Jump to content


Star Wars: Quick Conflict versus Protracted War

  • Please log in to reply
2 replies to this topic

#1 MarthWMaster



  • Members
  • 1,310 posts

Posted 02 August 2011 - 07:08 PM

The announcement page suggests that more games will follow the initial products: X-Wing and Star Wars: The Card Game. If FFG has plans to make a competitive LCG or board game along the lines of the Star Wars games of old, there is something important in the Star Wars mythos that I feel ought to be represented in some form, and that is the emphasis that time has upon the Light-Dark conflict.

The Star Wars Trading Card Game (the one Wizards made after Lucas Licensing pulled the rights from Decipher) did a great job of emulating the distinction of quick conflict versus a long, protracted war, but IMO they went wrong about it. Dark Side cards would always act first, but were generally weaker than comparable Light Side cards, which meant that the early turns favored the Dark Side, while a longer game slowly shifted to favor the Light Side, as more units hit the table and drew out the disparity in cost-effectiveness between the two sides. While flavorful, this is the opposite of how things ought to work in a Star Wars game.

Consider the Battle of Yavin, where the Alliance faces the urgency of destroying the Death Star before it is in range of the Rebel base; or the Battle of Endor, where the Rebels on the moon's surface need to disable the deflector shield before the Imperial superweapon and fleet devastate the Alliance. Even the Clone Wars are an example of the Dark Side's preference for extended conflict, in that the longer the battles continue across the Galaxy, the more spread out the Jedi Knights become, making them easy enough to annihilate when Order 66 is finally executed. (Not to mention the many Jedi who are killed in action beforehand.)

The Light Side is always facing pressure to end the battle quickly, while the Dark Side relies on its superior resources to last until victory is assured. This is a crucial element that ought to be reflected in any game that hopes to capture the "feel" of epic battles between the Rebellion and the Empire.

They are on the right track with Star Wars: The Card Game, in that the Rebels need to complete their objectives before time runs out and their base is destroyed. If the intent is for there to eventually be a second, Imperial version of the game, its goals ought to be the opposite: the Imperial players must defend their mission objectives from Alliance assault until the timer ticks to zero, at which point they win.

Just my two credits. :)

#2 Pericles



  • Members
  • 73 posts

Posted 03 August 2011 - 04:24 AM

Your perspective is not without merit, Marth, but I have to respectfully disagree.  The Dark Side is, by it's nature, self-destructive.  Time is not on it's side.  The Rebels prevailed in the end because they out-lasted the Dark Side antagonists and allowed them to defeat themselves (Vader chucking Palps over the rail).  I think the theme was represented well in the CCG, where the DS could slap down a minimal number of cards (Star Destroyers, AT-ATs, Vader) and gain an early advantage.  The LS was encourged to hold back their forces until an opportunity revealed itself, then strike with synergistic cards that complimented each other (the whole is greater than the sum of parts).

I will concede, however, that, in terms of gameplay, the up-hill battle faced by the Alliance makes for a much more interesting game than the "it's your game to lose" situation that would be evidenced in a DS version holding to the themes I outlined above.  As I stated in an earlier thread, though, I think it will be a moot point.

"Chug... Chug... Chug..."

#3 jhaelen



  • Members
  • 2,063 posts

Posted 03 August 2011 - 08:24 PM

please ignore (or delete).

© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS