I also believe if both sides are to have the same win conditions, either both sides should or shouldnt lose when their draw deck is gone. From my experience in games where you are unable to search for cards, drawing more cards is a must to get deck consistancy. Hopefully there will b cards/or edge battle winning text that allows both sides to search for cards. I hate it when you lose a game due to a bad shuffle.

@ roman_sandal: to answer ur question from last page; I'd be excited by objectives but would settle for simple.

I'll be interested to read the rule book when it's released

Unless the asymmetry of the game remains intact, they definitely could not implement the idea of having some objectives being advanceable while having others that are destructible. That would not work, because then if one side has all advanceable objectives while the other side has destructible objectives, then the side with the advanceable objectives automatically wins. There is nothing for the other side to do but stall the eventual advancement of three objectives.

If, however, they design all objectives with an advanceable part AND a destructible part, then it could work. Otherwise, the asymmetry would need to remain in place, and even then, only the light side could realistically have advanceable objectives. If the dark side were allowed any advanceable objectives, they could just play all those cards, and if the light side ever wound up with all destructible objectives, they're done.

I could definitely see the concept of objectives with both an advanceable and destructible part being more interesting and thematic, but I imagine that would also require even more tokens.

TheRealLeo said:

Why would one side only have advanceble objectives while the other have only destructible?

Why shouldn't you be able to destroy/hinder advanceble objectives before they get completed?

Bolfa Fluffbelly said:

Either you missed what I was saying, or I misunderstood what people were suggesting.

My interpretation of the posts above was that people wanted objectives that could be advanced, not destroyed. In other words, when they come into play, only the owner could cause them to leave play by advancing them, while the opponent could do nothing but hinder their completion. I was just saying that would be bad for the reasons I mentioned above.

If that's not what was being suggested, then it wasn't quite clear.

I also don't understand the prejudice against tokens. I used to play deciphers lord of the rings back in its hay day and it was token heavy. It was also an awesome game. Tokens does not necessarily = horrible gameplay.

TheRealLeo said:

When I suggested two different kinds of objectives I didn't intend to suggest that advanceable objectives could not be destroyed. Certainly you are right that some amount of balancing would be required so that there wouldn't be any auto-loss scenarios. My vague idea was simply that all (or almost all) objectives would have a point total for being destroyed. Some objectives, however, would also allow you to gain points by completing them ("capture Luke Skywalker" "Win the Force Battle by 10 points" etc.) or by placing a certain number of "advancement tokens" on them (Build the Death Star, Complete Jedi Training, etc.).

So some objectives would simply give you resources (draw +1 card at the beginning of your turn) or special abilities (all Sith characters gain +1 power in attack) and would be worth a point or two to your opponent when destroyed. Other objectives would not give you any benefits directly, but could be advanced or completed in order to gain victory points. These objectives would also be worth points when destroyed, the amount of points, of course, being relative to how good the card is.

The advanceable objectives are certainly not absolutely necessary. I just think they would add another layer to the Force Battle and to deckbuilding.

TheRealLeo said:

I think that the suggestion was to keep the possibility of destroying (or preventing) enemy objectives while having some of them which you can advance and complete for some bonus. The idea of the current design that you can (or even have to, for the Light Side) attack and destroy enemy objectives is sound andok for a Star Wars theme and should not be changed. The discussion is on two things : whether a kind of timer should exist for the Dark Side ; and whether the objectives should serve only as targets (for the enemy) and assets, or if they could also be completed in some way.

For me, the best would be to keep the Dark Side timer (as it would put pressure to get the game going on), and to add this completion feature to objectives.

My main dislike is the timer. What do you like about it? Just curious

The easiest way to get out of this issue with the cards done as they are is simple:
-some Resource/Objective cards are Limited, just add a text line on those limited cards with "Victory: if blablabla then GG"

Example (with nothing seen on GenCon, just pure speculation):
Card (Unit/Character): Boba Fett
Special Rule: If Boba Fett ever kills/destroys (don't know the correct wording) an Unit, put that Unit card facedown under Boba Fett.

Card (Resource/Objective): Slave One *some*cool`*text*
Limited
Reaction: some cool effect
Victory: Exhaust/Focus Boba Fett and put all facedown cards under this card, faceup instead. If faceup Units in Slave One cooltext ever total X (let's say, 5) Resources, Victory is achieved

So, if Boba Fett "captures" some Units and then deposits them on Slave One (not an Vehicle Unit but the Resource/Objective card) and their total in Resource cost targets the number on this card, then the Victory or Win condition is met.

This is just an example.
First, have in mind that it's not gamebreaking at all. The player playing this deck needs to draw and play both Boba Fett and Slave One cooltext. Also, while Boba Fett is collecting "bounties", he can be destroyed and those bounties would be removed from him.

Of course this example should be an alternative Victory Condition to play with a main Victory Condition (3 objectives destroyed for either side). And it would also stimulate the "pod" deckbuilding in this game because instead of just building your deck you'll also be building alternative paths to Victory. Just imagine the tactical dimension of this? It would be huge!


As with the Victory Conditions as we know right now, I'm not a fan of the Death Star dial. I think it's another way of FFG to put a dial on their game. With an universal victory condition, let's say 3 objectives burned, it would end the asymmetric aspect of the game and enable players to play Empire VS Empire.

Also, if Villains would be introduced later in the game, let's say Boba Fett or Jabba the Hut, I really don't see much sense in they having a Death Star dial on their side, they don't matter much about the Empire growth, only their own personal growth (credits, bounties, slaves…)
I really thing FFG needs to work this out to give more character to the game, more theme, instead of having two sides and not so thoughtful winning conditions.


A word on the draw winning condition:
First I'm not pro-Empire neither pro-Rebel, I like the movies and even the prequels at some level. And I also like games (aGoT LCG is my favourite card game), but I don't see much sense in having the Empire losing games due to draw/mill. I see it happening in the Rebel side because Rebels have scarce resources and would be thematic if they end their deck and couldn't draw any more cards to be a failure in their fight, but not the Empire. It doesn't makes sense!
I would gladly see it removed or applied to both ends from a gaming aspect, but as it is it's not that thematic at all.


Good thread and I'm eager to see the development of this game!

oDESGOSTO said:

I approve your suggestions.

I guess my other concern with the countdown clock is that it would seem to box in the future growth of the game. If the clock is truly important to the game's mechanics then I don't see any way of creating a multiplayer experience or Empire vs Empire games. If the clock is included in the Core Set then that seems to say that the future of the game is 1v1 battles between DS and LS. Not a terrible thing, but certainly an unnecessary limitation.

Even if the Core Set only has one victory condition - destroy three objectives - that would still be generic enough that the game could go any direction it wanted in the future. You could add cool instant win objectives like the Boba Fett one mentioned above. You could add super objectives that are worth double. You could create multiplayer or team scenarios. Heck, you could add the clock later as a specific objective i.e. "Build the Death Star - place a token on this objective at the beginning of each turn and an extra one if the force is on your side. Once this objective has 12 tokens you win." Now you have your countdown clock but players are forced to use deckbuilding space to use it and the opponent can still destroy it.