, "all of them." There are a million and one head-to-head games. LOTR:LC is the first strategy style co-op game I've ever played. Hooray for something unique, fresh, and fun.

Perhaps there will be expansions or another core set in the future that will allow for dark-side decks

Shub-Niggurath said:

Whoops, my above post was in response to this quote. Sorry!

Vase said:

Honestly I think the LotR game could support a 2nd pvp game mode. If Star Wars is anything like it imagine they release an imperial version of the co-op game. I would think it would be easy enough at that point to make a pvp alternate version of the game.

Coop is fine as long as playing Empire is still an option (e.g. via an alternative edition). Would hate not to be able to lead an Imperial Walker into battle. But the announcements also talks about 'other card games', so perhaps there will be a separate Player vs Player game?

I suppose an Imperial version of the game would have opposite goals from the Rebel version. Instead of working against a time limit, you're trying to defend whatever mission objectives the Rebel fanatics hope to accomplish until their time has run out...and their planet explodes in a haze of space dust. That way, your superior might doesn't end up making the game too easy.

I mean, when you're playing the Empire, it really has to feel like you've got the Rebels on the ropes, and just need to deliver the final, crushing blow.

For me, made this game co-op is strange. In LotR in difficultly see a competitive envoirment, and that gives a card game a lot of live. Without that envoirement, is difficult to be more than a evening game to play with some buddies... with the core, no with expansions.

I, too would have preferred to see a Star Wars LCG that was more like the Netrunner CCG of old. It's such an obviously similar theme, and Netrunner was imho one of the best CCGs to ever come out.

But I'm open to give the Star Wars cooperative LCG a try before dooming it. Maybe it plays like a cooperative version of Netrunner...

However: Being able to play both sides would have been _so_ much better!

And no, I don't think creating a second LCG in which you play the Imperium against the Rebels will do the trick. There's only so many LCGs I'm willing to invest in, and if they're too similar in mechanics _or_ theme, I'll pass.

In LotR there is not "bad guy" who is more popular than the good guys. In SW "bad guys" overwhelm good guys in popularity. That's a point that makes me skeptic.

Cooperative? Nooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

Always look on the bride side: I will not buy this.

jhaelen said:

Word.

It would have been expensive as hell to make due to licensing the mechanics, but it would have been great, absolutely no doubt about that.

A truly worthy card game that would be considered compulsory by many simply because it was great for many reasons not just great because of the license.

Netrunner truly is one of the best if not the best card games ever made. Thanks Richard Garfield.

Netrunner IS the best card game ever made. After all these years i still play it.

MarthWMaster said:

I like your altitude! Totally sympathize.

+1 in favour of a cooperative game. Looking forward to giving it a try!

Darksbane said:

Wandering Took for the win?

qwertyuiop said:

Certanly some cards in a format like this could cause issues.

I'm thinking more along the lines of 1 or more player still plays a hero deck and another player plays a new player controlled encounter deck. Obviously many rules would have to be adjusted and added to account for the player controlled encounter deck but I think it could be done.

Have to agree, very disappointed its a co-op game, but i think i will give it a shot regardless.

LOTR is already stagnant, got bored waiting for even the first chapter pack, which at best will provide only one or two more scenarios.

If FFG learn anything for co-op games, please, please PLEASE allow for random and/or custom scenario generation to increase the longevity of the base games.

We'll still buy the chapter packs, you don't need to restrain us by saying for more missions we need to buy more cards.

Still hoping for that stormtrooper rush deck

I too am disappointed by the Co-Op card game. I will still give it a whirl though. How would tournaments even work?

I hold out a strong hope that this is just one game, and another, versus-type, game is in the future. Maybe a 1-1, ala Highlander or Raw Deal? Like, Luke vs Darth Maul, Han vs count Dooku? Vader vs Maul....

I find the co-op prospect intriguing but wouldn't consider buying it before having seen feedback based on extensive play.

Alex