See, Warhammer: Invasion is different because - if I understand correctly - there are "light" and "dark" factions so even though you have 6 factions or so, it still comes down to one good player vs. one evil player because you can combine light factions or combine dark factions. I think the Star Wars galaxy is too much of a melting pot to have racial factions, so we can rule that out. What we're left with is multiple eras where two primary factions face off. At most, you could have 3 factions, I think (New Republic, Imperial Remnant, Yuuzhan Vong OR Old Republic, Sith Empire, Mandalorian OR Rebels, Imperials, Hutts), but it really simplifies it to just say "good guys" and "bad guys" or as it is more commonly referred to, "light" and "dark."

I think what MarthWMaster was really saying is that they could produce 4 factions, Rebel, Imperial, Republic, and Separatist, but Rebel decks could only face Imperial decks and Separatist decks could only face Republic decks. I think that's certainly an option, but I don't think it will come to fruition in the end. It's almost like creating, selling, and buying two games in one package, since about 50% of the cards couldn't interact with the other 50%. (I say "about 50%" because I'm sure there would be "dark" and "light" cards that could be used in two different factions.) You could even expand it further by adding a Sith Empire vs. Old Republic era. But my question would be how you would deal with the different eras in a tournament. Would each opponent have to play six games (one with each deck) to see who advances to the next round? That seems exhausting. Or would you only get one shot at each opponent and one opponent picks the era while the other gets to choose the factions? Also, the more factions you add, the more watered down your expansions get. If you're primarily an Imperial player, you may only get 5 new cards in each pack (though I suppose it's not so different from LotR and you run into the same problem with the other LCGs).

Throughout this discussion, I can't stop thinking about the Star Wars Miniatures game from Wizards of the Coast. There were optional rules for era-specific battles, but otherwise you could have Luke Skywalker take down Naga Sadow -- and they really advertised that aspect of the game. It was fun, but I don't want to see the same faction system repeated in this game. I'd like to see something new (a tall order, I know, since so much has already been done).

Budgernaut said:

Well, there are several more than that, if you consider the Expanded Universe, which by no means should be off-limits for FFG to eventually explore with this game. That being said, I don't know what I was thinking with the factional suggestion - factions should be represented with card keywords, nothing more.

So forget what I said above. I actually had a much better idea for how to approach the continuity issue previously, and I think I'll restate it here.

As others have said, you'd have two sides: Light and Dark. But then you would also have an "era symbol" snuck in somewhere on the card, corresponding to the official publishing era symbols. This symbol would create an optional rule to restrict deckbuilding for tournament organizers who elect to use it. Many cards would have no such symbol, representing general concepts that can apply to any Star Wars era, but in the case of cards with such a symbol, a deck could only field one type: Sith, Prequels, Classic, etc.. This would prevent such things as Clones and Ewoks fighting side-by-side when there is an era restriction, while simultaneously allowing it should players agree to dispense with continuity. Technically the Old Republic, and the Republic following the Ruusan Reformation in 1000 BBY, both fall into the same era by this system, but I don't think this matters much. Those who are purist enough to care (such as myself, incidentally) will likely build their decks accordingly, and avoid putting, say, Darth Bane in a deck that also contains Mandalore the Ultimate.

As a sidenote, I don't think the Separatists should be linked to the Rebellion, as the ideals of each are distinctly different. The Separatists wanted nothing more to do with the Republic, whereas the Rebellion's official title is the Alliance to Restore the Rebellion, whose purpose is self-explanatory: to remove the tyrannical regime and restore freedom to the galaxy. As Mon Mothma herself says in a deleted scene of Sith, "We are not Separatists trying to leave the Republic. We are Loyalists, trying to preserve democracy in the Republic."

As long as there will be a possibility to play for the Empire (coop against Rebels), I don't mind either format.

Yes, from the descritpion, the players are the Rebels, however I don't like to be forced to play only for the good side, when you have the potential (even LotR LCG is playable only for the good side and I don't like it).

For me it'd be Solo and Co-op

Jivewookiee said:

Well, I'm pretty lax about this thread now and I'm not updating it, so no worries about your last point.

