My point is, there are incompatible aspects in the OT and PT eras. My rant isn't anti-fan, it's just to point out that there are differences in the eras that can't be overlooked or smoothed over without gameplay becoming more and more generic. Let's say I decided to make a card game about American History. Could George Washington command the Union army? Or would he be a Confederate commander?

What are the Prequels about? Senate and bureaucratic machinations and a Jedi police force. The Jedi are strong and The Force is everywhere. Everyone knows who the Jedi are immediately.

What are the Originals about? They are about space combat, and a rebellion vs a totalitarian regime. There are Jedi, but the Jedi have been out of power long enough that no one would believe they exist.

So, how can you reconcile gameplay between two eras with completely different backdrops? How do you play cards trying to accomplish political goals in the senate against an opponent who is trying to sabotage a base? Similarly, you can't have cards for the powerful Jedi in a time when the force is unknown and its existence is doubted. The individual trilogies work by themselves, but not all 6 together. Yes, you could make a game that encompasses all of the eras, but then it wouldn't really feel like the experience of Star Wars. Also, what if the Light Side player has an Anakin themed prequel deck and the other player comes in with a Darth Vader themed OT deck? Who's Anakin is negated? Do the cards that benefit Anakin also benefit Vader if both are allowed to be played?

It's just an endless rabbit hole that wouldn't have to be a concern if the eras are kept distinct and separate. In order for Star Wars to feel like Star Wars, Jedi characters would have to be unplayable in the OT setting. Just as Vader should not be playable before Vader existed. It may be a good game, but it just wouldn't feel like Star Wars in game form. How do you capture the spirit of Star Wars and make the separate eras truly playable together without making them feel like Just Another Game, but featuring art inspired by Star Wars? If they figured it out, they would be starting with Episode I and not Episode IV.

EDIT: I love the Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, but I don't feel that the characters and situations from The Hobbit should be in situations in The Lord of the Rings and vice versa. There is about a 60 year gap between them.

herozeromes said:

With all due respect, I think you're looking at the situation too narrowly. While the greater story of the OT is a conflict between the two regimes, different situations are occurring throughout the films. One subplot has Han Solo racing to avoid the bounty hunters Jabba has sent to capture him, while another has Luke learning the ways of the Force from Obi-Wan and Yoda. These would each provide distinct gameplay experiences for the Light Side player. So rather than thinking of the two film eras as static and unmoving, think of them simply as different approaches a player could take to deckbuilding. A deck built around the corruption in the Senate would and should play very differently than an Imperial deck, but in both, you have the same cruel mastermind plotting to control the galaxy, albeit far more subtly in the former case. Similarly, would a PT Jedi deck play differently from an OT Jedi deck? Absolutely. But why shouldn't it? As you've said, the Jedi are a prominent force in the galaxy during the Rise of the Empire. However, with their stronger presence also comes a heavier dependence on the Force than one would find in an OT deck, because far more cards would be drawing from it. Take this exchange from Knights of the Old Republic II as an example of what I'm talking about:

Atton: If she served in the war… well, Jedi are supposed to be tough. Capable.
Kreia: Yes, and what are they without the Force? Take the greatest Jedi Knight, strip away the Force, and what remains? They rely on it, depend on it, more than they know. Watch as one tries to hold a blaster as they try to hold a lightsaber, and you will see nothing more than a woman - or a man. A child.

Luke's skills as a pilot and a Rebel leader far outweigh his mastery of the Force, at least during the films. So deck built around Force denial should present less of a threat to him than it would to a PT Jedi deck. Of course, the case of a PT deck facing an OT deck presents a thematic concern, that of Jedi facing the Empire or Rebels facing the Separatists, but this is an issue unrelated to gameplay, and can easily be overcome by players agreeing to build decks from the same era (see my thread, "Era symbols"). I'm confident that the design team could weave these seemingly disparate eras into something balanced and satisfying to play, without resorting to making things too generic, or degenerating into a rock-paper-scissors kind of thing.

herozeromes said:

While I agree that era-crossing will always cause problems, a part of me believes that mixing eras is part of the fun of playing a table-top game. It lets you explore things that could never happen in a comic, video game, or novel because the cannon needs to be preserved.

