I've read a lot of Negative posts regarding the fact that characters and vehicles (more specifically spaceships) can engage in combat and fight against each other. I don't get this personally, I just think it's a good thing. Why?

A sharp division between the two would create more situations where card draw was important. So you drew Luke, your opponent has two cheap tie fighters, unfortunately your great expensive card can't combat the TIEs and you loose because you never drew a spaceship in time.

A sharp division would force players to always include both space vehicle and Character components, limiting player theme and choice.

The only reason I can really think of to include a division between the two would be because of theme and "realism". If we were to interpret things litteraly and "realistically" then spaceships would have no trouble damaging Characters (strafing runs, bombing runs, planetary bombardment) but characters would have difficulty damaging them back, which would result in some pretty sticky balancing issues. Literal interpretations just doesnt really work with this sort of gameplay. The game is already pretty abstract, obviously Luke doesnt go into space waving his lightsaber at the TIE, no more than he single handedly literally destroys the "heart of the empire" (corouscant planet objective) Flexible and creative cinematic interpretation is the way to go.

So why do -you- think this is such a big deal? Tell us about -your- thoughts on solving the many issues a division between the "types" of characters/vehicles would create.

It`s not a deal breaker for me but it does feel a bit weird. What bothers me more about it actually is previous star wars games(including the co-op demo) had combat on both fronts and that seems interesting to me.

you bought me, +1 !

I'm with Lukez on this one. Both previous Star Wars collectible card games, as well as the demo last year, had space battles and character battles occurring simultaneously yet independently of one another, like what was seen in the movies. It's not an issue of play balance; it's an issue of remaining faithful to the source material. When the Emperor revealed to Luke that the Alliance fleet and his friends on the Endor moon had been pulled into a trap, dark emotions flooded into Luke as he realized he was helpless to save them. If that situation were to occur in this game, he would simply leap out of the battle station and join the fight himself. Never mind stealing an Imperial ship on the way out; a Jedi Knight is more than a match for TIE Fighters and Star Destroyers.

AshesFall said:

Although I don't like it it really doesn't bother me that much. It is a game, things are abstracted. The problem quoted above is pretty easily fixed in this game though due to the pod deck building. If the designers always include a character and a ship in a pod then the players will be forced to play with a good number of both.

Darksbane said:

That's more certainly NOT how the current Objective blocks, as seen from spoilers on cardgamedb and the latest news on FFG, are organized.

This whole ground vs space thing will only truly be answered (in terms of how it plays into the theme and flow of the game) when we know what, exactly is in the Core Set, and what the various expansion packs over time will do to give cards like the Echo Base Ion Cannon to deal with starships, or bombing run event cards that allows starships to damage ground characteres outside of combat.

cleardave said:

I know, I'm just saying that would be an easy solution to it.

It does feel a bit weird at first but I've gotten used to it over the last month or so. Definitely not a deal breaker for me.

I think most people who don't necessarily like it understand after playing the game a bit that in *this* game system it would definitely unbalance things. But I think their larger complaint then is "why design the game system this certain way, then?"

But honestly, it's just a game. If it makes for a more fun game, then I'm for whatever.

Mattr0polis said:

What of the ties between a game's theme and its fun value that exist among many players?

Coming at this as a long-time AGOT player, it doesn't really bother me that much, as I've just come to accept that level of abstraction in FFG's card games. In AGOT, the Character card category covers a whole lot: you've got standard people you might expect from the books/show, but other characters are massive armies or fleets, or even creatures like dragons and ravens (and one of those ravens is one of the most efficient and effective cards in the game).

Of course there's something slightly preposterous about the exchange "I shall attack with this army composed of thousands of knights" and "And I shall successfully defend, with this one dude," but is it that hard to suspend disbelief? For me at least, no, and I don't see myself having too hard a time accepting it when Artoo will stand in the way of Star Destroyer.

I don't know if anyone's come up with the terminology for it in this game yet, or if this is a concept common to many other card games, but the AGOT community frequently breaks things down into Ned, Shagga, and Jaime perspectives. Ned (you see the adverb Nedly a lot in our discussions, the other ones don't get adverbial forms often) is concerned with things being thematic; Shagga likes building up powerful combinations of cards; and Jaime is all about ruthless efficiency, whatever cards win you the game are the best cards, canon and thematics be damned. Not sure what could be used for Star Wars; Luke-as-Ned and Boba-as-Jaime maybe, not sure who'd be all about the combos.

