Jump to content



Photo

Gameplay?


  • Please log in to reply
37 replies to this topic

#1 Mattr0polis

Mattr0polis

    Member

  • Members
  • 820 posts

Posted 20 August 2012 - 03:36 AM

EDIT: Here's a link to a TON of card images. This did a lot to ease my worries. There's a ton of theme just through the cards themselves, which we couldn't really get a good look at in any of the videos people posted. Take a look:

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



#2 Dobbler

Dobbler

    Member

  • Members
  • 822 posts

Posted 20 August 2012 - 05:13 AM

Mattr0polis said:

Hey, is anyone else worried that the game just looks just kind of dull, same-ish a the moment?

I'm not talking about the pvp/co-op thing. I love Star Wars, so I was interested in this regardless of what choice they made there. Personally, I think pvp fits better for this IP, but whatever. I'm talking about the gameplay as it was shown of this pvp game, does not seem very exciting or new and does not seem very thematically fitting of Star Wars, which is usually an automatic guarantee when it comes to FFG.

Maybe I just haven't seen enough of the game, from all the videos and reviews? Maybe some others who got to play the demo can post their thoughts? Maybe I was just expecting more when FFG announced they were putting this back into development and said: "We are absolutely confident that with the extra time this affords us, Star Wars: The Card Game will become one of FFG’s greatest products ever."

I dunno, it just looks like another semi-clone of Magic the Gathering at the moment, with random units fighting all in one jumble of a generic battlefield, ships vs people even, just seems weird. Yes, there's the edge battles and committing to the Force, but that seems just tacked on to a MtG game, and I think the one guy even committed C-3PO to the Force. How is that for thematic-ness?

I'm just kind of underwhelmed at the moment, as almost all of FFG's other games really capture the theme and feel of the property, but this doesn't really look that way to me at the moment. I'm a huge Star Wars fanboy, it shouldn't take much to make me buy this.

How are AT-AT's supposed to march in and attack the Main Generator in this? Or X-wings make a daring attack on the Death Star? Or Han Solo flying everyone on the Falcon to wherever, avoiding Imperial entanglements on the way?

It's just not doing it for me at the moment. Hopefully my feelings will change as we learn more?

Thoughts? Anyone who tried the demo want to console me?

 

I played a game of Star Wars LCG at Gencon and absolutely loved it.  I can't wait to get to play more.

 

First, it should be stated that I am an avid player of the Game of Thrones LCG and have been playing for 9 years.  I have also dabbled in some other games like MTG, Overpower, and others over the years.

 

Second, when playing a PvP card game based on an intellectual property, there are times you have to suspend direct storylines from the books and ask yourself if it is capturing the "feel" of the intellectual property.

 

For instance, in Game of Thrones, there have been many times when my Eddard Stark kills your Joffrey Baratheon (Spoiler Alert: this action is the opposite of what happens in the books), but yet the game still captures the Valar Morghulis theme of the books: All men must die.

 

Likewise my first Star Wars LCG game felt just like the movies!  I was playing Dark Side, my opponent was playing Light Side. My Light Side opponent was less worried about destroying my characters, and focused on hitting my objectives fast and hard.  However, I built up a large board position, eventually getting out Darth Vader and was killing all of his units as fast as possible.  We were nearing the end of the game, we both had lost 2 objectives, and the Death Star Counter was up to 9 or 10.  I had complete board control with 5 or 6 units on the board while my opponent had none.  But he had maintained the lead in the force battle through my last turn, so on his last turn, during the Balance phase he put the last damage token on my objective winning himself the game.  The game absolutely felt like it captured the feel of the movies.  

 

Another friend of ours watched the game and all three of us are eager to get another chance to play.

 

 



#3 Mattr0polis

Mattr0polis

    Member

  • Members
  • 820 posts

Posted 20 August 2012 - 06:33 AM

Thanks, Dobbler. That is at least a little reassuring, as I was thinking of starting up GoT LCG for quite a while, until I heard about this Star Wars LCG.