As for your first point, I never thought I'd say this, but I agree. I've had about half of a year of solo LotR and a month of solo Rune Age and I am dying for some player interaction. At this point I don't care if it's co-op or pvp, I just want lots of interaction between players because that's what really makes it fun. The first times I played LotR were with 2, 3, and 4 players and it was a blast! But as good as the game is, it's interacting with the other players that really makes playing a game fun. I'm getting very bored of solo gaming now (and that includes video games). And while pvp probably means I won't play as often as I'd like (since I don't want beat my wife all the time), it'd still be a nice game to have for when I can find an opponent.

Budgernaut said:

My problem is that I almost always get beat by my wife with SW:CCG, who doesn't even enjoy the game. I always let her play the stronger deck so that she has the better chance, but she hates the game and thinks that it's boring. So, unless there's a solo play option, I will either be purchasing a game just as a collectible or not at all. I'm leaning more towards not at all in the case that it's PvP

…………………………………………………………………………………pvp!

herozeromes said:

Comprendo 100%. I too will only get the game if there is solo play. Otherwise I will never get a chance to play since I think my wife is a little tired of humoring my gaming needs

PvP

If I may, I will also put my 2 cents worth in here. If you want a game were DROVES of players would flock to the Star Wars LCG, get the Decipher license. Seriously, the game is very deep, has a long history, and still has players playing the game today even 9 years after the game's demise. If I were you guys, I would take a serious look at that option.

I think it is insanity to suggest PvP.

When people come to my house, they would rather play a board game than shuffle cards and do a deck building exercise. Deck building is for single players who are quite geeky and intense into the genre. Learning the nuances of every card, etc. etc. Only the hardcore invest the time and energy for that. So a PvP game just sits on the shelf while you beg your buddies to come over and when they do, you have to build the deck for them and they just sit there and ask you what they should do next and then they say, "Hey, that was fun…but next time I'd rather just play a game of Elder Signs or something more tangible."

Coop all the way…and solo at that, because there are only so many people as crazy as myself willing to buy the expansions and willing to invest into the game.

To suggest that you can only play the light side is preposterous. I can see them having a dark side expansion so you can thematically play either way…just as LOTR has Khazad Dum, etc.

Even cooler would be thematic expansions where the light side is played in the "New Hope" era with Luke Skywalker and the dark side is played thematically in the Anakin days.

PvP won't work because it is a niche thing to play a card game and perhaps you are far more blessed than I to have people willing to build decks and have the time to play with you…but my friends would rather get out a board game with established rules and pieces and just play that than to sit and study text on cards and argue about the definition of "surge" and "flash". Even the most prolific card games would sit on my shelf and collect dust waiting for the planets to align for me to gather enough people interested in playing. Solo play is only limited by the amount of hours I need to deal with the trivial things in life like sleeping, working, and caring for my family. Once those paltry nuisances are removed, it gets played hours upon hours.

I play Magic the Gathering, but only because they have a software version on Steam. I play it solo against the AI. I enjoy it thoroughly, and that is a pure PvP experience but I only enjoy it because teh other player is a computer. If I had to find another person, the game would sit and rot.

schmoo34 said:

This is exactly why PvP doesn't make sense. I feel like there's a shift away from tangible games to digital ones. PvP games a great, but I think there is something special about board games that can just be pulled out a played. With a PvP card game that requires intimate knowledge of the deck and strategy to enjoy, you can't just have a quick game with a newbie. Plus, I wouldn't have anyone to play against, but I am excited at the prospect of a Star Wars card game that isn't essentially dead.

A rebuttal to the recent anti-pvp arguments:

It sounds like you are looking for a more casual game to play and I would argue that by definition, that eliminates collectible games, whether it's co-op or pvp (though solo doesn't matter because you're totally into the nuances and such). I've played The Lord of the Rings: The Card Game with various people, and even though it's co-op, I still have to build the decks, and they still ask me what they should play next. Making SW a co-op game won't fix those problems for you.

I think instead, the trick is to stop thinking of your little band of friends and start thinking tournaments. If this game kicks off big enough, there will be lots tournament plays and you can meet new people who share your love of the game without all the hassle you mentioned.

For my part, however, I've never competed and find the prospect rather intimidating. I prefer games that are satisfying when I play them with my friends and family rather than having to go meet strangers, so I see exactly where you are coming from. I'm probably going to buy this game because I love Star Wars and every other Star Wars game I've played, I only learned about when it was a few years into production, so I couldn't keep up with it. This time, I just want the experience of keeping up with the game rather than catching up, just to see what it's like. And if there are tournaments in my area, I'll be happy to participate. But I'm anticipating already that when the tournament scene dies and the game goes out of production I'll have a bunch of dead cards. I've had LotR for 7 months and it already feels like that.