I can certainly see the appeal in having things line up with the source material. There's certainly something satisfying about attaching Darth Vader's Lightsaber to Darth Vader, it's just obviously where it belongs. But I'm not going to hold onto that attachment, waiting for the "right" character, when I have a perfectly good guy in-play who would never in a million years wield a lightsaber in canon, but would wreak havoc with it in game. (That raven I mentioned earlier in AGOT? It can totally wield a sword, because why the heck not?)

Obviously that example doesn't really match up with the whole Jedis battling TIE fighters issues, but I do feel that it's somewhere in the ballpark by several degrees. I am interested to see just how important thematics are to so many people; I'm not really trying to discount your disapproval of how FFG has designed the game. If this is a deal breaker for you, it's a deal breaker. I just can't quite see myself from that perspective. The Star Wars license is just a bit more incidental to me; it's nice to have, and it got my attention, but I'm mainly here because I like FFG's card games and this one looks like it'll be a lot of fun.

alpha5099 said:

The "Player Types" has a counterpart in Lord of the Rings; Boromir=Jaime, etc. so I wonder what FFG will do when they make the inevitable "Star Wars player types" article.

Going off your AGoT comparison, I will agree that while a lot of the mechanics are abstract, I do ultimately still get the theme of the IP through things like characters going after specific challenges, as well as the 4 player variant with all the titles.

True, there are some anomalies, like the examples you gave, but ultimately the card game has a Thrones-y feel to it.

Also, I have played all of the LCG's currently out (with the exception of Warhammer) and I've enjoyed all of them, but for different reasons, so it's a safe bet for me that Star Wars will be another winner. It's a bonus that it's the Star Wars IP.

When it all comes out, we'll see what kind of Star Wars flavour creeps through into the gameplay experience

I would imagine that Vader, rather than Boba, would be about ruthless efficiency, since he goes around choking incompetent leaders left and right, and Boba would be the combo player, since his armor is packed to the gills with various devices and weapons used for following and capturing his prey.

MarthWMaster said:

Well, after Episode III, and the latest rendition of Return of the Jedi, the "Vader Type" would probably be the player that easily falls for other players transparent tactics and screams "NOOOOOOOO!!!" when it all goes wrong.

cleardave said:

Calling it right now: I'll be a Vader type player then. The amount of obvious traps I fall for in games like this is just sad. Too busy trying to make sure everything's working on my side of the table, I completely forget to account for things I should absolutely be prepared for coming from my opponents.

I like Boba as the "ruthlessly efficient" archetype. For the combo player I'd suggest Palpatine, he's the real schemer of the films.

Palpatine wouldn't be bad, but he might actually be too competent and successful for this archetype. The combo-based player type gets tied to a character that makes potentially impractical decisions in order to pull off something cool. AGOT's character for this is Shagga, who's all about wielding two two-handed battleaxes, not because it's a good way to fight but because it's intimidating and manly.

Boba Fett might actually be the best for this, as he is certainly a cool character, but how effective he is, in the films at least, is perhaps open to debate. "Oops, I've fallen into the sarlacc!"

Actually, if we're going with the implied prior assumption that all canon material is relevant, despite the LCG's fixture in the Classic Era, then Palpatine is absolutely this game's Shagga as we learn in TFU, going out of his way to bring his adversaries together in order to crush them in one fell swoop, only to inadvertently trigger the formation of the Rebellion that ultimately destroys him and his Empire. That's what we call a plan backfiring.

Hehe. Why dont we try to get back on topic? I'd like to hear ideas about different ways to use the vehicle/character/space mechanic in a -good- way in this LCG. How would you make a division work?

Here's a question: how much do we know about the available Vehicles in the game? This post on cardgamedb has a bunch of images from the GenCon demo, and among the cards I see only four vehicles: Coruscant Defense Fleet, Redemption, Advanced TIE, and Darth Vader's Advanced Tie.

http://www.cardgamedb.com/index.php/index.html/_/star-wars/star-wars-the-card-game-images-galore-r273

The demo decks were all the same Jedi and Sith decks, correct? The two factions that are likely to be heavy on vehicles are the Rebel Alliance and the Imperial Navy, and without more information on what kind of cards those factions have, it's hard to say how the interaction between vehicles and everything else will really work. Even if there's nothing in the basics of the rules that segregate vehicle and character combat, we might see cards with passive effects that still enforce such a segregation.

If there're more spoilers floating around which provide more information on vehicles, then all this speculation might be for nothing.

I agree, it may all be for nothing when we see more cards. X-Wings and TIE fighters may have a special keyword, such as Pilot, that means "can only target/be targeted by other Pilot units" that precludes any silliness. But as regards this "silliness", I really don't mind it. I think your hand/deck represents the might of your chosen faction, and having that might represented by character units or ship units isn't really a concern for me.

Which I suppose is just a roundabout way of saying "yay for abstraction!"

Having recently started with X-Wing though, for those who don't know there are almost two sets of rules included in that game - the Quick Start rules, and the Proper rules. Quick Start seems to ignore a hell of a lot of the tactical side of the game, and emphasizes how the basic mechanics of the game work. So maybe we'll see something similar with this game - a set of instructions for how the game works in terms of getting damage on your opponent's objectives, and then the Real stuff that involves the finer points of the game. And maybe it was these hypothetical Quick Start rules they were using to demo the game at GenCon to make it appeal to the largest number of folks possible.

The other thing I keep thinking of is a comparison to the Lord of the Rings LCG. I would probably not get into this game if it was demo'd to me using, for example, Foundations of Stone. Not that it isn't fun, but there's just too much going on. It makes sense for the game to be simple at first, and then add mechanics as it goes along. That's what I think will be happening here.

For me this is an issue, and a great one.

But… since FFG gave me a new fantastic and awesome game called Android: Netrunner, I guess this 'more-of-the-same-lame-game' of Star Wars LCG will drive by my side and I'll not even notice it!

I believe that AEG's L5R card game deals with this by saying the "fight" or "combat" value of a character represents an army or a force that character personally controls/commands. You could imagine that Luke's or whoever's combat value also represents a detachment or a few fighters at his personal disposal.

While it doesn't make sense in all cases, I believe it could pass for most issues.

ChaosChild said:

Yes. He was so ruthlessly efficient that he was done in by a blind man and a walking carpet. This was after he basically did no legwork in capturing said blind man. Don't mean to yank your chain. I just never got why Boba Fett was so cool outside his mask and jet pack.

Vader is super efficient, R2 or Han feel like the combo style players, and Yoda feels like the story archetype to me. Watch FFG throw us all for a loop by labeling the archetypes as jawas, sandpeople, and ewoks,.

On topic. What what what?! As a formerly avid player of good ol' SW:CCG, this info is…a bit unsettling. But, I haven't seen the game in action, so I'll just laugh to myself about Luke fighting a Star Destroyer in the detention block of the Death Star. I feel the way characters, vehicles, and starships interacted in SW:CCG was pretty great and it made sense, too.

qwertyuiop said:

My three favorite Star Wars races! I would be so happy if they named the archetypes that way. Don't even care which kind of playstyle "Ewoks" are, I would play nothing but "Ewok" decks.

I'm serious too, I love the Ewoks, unabashedly and whole-heartedly. I know they're pretty unpopular with a lot of fans, but I'm really hoping that FFG has some Ewok cards incoming.

The person vs. ship combats are a bit goofy, but no more so than what you run into in a lot of other games. In the Call of Cthulhu LCG the police can arrest a tentacled monster from another dimension and put it in jail, how does that make sense? No, this isn't a killer issue for me.

What I'm more concerned with is that from what I've seen so far the gameplay doesn't impress me that much and the deck building I think I have to say *IS* an absolute killer for me. It looks to me as if FFG wants to position this game as being a casual LCG, for the wider public of gamers who may find building decks from scratch to be kind of intimidating. Hey guys! Come buy our game where the deck builds itself for you, all you need to do is choose a few buildings and the deck magically appears.

I can see that, and it's completely worth doing too. For one thing, the casual audience is pretty big. For another, this game won't cannibalize sales of other LCGs as much because of less overlap in the target groups. I've heard the argument that at some point FFG can't do too many LCG's simply because most people can only afford the cost and time to collect X number of them, and eventually you're just moving players from one game to another. Aiming this at people outside the normal demographic solves this problem.

But, as a member of the hardcore LCGer's crowd, it's not for me. No problem, I've got Call of Cthulhu and Netrunner to keep me busy until the next next LCG game comes out.