Yes, this aspect is mostly disappointing and I'm really hopeul the volume of feedback prompts FFG to develop the game into a competitive mode, if not for the initial release then soon after. It looks like the game could have plenty of depth, but us old timers are still looking for that competitive aspect – people still travel across the country to play in tournaments for the Decipher game that was published between 1995-2001. I always loved being able to put a deck together based on the current meta (both local and global) and compete in tournaments against others, learning their playing style from deck build or past matcups. If it was possible to practice and test my deckbuilding skills solo, or even co-op with a friend in preparation for a team tournament that would be amazing and I hope they can build this in and soon. Maybe it requires a slightly different deck build, or adjusted rules to play solo/co-op compared to 1v1/teamvteam but I think it's well worth it. I like the concept - I just think it should be possible to do competitive play as well and that this would offer much more lasting appeal.

I am new to the LCG concept and am partial to this game being economically intelligent and taking away a lot of the investment…it’s thrilling to open up a booster pack and get an elusive rare, it’s not thrilling to know you need to get 3 more of that rare to build the best deck…maybe in 1999 it was, but the market has changed dramatically. Even the sentiment others have about possibly needing two or three of the core set to build the "best" decks is considerably less than the 3+ booster boxes and 2+ starters other games have required.

Looking forward to this game, and I think it can be great. Having played SWCCG, Young Jedi, Jedi Knights, and SWTCG, it seems to address all the major issues the other games struggled with - just hope they can introduce competitive play as well as solo and co-op.

I love the fact that it's co-op. I love the fact that it's the Rebels going up against the mighty Empire and I'm very much looking forward to this game.

I do wish people would stop harping on about the decipher model though. It's not going to happen. It doesn't need to happen, There are a ton of cards out there for the decipher model and still a very strong and supported online community.

FFG are doing something fresh here that hasn't been done in a Star Wars card game yet, so lets sit back and enjoy a brand new game from a company that knows exactly how to do it.

After the snafu that is LotR the card game I don't have your faith in the co-op game type. But hopefully time and the rules will prove me wrong.

+1 Co-op.

If you're disappointed don't worry too much about that. FFG did not want the license to make 1 card game, 1 minis game and 1 RPG. I imagine there will be more Star Wars products including a competitive game. It wouldn't surprise me if they make another co-op LCG for the Empire that you can somehow combine to make it a compettiive game against the rebels.

sepayne7l said:

It would be an utterly terrible business decision to create a second Star Wars LCG, especially if it's just a re-skin of another game they already publish. If they ever did make the Empire playable it would most likely be through an addition to the rules and a large expansion. If they do make a SW card game for the Empire it will most likely be a standalone game.

Yes, I could see them creating a completely different, possibly standalone pvp card game for SW, but I agree that making a Dark Side version of the same coop game would be a terrible idea. As Kiwina said, possibly they'd rework the rules for an expansion or something.

I'm really happy that it is a cooperative game. I know a lot of people will compare this to Decipher's game. But if that is the case, why not just keep on playing Decipher's Star Wars CCG? Having this not be PvP will be a nice spin.

PadmeSkywalker said:

I...agree. In fact I'm surprised this point hasn't been brought up yet (AFAIK).

MarthWMaster said:

I'm pretty sure it has. Somewhere in this forum. There are several threads commenting on the decision to make the game co-op. I'm just too lazy to find the post.

PadmeSkywalker said:

Decipher's Star Wars game has been out of print for over a decade. You can't go to the local game shop and buy a few packs before you play in the weekly tournament. Because stores don't have the cards, and there aren't many tournaments (certainly not local ones either). According to the official website my state hasn't had a tournament in over two months.

Cards that have been out of print for over a decade are generally hard to find and therefore expensive. Reflections 2 runs at ~$240 a box, and is far from the hardest set to find. Granted there are several early sets that are readily available, but prices are no lower than any current card game. Also, most of a modern competitive deck will come from the rarer and more expensive sets.

The "new" cards are fan made and are released sporadically in small bunches. 11 years has produced ~1000 cards. An LCG would have put out that many new cards in under 4 years.

TLDR: The old Decipher Star Wars game isn't a viable option for most people, and really can't compete with a fully supported card game.

-----------

A purely cooperative lcg/tcg/ccg just does not seem like a good idea. Couldn't a board game or stand alone card game produce the same results?

Meanwhile, this approach sacrifices many of the great things about these games. How can there be tournaments? How can there be draft or sealed play? How can there be a constantly evolving meta game? What would you do if your lgs has a Star Wars LCG night? Pair off and play against the same "AI" you've played against every game ever? YAWN, don't sign me up. There will always be a fixed array of strategies the "AI" can run against you.