With that said, I think the quote above really nails the issue. Wizards of the Coast's Star Wars Trading Card Game was alright, but the mixing of eras did nothing to make me feel like I was in the Star Wars galaxy. It just made it feel like these were a bunch of cards with various mechanics and Star Wars pictures pasted on them. If the devs do choose to incorporate cross-era play, they'll have to really struggle to keep the Star Wars flavor and not let the mechanics run wild.

This is something I loved about the co-op version. Because of the way the game functions, there was always a feeling that you were the Rebels fighting the Empire. It always felt thematic because of the constraints of the game play. I think if game play broadens too widely, it becomes mechanic-driven rather than theme-driven.

@Marth: Sweet! A KotOR II quote!

MarthWMaster said:

The main thing that I see in Star Wars OT is a definite line between good and evil. Bounty Hunters are even clearly agents of the Empire because, why would the Rebellion have a bounty out on anyone? However, good and evil are not so clear in the PT. The Jedi are agents of the Republic, which becomes the Empire by Episode IV. So, from Episode IV on, the Senate is a puppet for the Emperor. You could even make the argument, based on what is presented in the PT, that Palpatine is already using the Senate as his puppet from the very beginning. The Jedi unwittingly aid him in his cause. Since there are no clearly defined evils (even Jabba the Hutt puts on fun things like pod-racing) in the PT, it will be extremely difficult to make decks from the PT play with the OT. The exception would be if the game is kept solo or co-op. Then, you would have certain characters allowed to take on certain decks. The only type of game that would present a problem is PvP. As Budgernaut said, the cross era play really made WotC's game very generic.

herozeromes said:

What made WotC's game very generic was that it wasn't a very good game system…

Mattr0polis said:

That, too. But I found it hard to get into Decipher's SWCCG when Darth Maul was on the table at the same time as Luke. Or Vader, for that matter. I preferred playing decks themed within the same movie's expansions.

herozeromes said:

I don't think you're alone in that regard. There are likely tons of players who would have that same preference. That's why I'm pushing this era symbol idea, because while I share the interest with Budgernaut and others in playing "mash up" decks that span multiple eras, what I don't want is for this to be something that will alienate players, but nor do I think that this danger should inhibit FFG's creative design. I feel that there should be a fixture within the game itself to handle the problem. My solution is for cards to have symbols coding their place in the saga, so that games could be set up to only allow a specific era or eras.

herozeromes said:

The very few times I still play the Decipher game with an old friend of mine, we'll play one of 4 formats:

1 - No Episode I icons allowed

2 - No Episode I icons or Reflections cards allowed (some of the Reflection III characters from the OT were really unbalanced)

3 - Premiere through Death Star II only allowed

4 - Only Episode I icons allowed (<-- this is the least popular of the 4 and we haven't played it in years)

I really like the idea od icons representing each era in SW history, and could see scenarios like the ones I listed above for various games.

Whatever they decide to do with the game I just hope there is option to play it solo.

One thing I will say is, no matter what they do, Era Symbols are essentially a requirement for a universe with a timeline as expansive as Star Wars. I really doubt they would do the game without at least some sort of expansion differentiation symbols.

By the way, I can't find any info on different symbols or icons used in the Lord of the Rings LCG. Do they have them?

herozeromes said:

No. You can mix characters from the Hobbit era in with later characters from Lord of the Rings. Some of which weren't even born until after certain characters from the Hobbit were dead. There's no era symbols.

I think the reason, for both Lord of the Rings and possibly why Star Wars wouldn't do them, is because card games are basically a 'what if' scenario. You are already throwing canon out the window the second you play Obi-Wan Kenobi to Cloud City or have Leia killed by Darth Vader in a battle or something.

So then the question is, if the whole thing is a non-canon 'what-if' scenario anyways, then what does it matter if Darth Maul is mixed with cards like Darth Vader and Luke? A non-canon 'what-if' he survived type thing.

Not that I'm opposed to some sort of era symbols mind you, but I could see why they aren't exactly necessary.

Well, anyone who cares about continuity is going to know which cards go in which era and can make decks accordingly. Anyone who doesn't know the eras probably doesn't care. That's kind of what I see in LotR. From this point of view, era symbols could be a neat addition, but are not by any means necessary.

The only thing that would make them necessary is if there was an official era-restricted game play format that forced those who don't know the SW era break down to build an acceptable deck.

On the other hand, with characters like Palpatine, Anakin, and the Episode V bounty hunters spanning eras now, era symbols may be necessary to quell any quarreling between players about whether those cards fit into a particular era or not.

MarthWMaster said:

I was wondering if someone would suggest that. Other than the last several sets being OP (Death Star II through Reflections 3), the game and mechanics were great (difficult, but great). I've played over 30 CCG's, many of them on a competitive level, and the Decipher Star Wars is my second favorite mechanically all time (only behind Netrunner). Got fingers crossed on this one.

Actually, since the time I made that post I've changed my opinion. I still think it would be smart of FFG to reimagine the Star Wars CCG, but I would prefer to see them come up with something new.

Budgernaut said:

There will be all sorts of tourneys that can use this concept to impose certain deck-building restrictions. But that doesn't mean that an era symbol is necessary. In answer to a question above about symbols on the LotR cards, yes, there are symbols. The cards are also all numbered. So when setting up a tournament, you can easily say "only cards 1-65 are allowed," for example.

Because of this, I'm sure the new SW game will have cards with symbols on them that correspond to the set they printed with, and they will probably also be numbered. Beyond that though, I'm don't personally see the need for an additional era symbol for the game to run smoothly. It would be interesting from a lore or fluff standpoint, but not a necessary device to cause the game to function properly.

Vase said:

Yes, it is true they will have symbols to represent sets and each card will have a number corresponding to what number it is in that set. But if you wanted to enforce era-restrictions in a tournament, I doubt very much that the number system will be the way to go because I really don't think they'll keep their packs confined to specific eras once they start releasing EU and CW/prequel cards. I do believe the first cycle will probably be OT only, but after that, you may have an Old Republic card in one set and different card in another set, and by time you write out a restricted list, it will look like:

Dark Machinations: (1-3, 5, 9, 20-25); Mandalorian Supremacy: (12-25, 48-62, 71, 73); Scoundrels and Hunters: (90, 108); . . .

And the list could go on. It would be much more of a pain to assemble a deck with those restrictions compared to an era symbol.

Now, despite that argument, I'm not convinced we'll see era-restricted tournaments through Organized Play, but I think we could see it as an official variant at the end of the rule book. So why I am I so pro-era symbols? For the exact reason you mentioned: lore. That was one part of SW:CCG that I really liked. I think including these symbols would be a nice (and relatively simple) way to add some lore and flavor.

At the end of the day, will the game be broken without era symbols? Not at all, since I think the majority of games will use the entire card pool. But I do think it would be a really neat addition to the cards.

And while I'm writing an essay, I should also reiterate that while I would prefer them to dedicate whole cycles or Force Packs to certain eras, I just can't see them doing that. If they did, I would be really, really happy, but I'm not counting on it, which means that the idea of picking and choosing which packs you want with the fixed distributions is just a myth.

Budgernaut said:

Not to mention that it runs counter to their purpose from a marketing standpoint. Ideally, FFG would have you purchase all cycles as they are released. No company that wishes to make money will go out of its way to distribute products that an entire group of players can easily pass up (in this case, fans dedicated to a specific era of Star Wars).

Where I differ from you, Budgernaut, is that I think the mixing of eras in Force Packs* would be a really cool trend, as the theme would instead be focused around motifs seen throughout the saga. Your imaginary Force Packs: Dark Machinations, Scoundrels and Hunters, etc. are good examples of this. A pack called Dark Machinations could be about the history of the Sith, and the Jedi's ever-constant vigilance against the rise of the dark side.

*Still not 100% on calling them "Force Packs," but what can ya do.

Budgernaut said:

I'm worried that they will have a complete hodge-podge of eras, events, and characters in each expansion. I'm not saying for certain that I won't buy it if they are, but I will think twice about it. Really, it comes down to the question of whether it will be solo/co-op. If not, I probably won't be willing to invest in another space-taking Star Wars game anyway.

MarthWMaster said:

This very thought worries me. If they put Darth Vader in a pack that is filled with Prequel stuff just to make sure they are going to sell Prequel stuff, that would be shady, but shrewd. There ARE enough people who don't like the prequels that it is a financial risk to put them out separately. So, it only makes sense, from a certain point of view.

Just want to throw in my two bits that I wouldn't enjoy a game that mixed eras. Fielding Padme Amidala and Cade Skywalker against Darth Vader and General Grievous just seems goofy, to me.

FFG have the rights to make Star Wars games, and I'd like to see them make several games. Save the Clone Wars for a large-scale, strategic, big-box ground battle game… I'd buy that.

Not trying to sway anyone's opinion, just stating my own.

I. J. Thompson said:

The problem with this is that you divide up the potential player base, and then instead of having one popular game with many players that stays alive for many years due to popularity, you get multiple games with smaller, subpar player bases that go away quicker. You also confuse casual gamers who see 5 different Star Wars FFG things and aren't sure what is what.

herozeromes said:

I think you and others give this thought too much credence though. There are many people who don't like the prequels as much as the originals but who will definitely throw a Darth Maul in their deck or buy many or all of the expansions regardless of era to be able to compete in tournaments.

I saw it many times throughout the Decipher SWCCG era.

Mattr0polis said:

I think you'd end up with an insanely popular Original Trilogy game and an unsuccessful Prequel Game, personally.

Mattr0polis said:

The Episode I stuff didn't overlap long enough for me to see this happen, but I did see a lot of it when I tried to play on Holotable online.

I think it's wrong to say that a prequel game would be a loss-maker because not many people like them. From my perspective, the prequels seem to be hugely popular, and there is a thriving market for prequel-related gear out there, and I don't think it's just the SW name that's selling it. There is a whole generation growing up now, separate from the original trilogy generation, who may well prefer these films because of their modernity or whatever. Just because they aren't vociferous on such message boards doesn't preclude their existence. For my own part, I happen to like them as a trilogy, but I think of the two trilogies on separate planes, they can't be compared, etc.

As to their being confusion from people because of there being a lot of Star Wars games available from the same publisher, well look how many Cthulhu games FFG publish - there are two card games and two board games that I can think of off the top of my head, and all four seem to be thriving obscenely. While I wouldn't think there will be two SW LCGs, one for the classic era and one for the prequels, I don't see there being a major issue with them having the LCG for the classic era, then a separate card game in the prequel era, something like Rune Age, that sees one expansion a year or whatever.

Such are my thoughts, anyway.

At least the tradeoff of putting cards from all eras together in one LCG is a real good one. The game could unite fans, young, old, Prequel fans, Original Trilogy fans, Expanded Universe fans, Clone Wars fans and lead to a potentially outstanding tournament scene.

In SWCCG's golden age, you could run a local tournament and easily get 25+ people to show up. And regionals and other bigger-type tournaments had crazy amounts of people show up. I once went to a States tournament in Pennsylvania that had over 100 players. That's crazy.

I'd love for this game to bring back that atmosphere, comradery, etc. The people I met and the friends I made at those events are priceless. We bonded over Star Wars. Not any specific trilogies or anything.

So you can make an Original Trilogy-only LCG game and a Prequels-only LCG game. Or you can make a STAR WARS LCG game and have something truly special.

Star Wars has the power to do that if you don't alienate parts of the fanbase, friends.