I wouldn't hate this if it were made to be PvP, and I'd most likely still buy it, but I'd be buying it because it has the Star Wars brand, and not because it is a game I think I'd enjoy or get a lot of gameplay out of. I'm still off-and-on collecting the WotC card game simply to have the product; all the cards are in little wallets and filed away with no intention of playing them.

In my experience, Star Wars gamers are a breed apart from regular gamers, and are a fickle pack, too. It's been mentioned many times that the other card games that have been put out in the past have largely had the player base fall through quickly, with just a very small core of dedicated people who still play the Decipher game to this day. FFG surely doesn't want to see that happen with their game, so are more than likely trying to shuffle things around in the hope the mechanics can support any style of game play.

There is of course the spectre of the Decipher game hanging over any Star Wars card game - it certainly seems likely that was the reason for the TCG being put on indefinite hold, or at least it was one major reason. There will no doubt be a lot of furore about this December, when the game is hopefully finally released, and people will be once more invoking the holy grail of the CCG over all. To make another attempt at a PvP card game is to court disaster in that respect. Something different seems to be called for, which is perhaps what made them pick co-op as the game's format to start with.

It's been said somewhere on these forums that, if FFG have a licence to produce card games in the plural, then it's not necessarily a foregone conclusion that either format is going to be neglected over the other. I would still prefer the LCG to be co-operative, though, and to see a secondary, standalone game for PvP.

borithan's thematic argument for a co-op LCG is also quite the winner, in my view, too. To want to play as an evil, corrupt regime bent on genocide on a massive scale is a bit sick, in my view. The model of LotR lends itself much better to this than AGoT. There is so very little difference between Tolkien's and Lucas' creations, after all. But I suppose we shall see what this year brings. I'm really hoping that the December release date was just playing it safe, and they manage to get it to the shops before summer is out

spalanzani said:

This is perhaps the most compelling argument in favor of the co-op model that I've read thus far. As a fan of the WOTC game, I've really had my fill of people crying for the CCG as the be-all, end-all of Star Wars card gaming, and if emphasizing the cooperative aspect of this game will keep it from having outright enemies in the fandom, as the TCG did, then I'm all for it. I just think that being able to play either side would give the game more widespread appeal. Yes, it's completely sick to call oneself an Imperial sympathizer. But the best villains are the ones who leave an impression. Vader, the Fetts, and Palpatine all fit this category, and while I'll still prefer to play as the good guys, I think FFG would be remiss not to allow players to play as the bad guys as well.

I don't think there's any reason to assume that people who would like to play as the Empire (or as Sauron) have evil intentions, by any means. Sometimes it's just fun to play the bad guy, and some actors had to play the Emperor and Vader in the films. I personally don't like playing the sides of the Nazis in WWII games, or the South in a Civil War game, and things like that, because I have a hard time psychologically with rooting for that side to win. But that's historical. Star Wars and LOTR are not, of course.

rings said:

It's been the opposite experience for me. I really liked the game at first, then got away from it, but now I'm into it more than ever since all of the APs and Khazad-dum came out. I think there was possibly too long of a delay between when the base game came out and the APs started rolling out... I know that's when I lost interest. But it's still a great game and system, IMO.

I. J. Thompson said:

This is what confuses/bothers me about co-op. You're not really playing with people, they're just extra hands to hold cards.

Hurdoc said:

If that's what's happening, then the most experienced player is not doing their job. They should be teaching the others to make their own decisions. If they do their job right, the other players should pick up on the subtleties of the game in short order. Also, in the original version of this game as demoed at GenCon, players were not allowed to look at the other player's hand and there was a flashpoint mechanic that prevented table talk. Those sorts of rules prevent one player from controlling the other players. Could a player ignore those rules and thus maintain control of his animated card-holders? He could, but then the issue is about cheating and is no longer about a flaw in the design of cooperative games.

Though I'm solidly on the side of this being a solo/co-op game, what is more important is that, whatever it is, it's a good--no, a great gane--that gives whoever buys it their money's worth and more. With this in mind, I applaud FFG's decision to pull the design back and rework it in an attempt to make it better. And I have faith in FFG's design team that if anyone can make a great game here, they can do so. I've certainly enjoyed many of their games so far, including LotR LCG.