Also, "PvP" card games can support cooperative play. MtG has many cooperative formats like Two Headed Giant and Emperor, and even tournaments for them. Admittedly such tournaments are rare, but if FFG wanted a cooperative game they could make it the main tournament format

Why needlessly give up so much (especially getting to play as Dark Side!) for a rather limited "AI" opponent?

Scolec, you just sound like you're winging now.

No you can't get sealed deck tournaments. Ho-hum I guess I'll just have to deal with that but seeing as both AGoT and CoC seem to manage happily without those I guess it'll manage. Who knows how a tournament scene will work. It's early days and I wouldn't count the chickens just yet.

It's Co-op. And? I suspect a lot of the disgruntlement about this is only because the previous LCG was Co-op as well and there is a definite theme of Co-op from FFG at the moment but that said it hasn't ever been done in a Star Wars game before. And this is still only the second *to my knowledge anyway* Co-op collectible card game made so we're finally getting a new type of game that will be fresh to pretty much anyone who plays it. If that's not for you then fine but don't troll the forums of a game you've stated yourself you have no interest in.

I don't want a rehash of the Decipher game. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.

I'd also like to say I can easily see *as I've stated in other threads* this also somewhere down the line having a pvp option and rules.

For draft/sealed play, I think it would be interesting if the slightly lowered average strength of the players' decks was offset by the fact that the Empire deck is also composed of cards drawn during the draft. After opening each pack, you simply remove all non-Rebel cards from the deck. I'm sure FFG could come up with a way to make this work and not get easily stale.

MarthWMaster said:

Can you do draft play with the LCG format? Doesn't seem to fit.

scolex said:

Many of the things you mention are exactly the reason why some people don't like traditional CCGs. You cannot draft or play sealed as every set comes with the same stuff (which is a consequence of it being a Living Card Game, not because it is cooperative). The constantly evolving meta game? Not sure what you mean exactly, but new packs will result in new things in game, while the fact that every "adventure" set will come with all the cards in the set will mean that everyone can keep up, not just those that can afford the time and money to go out and find the required cards to make uber decks. Ok, in a co-op set up uber decks are a bit pointless, but people can easily keep up if they want to, unlike "cardboard crack" of its various forms.

As for AI being fixed: probably not. Yes, you may have the same cards facing you, but the different order they get played in can result in very different games (and if done properly the "AI" will react to your actions, so as you change what you do it will change what it does). At the same time, they are going to be releasing new "adventure" boxes regularly, which will not only include new cards for the players but new cards and set up instructions for the "AI" resulting in different games.

And truthfully I don't think FFG is aiming at the idea of competative tournaments for this. They are probably aiming at the many (probably majority of) gamers (and non-gamers) who almost entirely just play with their mates, or maybe a friendly gaming club.

PWBrian said:

Admittedly, a large part of the thrill of draft derives from the random nature of the CCG format. But they've done cube drafts at the Arkham Nights and Days of Ice and Fire events, in which every card in the game appears once. If you're just playing with friends, I think the best way to make it work would be to have each player purchase a different pack, then randomly shuffle all the cards together and deal four piles of fifteen cards to each player, thereby landing them with the same number of cards they started with. That number would need to be modified due to the existence of Imperial cards, but it should still be manageable. Still, if a bit more setup and headache is the price I have to pay for playing in a Living Card Game world, I can make my peace with that.

borithan said:

Not to speak for scolex but I do see this as being a problem with these types of co-op games and it does make me wonder at the long term viability of the co-op ones in an LCG format.

Using LotR as an example the lack of a metagame has meant the deck construction portion ends up getting old once you get the proper deck built to combat the given scenerio. There is no one to compete against besides a fixed encounter deck run by an AI which doesn't change and so once you've found the deck which has a high win % against the encounter you are playing against that is it. Even with expansion packs every month it is like you are playing the same fairly dumb opponent for that whole time. Part of the draw of these types of games for me is the deck construction and I'm just not feeling it with LotR as much as I'd like.

I think a good way to solve some of the issues I have is with encounter decks which are not set in stone. If somehow in Star Wars you could construct or draft the encounter deck or there were some guidelines for modification of the encounter deck i think it would go along way towards helping replayability in comparison to LotR, plus it would add some unknowns to the game and give you a way to do some deck vs deck construction with other players to see if they can beat your constructed encounter.

spirit said:

Why am I automatically whining or trolling? Because I disagree with your opinion? I was looking forward to an FFG Star Wars game from the moment I heard Wizards was losing the license. I'm simply not excited for the path they seem to be taking. As a fan and customer I can potentially change the direction they take with this game by giving feedback. Why not try? For all I know my worries for the game's path could be incorrect, but I won't know if I don't get involved.

