Would love both, but as a choice definitely PvP. Wouldn't bother if it was just Co-op. The nature of SW is all about competition for me, love the tournament/competitive playing environment as well.

Pvp, if you want to play a co-op game go buy lord of the rings cards lol. This has no business being co-op

Pvp

Co-ops are stupid, make some friends losers....

that was a joke

Edit:

BUT WHAT ISNT A JOKE IS HOW WHEN THIS IS RELEASED YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO BUY THREE CORE SETS!! AMIRITE PEOPLE!!??!! ..lol

Hastur403 said:

For me, the Solo play was the most exciting thing about the original announcement. I've collected the Decipher CCG for years (made a huge buy last year, in fact). I love the gameplay. It is probably the most perfect and complete card game ever, right out of the gate all the way through the Death Star II expansion. The only problem? I know absolutely no one who plays. And playing a two handed PvP game solo is not very interesting (and I've played dozens of games that way to test deck strategies [and just to be able to play]). There are literally no players in my area. I've probably spent at least $600 or $700 over the years on a card game that no one wants to play (except my brother, who now lives in Thailand). So, I was really looking forward to a Star Wars card game I could play by myself.

So, it would have had MY business being co-op.

I will only be buying it, if its co-op

Co-op 36- PvP 32

spirit said:

I'm not sure how you got that number, Spirit. I'm at 32 coop, 31 pvp. Obviously I miscounted previously. I didn't count Sorty's post because it didn't take a stand and Shub-Nigurath voted twice, I think. There was also a double-post in there I omitted.

I don't care as long as it's possible to play the Empire. Unfortunately, this presumably means it has to be PvP.

If it is PvP, they should definitely use this as an opportunity to implement an assymmetrical gameplay, similar to NetRunner:

Empire == Corp

Rebels == Runner

That would also circumvent the potential problem of the game being too similar to AGoT, CoC, and WH:I.

Budgernaut said:

I've just been counting people who've expressed one way or another. If they've voted twice that's their fault lol I'm not looking at names. Just the vote since the previous tally. *sigh*

spirit said:

Well, no big deal. We'll just keep it going to the best of our abilities.

PvP. I'm not interested in a co-op game at all.

I would really prefer a co-operative Star-Wars Card game.

Brownmantle

Definitely PvP - why? Same reason as all old-school Decipher Star Wars CCG players would say - bring on the Dark Side!!

And if it would work it would finally close the hollow gap that I've been feeling after Decipher closed the CCG. I have no privelage to be living in America, where there are still tournaments being held, so I stopped playing SW:CCG the moment it went dead.

So again: PvP!!

Or even better to do something new. Coop with the opportunity to do PvP in later instalments.

I was really excited about this if it was co-op. Now I'm not sure if I'll be buying it at all if it's yet another pvp game.

V for Vendetta said:

+1 on the PvP

I would like to see FFG doing to SW what they did in AGOT, just grabbing Deciphers' CCG, polish it and sell it in a LCG format. PROFIT!

PVP for certain.

Lord of the Rings works as a Co-Op game because it fits the setting so well. It is about a group of friends or allies working together to save the world. No one wants to play Orc extra #23. They want to play Aragorn or Frodo etc. The game works because you QUEST together to defeat the evils of the world. Also once you figure how to beat a scenario its beaten. And the game comes apart at more than 2 players, its too easy. Granted I have not bought the chapter packs but I imagine its the same.

Star Wars on the other hand is an entirely different beast. Yes the story is good vs evil, but the evil has Character. Vader, Maul and the Emperor and countless others are fan favourites. I wasnt a fan of Deciphers CCG but I liked Jedi Knights and I played a Vader deck. Why► Because Vader is my favourite character ever. It would be hard to find some one who says Sauron or Grishnak is there favourite character from all works of fiction. Same for Wizards SWTCG, I ran Vader decks with Stormtroopers and Tie fighters because I love Vader and the Empire.

Some people like Han as their favourite character. Fine, more power to them, let them make Han/Smuggler/Rebel decks. But do not deny those of us who love the Empire the chance to play them. I would buy every product they made for the SW LCG (If it is good). Because I would love to run a Rebel deck as well. Jedi Luke kicks ass, and I would love the chance to fight Vader vs Luke.

PVP makes players change their decks to deal with new cards and mechanics, it makes us strive to make better decks, use new cards. So that we can beat our friends and rivals (with a sense of good sportsmanship and fun between friends). This is what drives a card game of this nature. This is why neither myself nor my friends have bought any more LotR. There is no motivation to keep going, granted it is a good beer and pretzels game, but nothing more. Whereas PVP makes us WANT to better our decks, either by buying more cards (wink at FFG) or by playing more to see the flaws in our decks and play style.

Think if FFG roughly based it on the WH LCG with FACTIONS instead of the tired old Light/Dark dynamic. Start with Rebels and Imperials. Expand with Republic and Separartists. Basing the entire game on the original trilogy is foolish. Sure some people hate the prequels, but most can find something in there that they like. In the future they could even do Old Republic and Sith Empire. BAM! 6 factions, 7 if they decide to have a neutral card pool.

This is what will drive a thriving SW LCG enviroment. No one goes to tournaments to group together to beat an automated Bad Guy #7. They go there to compete and prove their skill against other players.

In closing a few more comments.

