I think what's happening is that the game designers know what they *want* the game to do. They are, unfortunately, having trouble getting that to work as far as game mechanics once playtesting started. It is also possible, since this is a licensed title, that Lucas (whichever of his companies the license comes from) has a say in the development as well. For example, it is possible that Lucas does not want similar mechanics to the LoTR LCG (because that is a different license), so FFG has to avoid using game mechanics that are similar to LoTR. That makes the development process more difficult, especially if they had originally designed the game with some of those mechanics.

dvang said:

This didn't even occur to me as a possible reason for the delay/redesign, but it totally makes sense. Lucasfilm can never leave well enough alone. And it was their screwing around that got Decipher's game canceled.

herozeromes said:

If you say so. Personally, I think the enormous fan clamor to have Wizards continue SWCCG rather than creating an entirely new game speaks for itself.

MarthWMaster said:

Did you mean Wizards or FFG?

Budgernaut said:

I mean Wizards. The reason they got so much flak for their game is because everyone wanted to see Decipher''s game resurrected, but Wizards said no. It''''s pretty much the only card game I know of that had an anti-fandom.

Yes, it seems to be a very risky business trying to make a card game that involves Star Wars…

It didn''t help that the wizards Star Wars TCG sucked arse. It was just a BAD game.

spalanzani said:

Yeah. I think I would have avoided the license for that very reason, and try and secure an IP whose fans are a little more mellow. But I''m definitely glad that FFG has the stomach to attempt this.

MarthWMaster said:

Definitely! I for one really like FFG games, and I''m looking forward to seeing some of that translated into their SW line.

The recent announcement of an expansion for Rune Age has given me the great hope that FFG will, at some point, produce a game that perhaps is based on the game-that-was, in tandem with the LCG, provided there isn't too much crossover between the two that negates the need for such a game.

That is, of course, an enormous if…

spirit said:

Very true. It's been speculated that Lucas pulled the license from Decipher and gave it to Hasbro (Wizards) because he has stock in Hasbro - 'all under one roof', so to speak. That makes sense from a business perspective, but gamers want to play games that are fun. And compared to Decipher's game, WotC's SWTCG was just dumb. I remember buying the starter (no matter how much I told myself not to) and saying, "really? After all that Decipher has done… this is your game?"

I don't even remember much about the game now, but the main thing that bothered me, compared to the wonderful locations of the Decipher game, was the 'arenas'. The Space arena, the Ground arena, the (am I remembering this right?) Character arena. So, we're not anywhere, really, we're just a bunch of cards on a table. Boring!

Of course, FFG seems to have the same thing going. Looking forward to checking out the differences!

[EDIT: I no longer have my SWTCG cards, and am trying to remember what I did with them. I know I didn't sell them, and I'm sure that I didn't give them away. That can only mean that I actually threw them in the garbage. Yikes! ]

spalanzani said:

After reading your comment I decided to check out the Rune Age website and read the instructions, watch the tutorials, etc. I must say that I'm a little underwhelmed. From what I read, it doesn't seem to be the same kind of deck building as in an LCG. Maybe I'm missing something, but it seemed like the deck building only happened during the game, not before you play. I was hoping for something with a little more flexibility. I sure would like to know what they've decided to do with this game . . .

Budgernaut said:

Yeah, that's it basically, it's a very different type of game. My main hope is that they see the market for scenario-driven, pseudo-cooperative card games is there somewhere, and produce the former LCG as a silver line thing. Rune Age is a really good game inasmuch as it's very different to the usual deck builder, but I wouldn't want to see the same sort of idea implemented here.

You're not the only one who wants to know what's going on, though…

I am glad they are changing it to a co-op game. Now I can justify buying it. If it was a PvP game, then the amount of game time is limited to finding someone else interested and willing to play.

Recently, I picked up Fortune and Glory by Flying Frog Productions. What hooked me was the play options… co-op, solo, competitive and team play. Hopefulyy this trend will catch on and continue.

Because of this change to a co-op game, I am definitely getting the Star Wars LCG.

Its too bad the CoC LCG wasn't coop or solo play… I would have actually invested in that one.

It was originally to be Co-op and then they scrapped it, deciding it wasn't up to the standards they had hoped for. Then, some indicators showed up that made it seem the new direction is PvP. I can't find anything that indicates new info since. Did they make some sort of announcement that I missed?

Budgernaut said:

So I recently picked up Rune Age to see what Corey does with game design and to see how a game could accommodate multiple player interactions. The box does not say it can be played solo, but there are official solo variant rules in the rule book. But my overall impression is that if Star Wars has a merely tacked-on solo play option, it won't be worth my time and money. It's clear to see that Rune Age is really all about player interaction. Some people complain that LotR is too formulaic in that the encounter deck doesn't think, but if they thought LotR was formulaic, they should try Rune Age. It looks like a great game and the mechanics are intriguing, but when I play it solo, I just don't have any fun with it.

In summary, I have the feeling that a game which tries to incorporate solo, co-op, and pvp, will inevitably lean toward one or another, and won't strike balance. But again, I reiterate that Rune Age was probably not designed for solo, it simply manages to incorporate solo play into 2 of the 3 scenarios.

I haven't picked it up yet but there is Infiltration and there is a community rules mod being developed to turn that into a single player push your luck game that is aparently pretty good.. might be worth a try.. but solo games are few and far between and I think they are also rare that they are good as they all have the smae problem as lotr.. as in a static encounter deck of some kind.

I think one of the best is Sentinals of the Multiverse…

Rune Age is an excellent multi-player card game with a small dash of deckbuilding. The solo game is very flat and not very exciting after the first few tries. The real fun in Rune Age is the interaction between players, especially in 3 and 4 player games. The important thing to remember is that it's not a true deckbuilding game. It's not dominion or thunderstone, it's something different. Too many people trash the game because the deckbuilding part is very a very small portion of the game. Personally I think FFG marketed it wrong and set up expectations that pissed off deckbuilding fans.

If you want to really give Rune Age a try, go for the 4 player competitive scenarios and have fun.

Style75 said:

I tried that the other day. I mean, I tried playing the Rune Wars scenario with all four factions, but I controlled each faction. Trying to figure out who to attack and which dragon rune to steal was very fun. I actually had more fun playing this way than playing solo which reinforces your opinion and my opinion that player interaction is really what makes this game shine.

I just cannot wait to see what they ended up doing with Star Wars!

Budgernaut said:

Seconded! Hopefully once X-Wing is released we'll get some info. You know, maybe they don't want to muddy the waters by having two Star Wars games being launched together. Maybe…

MarthWMaster said:

When I remember things like this, and also the more time it takes for FFG to give us new information on this game, I can't help but keep even just a little hope that maybe it's taking so long because FFG is trying to secure the rights to the Decipher SWCCG license.

There's precedent for FFG doing something like this with games like Netrunner.

Basically, if they are going to turn it into a PVP game, why do anything less than one of the best CCGs of all time?

Mattr0polis said:

Amen! Which is why it had better be cooperative/solo!

Being misquoted is less fun than it seemed it would be… :S

EDIT: Okay, it's been about 3 minutes since I wrote a smart-mouthed, self-justifying response, and decided to delete it to say, "Sorry Marth." You've got your desires for this game and I've got mine. I'm sorry my quotation of your previous response was regrettable to you.

LOL, it's okay. I think this forum could use some work.

I actually don't really like the idea of the company bringing back SWCCG, as much as I admit that it would probably be a good move for them from a business standpoint. Whatever game they come up with, I want it to be Star Wars, through and through. Neither Decipher's nor Wizards' game did that for me, and I think it has to do with the fact that neither system was designed from the ground up to convey a uniquely Star Wars feel. Whether it's co-op or PvP, or some mix of the two, this trait is of paramount importance to me, that it takes me into that universe. This is one of the things that had a tendency to disappoint me about Call of Cthulhu, but that I praised about A Game of Thrones. Cthulhu does not adequately express the tone of the setting it's meant to depict, but Thrones captures it beautifully. Never have I seen a CCG that so expertly weaves elements of the mythos into its core gameplay. From the choices between challenge types, to the sub-theme of Kings having abilities that only function if there is no other claimant in play, everything about AGoT makes me feel as if I'm playing a game that's retelling the saga of the book series, albeit with a different continuity.

Here are some themes that I think express Star Wars particularly well, and should be reflected in any system built around the setting:

• The Force moves through all things. Even if it can't be seen by non-Force-sensitives, it is ever-present, guiding the course of events to either the light side or the dark side.
• The Empire has far greater might than the Rebellion, and is able to frighten worlds into submission with the threat of its massive fleets. Effectively, the Star Destroyers themselves wield political influence, merely by being present.
• The Rebellion is weak, but is growing stronger as it secures alliances with sympathetic worlds. What it lacks in brute strength, it makes up for in its tenacity, being all but impossible to stamp out of existence entirely. Their war against the Empire will always be a long-fought battle, but should become easier as they develop stronger ties with the groups opposed to the Empire's existence. Thus, a typical game ought to favor the Rebellion the longer they survive.
• Heroes and villains are at the core of the saga. Though both Rebellion and Empire alike employ large numbers of conscripts, it's the named characters who dominate the scene. Though it should be possible to build a deck entirely around mooks (especially for the Imperial player should there be that option), design should be built to encourage the use of unique characters. Also, given the fact that death is a somewhat minor theme in the saga, there should not be a separate "dead" pile in Star Wars like there is in Thrones. Again, the latter setting is all about bad stuff happening to your favorite characters, and so having a dead pile suits that game, but the same thing would be wildly inappropriate for a Star Wars game. I suppose there could be a card called "Noooooo!!" that removes a killed character from the game, but this would be a card effect, not a base function of the system.