I hear ya with theme, and I agree with you about having to forget about movie canon. I guess I just mean, the iconic battles (and other non-battle happenings) of Star Wars will be reduced to a generic battlefield where everything is fighting at once, ships and people. While this is okay, games like Decipher's Star Wars CCG nailed the feel and themes of Star Wars perfectly, while also letting things play out differently than the movies. I guess that game has just spoiled me a bit of what to expect for a Star Wars game and for something that FFG told us would become one of their greatest products ever.

We'll see what happens I guess.



#4 cyberfunk

cyberfunk

    Member

  • Members
  • 291 posts

Posted 20 August 2012 - 06:44 AM

 

Dobbler said:

 

For instance, in Game of Thrones, there have been many times when my Eddard Stark kills your Joffrey Baratheon (Spoiler Alert: (spoiler)), but yet the game still captures the Valar Morghulis theme of the books: All men must die. 

 

 

 

I don't think getting results that are "opposite" to the original material, in the sense that it's the same general scenario with the other side winning, is the problem. If Jek Porkins survives the trench run, or if Boba Fett knocks Chewie into the Sarlacc pit, that's great. We're still on theme. 

What we don't want is a Wampa destroying a Sandcrawler to disrupt Luke's Jedi training. Or Lando and swarms of Ewoks taking on Grand Moff Tarkin and some Sandpeople to blow up the Death Star. Or Jabba and some stormtroopers gunning down a squadron of X-Wings to bring down the Hoth energy shield.



#5 Mattr0polis

Mattr0polis

    Member

  • Members
  • 820 posts

Posted 20 August 2012 - 06:56 AM

cyberfunk said:

 

I don't think getting results that are "opposite" to the original material, in the sense that it's the same general scenario with the other side winning, is the problem. If Jek Porkins survives the trench run, or if Boba Fett knocks Chewie into the Sarlacc pit, that's great. We're still on theme. 

 

 

This.

Example wise, I guess I more mean things like C-3PO blocking a TIE Fighter. That's just weird.



#6 Mattr0polis

Mattr0polis

    Member

  • Members
  • 820 posts

Posted 20 August 2012 - 07:02 AM

I will say this, which is keeping me optimistic though: many of the people who actually got to physically play the demo themselves seem to be saying it's fun. So that's good. And I do like the few Eric Lang games I've played. We really will just have to wait and see more info, I guess.



#7 MarthWMaster

MarthWMaster

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,206 posts

Posted 20 August 2012 - 09:09 AM

 I have not played the demo, but I feel 100% the same way about the game as Mattr0polis. When I read that Star Wars: The Card Game v.2.0 was being unveiled at GenCon, I was suddenly very sad that I couldn't get to go this year. I mean, it's been a year since the initial announcement of the IP acquisition, and I'm a HUGE Star Wars appreciator, and would have LOVED to see this game in action! Excitement abounded as I followed the link to Team Covenant's website.

But a good deal of that excitement trickled away as I watched the demo video. Like Mattr0polis has said, it's just kind of in a jumble. The Death Star Dial is thematic and fits with what I think of as Wars-y, and the decision to make winning the game dependent on Objective cards was the correct one IMO. Edge battles are cool and add an element of strategy to the battles. But there's not much else I can say for the game that is positive. It just doesn't "feel" like Star Wars - yet. I do feel it would be possible to achieve the appropriate feel with the current system; it just needs some tweaking. I'd be willing to wait another year if it meant the system's flavor could be sufficiently improved from its current incarnation so as to fulfill FFG's February statement. But I suppose any further delays would destroy their credibility.

Oh, and the deckbuilding mechanic got a rare expletive reaction out of me.



#8 Mattr0polis

Mattr0polis

    Member

  • Members
  • 820 posts

Posted 20 August 2012 - 09:20 AM

Ok, I guy on BGG just posted a link to a TON of pictures from the demo decks (like 70 pics) and while I still have some reservations about this game, the pictures of some actual cards go a LONG way to adding some thematic value to this. Check some of them out. Some real cool stuff in there:

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

 

The videos people put up are nice but we just couldn't get a very good look at many cards. I'm genuinely kind of excited about this game again after looking at these.



