...though there isn't much meat on it. Still, at least they've said something. It'll be interesting to see just how different from the GenCon demo the final product will end up being. I hope it doesn't end up PvP, but the talk of having the greatest gaming experience somehow seems to indicate to me that maybe they're trying to re-tool it to be both. So who knows. For my part, I wonder if they're going to work out how to make it encompass more than just the era of the Classic Trilogy.

Not the news we wanted, but any news at this point is a bonus!

Yes. My concern too is that they'll now retool it as a PVP. I really hope they keep a co-op aspect to it.

I know it's highly unlikely that it'll happen, so I'm not really sure why I'm putting this here, but it would be kinda nice if they had some sort of consultation with the fans for a limited period, what would we like to see out of it, now that they have so much longer with the game. I'm reminded of the thread WotC put up for their minis when they originally cared about their product, "what mini would you like to see?", to try and get us fans more involved. Although I suppose if they did that, the overwhelming response would probably be for PvP, as so many people seem to want to play as the empire, though I can't quite fathom why.

I hope they do keep the co-op aspect to it. Even if they come up with some way to make it both, I hope the co-op way won't feel like an afterthought, just tacked-on in the hope it makes a bit more cash for them. At this point, I'd be elated if they did a simple re-branding job of LotR...

I really hope they keep the co-op nature of the game. I already own 4 different competitive Star Wars card games, I don't need a fifth.

How underwhelming. We kinda gathered that much from the constant push-back of the release date. Of course, now we know that they're trying to make something new. I bet it will be quite a different game from the original idea, which makes me quite sad. I really, really, really hope they maintain the co-op LCG format. I think it could really work for Star Wars. Besides, X-wing is out there for the PvP folks, even if it is a miniatures game rather than a card game. I wonder if they'll get this thing done for the holidays. It's funny that we just started a new year and there's already something to look forward to for Christmas.

EDIT: DId you notice that the Description page now has this news article instead? That tells me it's gonna be totally revamped.

Stenun said:

Second. Honestly, the co-op play of LoTR has made it one of the games I consistently play. Yes, this is mainly because I don't have any friends that are into LCG-type games (I buy most games in my game group), but because I can play solo, I find I'm playing the heck out of LoTR. Call of Cthulu LCG, though, has been set aside. Indeed, I stopped buying cards a while ago precisely for this reason. I think if SW switched to competitive, I would be less inclined to buy it.

I actually enjoyed the game that was demoed at Gencon! Definitely not a very meaty bone they threw us. I do wonder the reason for the redesign. Was this a marketing decision or an actual decision based on game quality. Because honestly, I like the game I played before!

I do hope they keep it co-op or I'm not in. Plenty of good PVP SW card games out there...

If it's true that only a Sith deals in absolutes, then we seem to have a lot of Sith frequenting these boards. This game does not need to be either competitive or cooperative, to the exclusion of the other. It can be both, provided the mechanics are such that they can sustain either setup, and I would argue that if they've reading these boards, which seems logical given the decision to gut the current mechanics wholesale, then they've seen that there are just as many players who are in favor of receiving a cooperative game as there are who oppose it. I'm of the mind that, if they truly want to make this the "best" Star Wars game, one that will please the most players simultaneously, then what they should do is make Star Wars: The Card Game a game you can play one-on-one, or as a group of Rebels facing an automated or player-controlled Imperial opponent. It would certainly be a divergence from the LCGs we already have, especially since such a game's monthly packs would need to support both modes of play, but I think it's perfectly doable.

MarthWMaster said:

This is what I hope for as well, a card game that combines co-op play with the possibility of pvp. I'd also love to see the option to play the Imperials, and see the game eventually encompass the entire EU. Am I disappointed in the delay, well, yes. But if that is what is needed for the LCG to become the best game it can be, I will be watching to see what happens.

Personally I'm not interested in a pairing of playstyles. I would much rather they focused on making it PvP o r co-op so that they can really just nail the aspect of the game they want to go with.

Maybe they can pull it off and produce a game that caters to both types of gameplay equally that doesn't feel forced or just thrown together, and that doesn't result in wasted cards for people who focus on one style of gameplay over the other, but time will tell on that. Will be keeping an eye on it either way.

I find this surprising, considering how many glowing reviews I read about this after GenCon, with many people saying they liked this better than the LOTR game (which I love, and which seems to be selling very well). So on one hand, I wouldn't think that they're changing too much about it, if so many people felt very positively about it. Perhaps they are finding a way to add a PvP, and though I would love it to be solo/co-op like LOTR, I would also welcome a PvP version, especially if it is in addition to the solo/co-op.

