When this game was originally announced, I could have sworn that I remember it being a single player game as well as for 2+ players.. Similar to how LotR:TCG is.

Looking at the box today, I see that it is now 2 player. Did something change when the overhaul was done or was I mistaken from the beginning?

Yes it changed, it is no longer a co-op (or single player) game. It is now 2 player pvp

RoC1909 said:

That was the main purpose of the overhaul: moving away from a co-op/solo game to a game focused on player vs. player interaction. I'm sure a bunch of us will try to design solo variants once the game is released.

For me, though, I have a decent amount of fun playing both players in pvp games. It's how I usually play the Runewars scenario of Rune Age. For this game, the hardest part will be edge battles because the purpose is to bluff out your opponent. It's tough to simulate not-knowing-your-opponent's-hand. I'm thinking that instead of playing cards down in turn-order, each team will construct an edge stack by placing any cards they don't want into the edge stack before the combat phase (on their turn). During combat, each player must decide how many cards to reveal from their edge stack and then those cards are revealed and the totals are counted. After that, play continues normally. The random factor makes this more exciting when you're controlling both sides.

So like I said, there will be unofficial solo variants made by community members. I wouldn't count on any official solo variants, though. FFG left that ship in February.

There is already an interesting looking solo variant as the Runner for the new Netrunner LCG, and that just came out this past week. So I'm sure someone somewhere will bring us a solo variant for this game. How good it ends up being is yet to be seen.

Really wish it was single player with the option for more. When you can't find people to play then it becomes pointless to have the cards. I'm atleast going to collect them but if I can't locate another player than i'll never get to play. Kinda sucks.

I was looking forward to playing this. I'm out now that it's only PvP.

wow, they deleted my post, so ill say it again. if you want a single player card game, go get solitare. no one wants to play a card game by themself. go get some friends, or go home.

jhorphear said:

erm….Death Angel…Elder Sign…lord of the rings card game (these are just FFG card games), not to mention epic board games like gears of war, arkham horror plus other games form other companies (level 7, defenders of the relam). ALL SOLO!!!!!!!! Put that in your pipe and smoke it (with your FRIEND - singular for the 2 player starwars card game). Bosh!

those are all games that have a single player option. so if you are some kind of recluse you can still buy the game and enjoy it. how about you get out of your mothers basement and go out into the real world. only losers play games by themself

Hey, I made that statement about your mum before it was deleted!

At least you get to play it with your mum now. Think about it, by Christmas you could be sat opposite her drawing cards whilst looking into her eyes and playing footsie under the table. Not for me (although I'd play two player with yours).

158hoff said:

When this was first mentioned I'm sure it was 1-4 player. Just being a 2 player gamer severely limits options. They've done this for the new Game of thrones card game too. It means that if you introduce this at your gaming group then only you and one other can play it. Originally it was co-op too

jhorphear said:

I'm always fascinated by degenerate behaviour, and I have to say, the way this thread has been hijacked really is intriguing. Clearly we have here a five year old, or thereabouts, who doesn't realise the irony of telling someone to "go out into the real world" through the medium of the internet, for one. The fact that this person appears to have made an account here for the express purpose of making comments like these really stokes the fire of this - someone with nothing more exciting in his life than writing badly-worded messages in internet fora really makes me think that he alone is the "loser" here. As such, he deserves sympathy, of the same kind you would give anyone else with copious mental difficulties. So don't be too hard on this person, now.

More broadly speaking, I'm always interested as to why people who play games solitaire are deemed to be "losers" and suchlike. I play games solo, but I also play games with people. I have friends, both of the gaming and of the non-gaming variety. Just because sometimes I don't want to play a game with another person doesn't really have any bearing on any other aspect of my life, successful or not. I spend my working week talking to people, so sometimes I feel a need to have an evening where I give my voice a rest, though I may still want to play a game. That I can do both of these things is usually a boon, not a mark of an unsuccessful life. The fact that so many people equate solo gaming with a lack of success seems, to me, to be shortsightedness, if nothing else. But maybe these people are incapable of thinking outside of their own circumstances, where the ceaseless need for validation that they can only get through competitive gameplay precludes any other way of thinking about gaming. Yes, well done, you can use a deck of cards to beat someone else with their deck of cards - does this make you a successful human being? Successful at gaming, perhaps, but you may still be "a loser" at life more generally. One does not necessarily predetermine the other.

A more likely cause, in my mind, is that people who are used to playing games against other people are just so completely dumbfounded by the often complete change of tack involved in playing either solo or cooperatively that they just resort to that ever-faithful standby phrase, "this is stupid!" (often followed by a violent physical outburst such as overturning a gaming table). Solo games are rarely the often-seen synonym for loneliness - the solitary chess player - but are vibrant and dynamic and subtle and flavoursome. The aforementioned shortsightedness would presumably disable such a competitive gameplayer from seeing this, however. Being deeply insecure about a myriad of things, such a player craves the temporary validation they receive from beating another person at something like a card game, which begs the question: "who's the real 'loser' here?"

* * *

On the actual topic of this thread, anyway, I'm still a little saddened by the fact the original plan of co-op for this game has been scrapped. The SW theme, for me, especially in the classic period of IV-VI, just screams co-op. I made a post a few months ago now after watching Empire, where the feeling that you get when watching the entire Battle of Hoth sequence, in particular "The first transport is away", really grabs you in to the Rebels' struggle against the Empire - at that point in the film, you're cheering them on, and hating the Empire to your core. Throughout the trilogy, too, you're not meant to like the Empire, you're following the Rebels and their cause. I personally feel they have missed a trick by dropping the co-op nature. Now, this game runs the risk of being "just like any other card game", albeit with some goofy mechanics to make it stand out.

spalanzani said:

I agree with this and your part on solo games (that guy really p****d me off and drew me in to online banter which kind of sucks as I never do that!). Originally this games screamed complexity, but I really like that. It's not the fact that there is no solo play that is turning me away its the fact that is has gone from 1-4 player to 2 player only.

Well, for what it's worth the only reason I'm considering picking up this game at all is that they changed it from co-op/solo to PVP.

ChaosChild +1.

I love solo games, yet I have friends, wife and children. And I love 1vs1 too, yet I keep friends, wife and children.

When I learned that SW was turning from coop to PvP, the only thing that mattered to me was "the FFG team thinks the game sucks as it is, and they want to improve it". Well, good news, and after a year of work (for I'm sure they have not been not idle) I can't wait to see the result (actually, the GenCon demo got me thrilled).

Tolerance, patience, respect. That's all that matters.

You're right, the fact that FFG have delayed it a year hopefully means they've ironed out any problems and made it to suit PvP perfectly. Even though I won't get it I look forward to seeing it in action at some conventions.

spalanzani said:

I know I'm going off-topic, but I'd just like to say that I had always rooted for the Empire and loved it when they stormed Hoth!

those are all games that have a single player option. so if you are some kind of recluse you can still buy the game and enjoy it. how about you get out of your mothers basement and go out into the real world. only losers play games by themself

Well you have the right to be wrong.

We would prefer it though if you'd keep your venomous little opinions to your obnoxious little self.

Oh by the way...its 'themselves' not 'themself' - who's the loser now, punk-ass?

The guy who took two years to think of a comeback?

Seriously, why are the people on these boards obsessed with thread necromancy? How many hours did it take you to find this?