I suppose the Holy Grail here would be a game that can be easily and solidly played solo, co-op, or PvP, allowing players to be either side of the Rebel/Imperial divide. Such a game would honor each of its three facets, not making any one of them an afterthought or subsidiary to one or both of the other two approaches. Any game can be played solo. I can play Call of Cthulu LCG solo, but it's not much fun--certainly not anywhere near as challenging or fun as I've found LotR to be. So the solo element or the co-op element or the PvP element needs to be deliberately and carefully designed into the mix so that it really works for that style of play.

If this is what FFG is trying to pull off so that this product can truly break out from under Decipher's shadow and stand on its own as something different, compelling, and fun for all concerned, then more power to them. I applaud, as I say, their decision not to go with the good but to aim for creating the best.

Even if it ends up being a product I'm not interested in buying because it can't meet my particular gaming needs and situation.

With regard to gaming needs, mine actually demand that the game be playable solo. There simply isn't consistent enough play of non-that-other-CCG CCGs around here. When I don't have anyone to play with, I tend to sulk. With this, I can at least enjoy facing a simulated opponent, and keep my skill at the game from atrophying. What form it takes with 2 or more players, be it cooperative or competitive isn't as important to me, although I find myself leaning toward PvP simply because I feel that the nature of CCGs (and yes, LCGs, though I use the other term to categorize both production models in the same genre) lends itself particularly to competition, due to the motivation to build a deck your opponent won't be able to beat, without knowing what kind of deck he will bring to the table. Even if that's a correct assumption, though, I would like the option to play cooperatively from time to time.

David Spangler said:

I think this is a very important point, that I for one have lost sight of in the furore since Monday. They're trying to make the best game they possibly can, and so, whatever format it eventually turns up in, it should be a spectacular game. From what little I understood of the game as it was initially shown off, it seemed to be a curious blend of all the previous LCGs put out by FFG (although I've never played Cthulhu, so have no idea if any aspects of that game made their way into the design), so maybe they're going instead for something wholly unique that may well be a mind-numbingly awesome game that transcends these petty "I won't play it if it's co-op" / "I won't play it if it's PvP" arguments...

spalanzani said:

For me, it's not that I WON'T play it if it's PvP, it's that I CAN'T. I live in a mostly rural area and know absolutely no one who is both a) into Sci-Fi and card games and b) lives within an hour. So, if it becomes a PvP I can't justify buying it just to collect it. That's what I've been doing with Decipher's game for the last 16 years (collecting just to collect) and I can't spend the money just to buy something else that will collect dust. If it is co-op/solo with the option to play PvP I'm all over it. Otherwise, I will have built up excitement for no reason.

herozeromes said:

Herozeromes, have you tried Holotable? I can't 'cause I'm on a mac, but if I weren't, I'd be all over that for SWCCG (sorry for the off-topic)...

I. J. Thompson said:

Actually, yes. I only collect and play through Death Star II, and a lot of the new mechanics after that (Phantom Menace sets and the virtual sets) resulted in overpowered cards and an inability to play with people who weren't exclusively playing the same way I did. I spent a lot of time building decks (online) that consisted only of cards I already had and then all the opponents I went against were using the new virtual sets along with the Defensive Shields and I got killed rather quickly. So, I gave up after being unable to find other players who played the same way I did. In their rush to get Prequel stuff out, Decipher unbalanced (almost broke) the gameplay. Before that, someone with Premiere could still hold their own against other expansions.

I'm hoping for a switch to pvp, the game has no interest for me otherwise. But I realize that either way there will be a group of fans disappointed.

herozeromes said:

Darn. If I were on a PC, I'd totally play you. I was only interested in Premiere-Death Star II, also.

I. J. Thompson said:

My PC isn't in working order either and I only have a Mac, otherwise. So, it's a double no-go. Oh, well

As many others have said, I seriously hope this means we'll see a non-cooperative card game. If it is a co-op game, I won't buy it. I already have several of those and don't need another. If it's competitive in traditional CCG-style then I am much more likely to pick this up.