ART- 100% art and not movie stills. Firstly this opens up anything not in the films. Secondly, I want to see cool new art for Star Wars. I cant see why anyone would want movie stills on their cards from snapshots of films they have seen 100 times. I loved the art they released last year. Ackbar and Han were awesome.

Factions- Yes, I briefly commented on this, but I would like to emphasise it. This would make the game. FFG could make each faction have their own playstyle like the colours in Magic. Perhaps there could even be cards that work for more than one faction. Not neutral, but Empire and Sith for example.

FFG. If you make the game PVP you will have one massively loyal customer in myself.

Jivewookiee

EDIT.

Yes there are other PVP SW games out there, but from reading this thread the chance of getting a game is slim. FFG make good LCG''s, the fact that there was a SW PVP game 8 years ago does not change the fact that this should be a PVP game. How many of you with SWCCG, Jedi Knight, Young Jedi or SWTCG cards play them with any frequency► Much less get to play them at a tournament level.

And the whole Co-Op play by myself factor seems mad to me. I want to play with friends. Not sit there by myself trying to beat an automated deck.

I apologise to the OP for posting again, but there does not seem to be an edit function

Jivewookiee said:

Co-op and solo aren''t the same thing.

@Jivewookie

There are plenty of evil "named" characters in the Lord of the Rings. To put it on the other foot … how many people want to play "Imperial Stormtrooper #38"►

Just FYI: Actually, LoTR can play very well with 4 players. Yes, some quests are easier than others. It depends a lot the player decks, the players themselves, and the quest. Newer expansion quests do tend to have different challenges and a higher difficulty. Also, if you are finding the game too easy, you can play it using the "nightmare" rules and run through multiple quests as a single story, which ramps up the difficulty pretty well too.

Again, while I can understand and agree that a PvP Star Wars game would work well … I think a co-op game would work just as well. Star Wars is conceptually/thematically more similar to LoTR than it is to the PvP LCGs (like Warhammer Invasion). A small group of "heroes" (Fellowship/Rebels) fights against the more powerful and numerous evil enemy (Mordor-Isengard/Empire).

IMO, both LoTR and SW *can* be made into a good PvP LCG. LoTR has quite a few factions on both sides, for example, that could make great decks. I played in a Middle Earth PBEM game years ago, where there were player positions for good, neutral, and evil.

That said, I think a lot of people are hoping the game remains truer to the movies, which means a co-op experience/game. Besides, there are plenty of PvP LCGs. Those of us who perfer co-op would like a second co-op LCG to buy and play.

Well PVP has finally passed up Co-op for the first time, according to my reckoning.

Jivewookiee said:

I disagree with you on this point. The Star Wars Films and the Prequel Flicks were separated by a good 20 years (chronologically). I can suspend my disbelief when you have Red Leader from the First Death Star run fighting at the second Death Star, but I can''''t do the same for a podracer taking on an AT-ST on Dagobah. I can take a span of 6 or so years and not have anachronisms bother me, but elements of Episode I mixed with elements of Episode VI (which are 30+ years apart) just irks me. They are two separate universes in my mind, simply because of the years separating them.

herozeromes said:

The rules could restrict you to playing a single faction (Rebellion, Empire, etc.) so that this would not be a problem. For this to be "THE" Star Wars game, there needs to be the potential for multi-era expansion in the future.

I prefer PvP over Co-op.

MarthWMaster said:

Yeah, but that gets dicey because of the good guy/bad guy issues. The Republic was the force of good, while the Separatists were bad, but the Republic became the Empire while the Rebels essentially become the Separatists. So, let's say that you have to have come to a tournament with one Dark Side deck and one Light Side deck. You bring an Anakin focused Republic Deck with Palpatine as a side character and you have Mon Mothma as a Separatist (because they were rebelling already in RotS) and Yoda (because he eventually faces off against the Republic at the battle of Kashyyk). Then, your opponent brings an Empire Deck with Vader and The Emperor, and a light side deck focused on leadership of the Battle of Endor with Mon Mothma and Yoda as a Jedi Master. There is no way to reconcile all the factions and side changes that occur over the course of the six films. It was complex enough having a Light and Dark Lando in SWCCG. How do you deal with Republic Anakin, Republic but Evil Anakin (killing Sand People), Republic Darth Vader, Imperial Darth Vader, and reformed Darth Vader or Republic Yoda, Republic but fighting Republic Yoda, and Jedi Master Yoda? You really run into major problems trying to reconcile all of the different versions.

Also, you have a ton of light and dark Jedi who have skills that don't fit with the era of no Jedi except 4 or 5 (including Leia). How do you balance the power of 10 Jedi against 10 Stormtroopers? There would be no contest unless they upset the balance with some unnatural mechanic. I think you have to use the 20 year time span as a natural breakwater between two eras. Episodes 1-3 were the era of the Jedi Order and force power battles and Republic government machinations. 4-6 were about pilot skill and good markmanship under the oppressive rule of a rather monolithic regime.

Why necessary light and dark side. We speak about faction not a side of the force…

So i think you have very restricted view on this point. If you refer to the story, Aragorn can't die, but i lost him in a LotR game, so LotR LCG is a bad game.

MarthWMaster said that Mon Mothma can be a rebel or a republic character ( or both)
Supreme Chancelor palpatine can be a republic character and Emperor Palpatine can be a Empire character.
Boba can be a neutral character, more you pay, more he is your friend.
There is so many game when all player can have the same caracter (WH:I for exemple), so what's the problem?