But as Budgernaut points out, replacing the whole description page with that news article makes it seem like it might be a more significant redesign. I wonder if the system that was in place, though perhaps being great for the initial playtests with a limited set of cards/quests, wasn't designed in a way that would allow for enough long-term expansion.

+1 for co-op. I wanted to fight the Empire with my son!

Grudunza said:

I had the same thought. It could be a contributing factor., but I just don't know enough about LCGs and card games to know how you can write yourself into a corner like that. I don't see why not.

Budgernaut said:

I can only base that statement on the LOTR LCG game, but I give credit to Nate French and whoever else may be working on that for the depth and variety they've been able to add so far. I've been working on some custom expansions for that game, and I find it particularly difficult to come up with some new ideas within that system (as compared to other games I've made custom variants for, like Arkham Horror). Sure, there are still a lot of options and new directions to go, and you can always add new keywords that include some new mechanisms, but I think there comes a point when the framework of the system makes it hard to expand on. For all I know, this delay has absolutely nothing to do with that. It probably doesn't. But it might be a possible answer for why an initial playtest/introduction might go over very well (GenCon) and yet the product as a whole seem lacking. I imagine that for an LCG/CCG line, the prospect of longevity and variety within the system has to be a really important consideration at the outset.

MarthWMaster said:

This could work, but only if you balance it so that you can play solo/co-op against EITHER the Empire or the Rebels and an equal distribution of scenarios and cards for both sides in expansions. That's the only way that there would be enough cards to do PvP and have it be a balanced play experience.

Imagine one scenario card working all three ways.

Solo Rebel against Empire AI deck:

Capture the Death Star Plans and get them safely to the secret base on Yavin 4 in order to find the Death Star's weakness.

Solo Empire against Rebel AI deck:

Capture the rebels who have stolen the Death Star plans or, failing that, track them down and obliterate their secret base.

PvP:

Both players try to finish their scenario first.

That's pretty much what I had in mind, yeah. But of course, it's going to require some inventive game design if this is what they actually decide to aim for.

Big let down that the game won't be around for approximately one more year. But mega props to FFG for making the tough decision to scrap and restart in order to make the best product possible. I would much rather wait a year and have a friggin' gnarly game, than get something now that is just okay.

I was personally pretty enthused about the single player/co-op possibility. But if the best possible game is PvP then I'm fine with that too. The old Decipher game is the best CCG ever, but it's dead. I think my preference would be if FFG makes a single player/co-op game but has two different core sets: one Rebel and one Empire. Then you could choose the one you want and play the XPs accordingly. Probably most everyone, including myself, would pony up the cash for two core sets if that were the case, and there would be more gaming and happiness all around, not to mention FFG would sell more product.

I'll be looking forward to it and I already have something on my Christmas list

I just hope it still has a solo play feature, for I am a lonely man.

Multiple scenarios for co-op and PvP are possible within the same game's framework. Look at the latest Star Trek card game (which I don't care for, but it still seems to work) or even FFG's own Rune Age.

I own all of FFG's LCGs, but the only one that gets any consistent play is the LotR, both because I can whip it out for solo play and because, frankly for me, it's a more interesting and compelling design. The others got boring after a few plays, but this hasn't happened with LotR. And I understand this is a purely personal opinion based on my own interests and play style.

With that in mind, though, I'm really hoping FFG keeps SW as a solo/co-op LCG; otherwise, it's most likely a no-purchase for me as I already have two PvP Star Wars card games which I never play anymore nor can I find anyone else to play them with me. It was the LotR-like solo/co-op aspect that absolutely sold me on and excited me about this product.

I wouldn't mind if it had a well-designed PvP variant, but not if it weakens the design. Trying to please two masters and do two different things at once can weaken the ultimate product to where it doesn't really please anyone.

If people want to play the Empire, and there's a big enough demand, then let FFG design a second LCG that is solo/coop for the Imperials. Then you could have an option for mating the two games together for those who wanted to do that.

I'm thinking, too, why would I want to play the Empire? Wiz-Kids just announced a solitaire-co-op board game for LotR in which players play the Nazguls trying to kill the Hobbits and get the ring. I enjoy their games--Mage Knight is fantastic--but I can't imagine myself buying this new one as I have zero interest in playing a Nazgul. It turns the spirit and adventure of LotR on its head. I think that's true for playing the Empire, too, in SW, which, I know, is just my personal opinion. I completely honor those who would like to do so, it's just not my cup of tea.

DrNate said:

Same here. My wife played Decipher's Star Wars CCG once with me to be nice. I think she never wants to play again. A solo game would be ideal.