HOWEVER, I do feel that because I'm about 10 times more interested in SW than LotR, if they did make a solo/co-op game, I probably wouldn't get bored of it as fast as LotR. I think theme inspires me to play a game more than mechanics does. Risk: 2010? Maybe another a day. Star Wars Risk: Original Trilogy Edition? Let's play now!

In hindsight, this post is too stream of conscious for anyone to comprehend, but I'm hitting the "Publish" button anyway. Thanks for your patience.

My vote goes to PvP.

Ah, the good old Decipher CCG times …

Budgernaut said:

Solo does matter to me. Since I had no one to play with and there were never tournaments within 5 hours of me, I ended up with two deck boxes and a shoe box full of SW: CCG cards that almost never got to be played. And, if I ever did feel like going to a tournament, I never ended up going because my lack of being able to playtest my decks made me sure I would drive 10-12 hours round-trip to get eliminated in the first round of play. Being a Sci-Fi fan in a rural area is tough. I have played SW: CCG by myself to playtest and it's just about as much fun as playing chess against yourself. That is to say, it's not even remotely interesting.

Those are very valid points. I can't argue with them. I have a twin, so we always played SW:CCG together and I never went to tournaments. Now we live on opposite sides of the continents with families of our own, so I don't have an automatic opponent anymore. And while I may be able to find a tournament 2 hours away, if it's a 5 hour drive for you, I agree that it wouldn't be wort it.

And as an aside, my comment about "pitiful little band of friends" was supposed to be a call back to Emperor Palpatine referring to the Endor strike team in Return of the Jedi, but I don't think it worked. It just came off sounding like I was being a jerk.

Budgernaut said:

Lol. I actually got the reference and meant to compliment you on it. Sometimes I forget when I am typing something. Anyway, I did play with my brother, but he moved to Thailand

If they want to make money, they will make it PvP -

1. 1 90% of players/people like competing agenst each other, more then paly co-op - just look at games in general.

2. More people like the Empire then the Rebels. (just look at swktor online, servers were more emp then repbublic as a whole)

3. FF has a great system set up to support PvP - while games like Lotr the cg are still waiting on any kind of support from FF to start up leagues or group play.

It will be pvp its the only reason for FF to have cut the game after Gen Con previews. people want to play the empire some people like being evil in games and dont just want to play the good guys - maybe they will keep the mission progression and people will play two sides trying to complete the mission from there side, who knows - all i know is its next to impossible to get ppl at my LGS to start playing LOTR co-op but i had a ton of people jump at the idea to kill each other as the different houses of Game of Thrones.

Magni said:

This is a flawed argument, because neither faction in TOR exists during the time of the Galactic Civil War. The two Empires are nothing alike, and the Republic is not the same thing as the Alliance to Restore it (for proof of that, see the myriad differences between the Old and New Republic, the fact that the Old Republic is what becomes the Galactic Empire, etc.). If you're referring to the fact that more players like to be eeeeevil, this, while possibly true, is also flawed as it pertains to the TOR argument, because it is possible for Sith players in TOR to follow the Light side, and this is a frequently-made choice in TOR.

I'll say for my part that in TOR, I favor the Sith Empire over the Republic, while strongly favoring the Rebellion over the Galactic Empire, because I find the characters in each case to be generally more interesting than those of the opposing faction. It happens.

Magni said:

I think pvp may make a little more money than co-op, but I would change your statement to:

"If they want to make money, they will make a Star Wars LCG." Be it PvP or co-op, I think a SW LCG would sell well either way.

Budgernaut said:

Star Wars is a massive IP. If you build it, they will buy…

I will buy if it has PvP in mind. If its co-op I wont touch it with a bargepole.

I didnt buy LoTR for the same reason. If I want to play co op, I would rather play an RPG or even a board game. PvP opens up the doors for tournament play which is a huge appeal for any CCG/LCG player, and being Star Wars it could be a very successful tournament scene.

Kolat_Informant said:

It seems they haven't gone for this option , but this approach is already working for Netrunner - so maybe one day . . . . .