Where do I say I want Decipher's game back? I said I want to be able to play against other people and play as dark side. That is far from wanting the same game. I only brought up Decipher's game because many people were suggesting it as if it were a viable alternative. That was not exactly true, and I felt people should be informed. Sorry if discussing that game caused any confusion as to my intentions.

Where did I express a total lack of interest? Don't put words in my mouth. I said it didn't seem like a good idea for an LCG. If it plays well I will still buy the core as a stand alone game. The LCG core sets have always played well out of the box, and run at a similar price point to stand alone games.

You can play limited without being in a tournament. For example, cube drafts. AGoT and CoC do manage without. However, I think they would be better for having those formats, and I don't think it would be too hard to introduce limited formats to LCGs. Sealed and draft are a ton of fun, even when not opening a single new card.

Tournaments really wouldn't have many ways to work. Who beats the AI quicker or by a wider margin? I read the play summary from GenCon on the forums before I made that post. I hope I'm wrong, but there don't seem to be many options.

No, the LotR LCG has nothing to do with my opinion. I've never played it, or even looked into it. I never really enjoyed the previous LotR card games, and I'm already playing too many card games as is lol.

Co-op may be fresh, but change for the sake of change isn't always good. You can play co-op in most PvP card games without much difficulty. So why give up anything to make a game purely co-op? Just doesn't make sense from my perspective. Co-op and PvP in card games are not mutually exclusive so why force them to be? I'd rather play an opponent who can think, react, and adapt. Whether or not there are other players on my team doesn't change that.

borithan said:

Tournaments, keeping up with the metagame, and limited play aren't forced on anyone as I recall. So what exactly is gained by removing the option? Nothing. Don't cut off your nose to spite your face.

You very well can play draft or sealed. Cube drafts are great fun. I also imagine FFG could find a way to revise the core set packaging to allow for additional forms of limited play. I may be mistaken but I remember W:I having some form of alternative limited play right? Purely cooperative play is a detriment to limited play. Who else will be taking cards from the pool? Your teammates. This removes large elements of the strategy and fun in the format. I won't pick a card purely to stop my teammate from having it, and an AI can't pick cards for itself to begin with.

I never said I wanted "cardboard crack" or booster packs or anything of the sort. I firmly believe that an LCG type format will be the future of card games. The old format can't really compete these days which is why only the few biggest games of that sort have survived. Much like MMORPGs dropping their subscription fees, card games will shed purely randomized packaging. However, we should also try to preserve the few good things the old ways spawned. Such as limited play.

I have severe doubts that an automated AI opponent represented by text on randomized cardboard can be a match for anything close to a competent opponent. Lets say they can magically make it react or adapt. How will they make it bluff? A flesh and blood opponent will always be better. I'm not against the option for an AI opponent, but it need not be the only choice. By making it the only choice nothing is gained and much is lost. I know people are speculating, but it is just baseless speculation. It does not speak for FFG's intentions or what is necessarily possible/worthwhile within the rules. I'm not saying I know more or better, simply that the speculation shouldn't only go in a single direction. One has to consider possible faults and downsides to an idea just as much as beneficial possibilities.

Yes, new cards for the AI opponent will be released. I am well aware of that. However, when they come out you may simply look at them, look at the new player cards, and adapt your deck as needed. The AI will not find a new way to use a card 3 months after it is released, opposing players will. The AI will not show up to a tournament with a strategy you didn't know existed, opposing players will. The AI will not come back to the next game with an improved/new stratgey after you trounce it, opposing players will. This is what I mean by an ever evolving metagame. A player's strategy can't always be predicted, but to be successful against them you will have to try. The AI will never understand what the predominant strategies are and adapt to fight them before the game ever begins. A living breathing opponent will.

scolex said:

Not to mention, only living opponents have the capacity to use the Force. I agree though; as much as I favor the cooperative element, every time I look at this, the more convinced I am that it needs a competitive format available for it to work out in the end. Cooperative vs. the autopilot Imperial deck should be the default method of play, but it should not be the only method. Darth Vader and Boba Fett are two of the most popular figures in the saga, and he's with the Empire. Not to mention, many players want to play as Mara Jade, who remains loyal to the Empire for years after the Emperor's demise.

Boba Fett could easily be on the rebels side. He's a bounty hunter. He works for the highest bidder.

spirit said:

Which is, quite often, the galaxy-spanning Empire that boasts resources sufficient to commission projects like the Death Star and Executor-class starships. The Rebels make do with what they have, but they're consistently portrayed as being on the losing side. I'm sure Boba Fett would have been willing to hand over Solo if they'd been able to offer a high enough price. Then again, it's never good to upset a Hutt...

True, but the point remains. There's no reason the Rebels couldn't have bounty hunters in their decks.

Or you could have the option to play as something other than the rebels, and then make bounty hunters neutral.

Yeah, I had the same thought.