#9 MarthWMaster

MarthWMaster

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,206 posts

Posted 20 August 2012 - 09:38 AM

 Well, that does help, but I'm not sure I'm keen on the idea of being able to play a Jedi Mind Trick on the Emperor. :P

One thing I'm noticing as I read more and more of the Objective cards, is that some of them feel like they would make more sense if the rules for Objectives worked a bit differently from the way they do currently. For example, Last Minute Rescue remains in play until it's destroyed by the Dark Side (assuming I'm understanding the rules correctly). Is there any way to "complete" your own Objectives, in order to reveal the next Objective in your stack, and/or receive some bonus? I think that there ought to be, as it gives you something to do other than throw attackers at the opponent's Objectives. Saving Luke before he falls from Cloud City (a.k.a. your opponent destroys Last Minute Rescue)? Now THAT sounds like the Star Wars flavor I've been craving!

Also, the more I think on it, the more I realize that I have too much faith in FFG's design teams to think there isn't already some rule in place preventing Characters from blocking Vehicles unless a card says otherwise.



#10 Budgernaut

Budgernaut

    The Uncanny One

  • Members
  • 1,498 posts

Posted 20 August 2012 - 03:48 PM

 I was in the same boat. I felt that the demo really left me cold as far as interesting gameplay goes. But reading the cards makes me excited as well. The funny thing is, if you say the game is all about attacking and defending objectives, it doesn't sound like Star Wars, but the objectives themselves really do seem to bring a lot of the theme to the game where the gameplay itself does not. Maybe I won't cancel my preorder after all.


"There is a fine line between neutral and amoral. In fact, there may be no line there at all."

--Count Dooku


#11 MarthWMaster

MarthWMaster

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,206 posts

Posted 20 August 2012 - 04:33 PM

 I guess my problem is that the Objectives don't seem to do a whole heck of a lot, except being there for the opponent to damage, and occasionally to provide some gameplay effect, and to annoyingly indicate the identity of some of the cards in your deck.



#12 dbmeboy

dbmeboy

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,328 posts

Posted 21 August 2012 - 12:20 AM

Yeah, when I heard the term "objective" I was imagining some sort of goal to complete (a la the SWCCG objectives).  These objectives are only objectives in that you want to destroy your opponent's.  For you, they're more like locations.



#13 herozeromes

herozeromes

    Member

  • Members
  • 294 posts

Posted 21 August 2012 - 02:35 AM

dbmeboy said:

Yeah, when I heard the term "objective" I was imagining some sort of goal to complete (a la the SWCCG objectives).  These objectives are only objectives in that you want to destroy your opponent's.  For you, they're more like locations.

Yeah, I really feel that the "Objective" title is a total misnomer. They do nothing as far as gameplay goals for the player. Also, the 3 you have give away 15 cards you have in your deck. There is no surprise.



#14 dbmeboy

dbmeboy

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,328 posts

Posted 21 August 2012 - 02:45 AM

 They could rename them "base" cards or some such thing. That would makes thematic sense for both resource generation and target for opponents.



#15 binarymelon

binarymelon

    Member

  • Members
  • 7 posts

Posted 21 August 2012 - 02:46 AM

 It may not be the norm in day to day conversation, but I think objective is actually the proper term, especially when discussing military targets.



#16 hyperion_pb

hyperion_pb

    Member

  • Members
  • 21 posts

Posted 21 August 2012 - 02:53 AM

binarymelon said:

 It may not be the norm in day to day conversation, but I think objective is actually the proper term, especially when discussing military targets.

 

"Ojective" seems a fine term for me. However, it would be also a good feature if at least some of the objectives of its own side could be fulfilled in some way, be it to deprive the enemy to opportunity to thwart it (destroy it), or to gain some bonus. Based on the pictures of the cards posted elsewhere on the web, I think that it would be thematic that Objectives like "Last Minute Rescue" or "A journey to Dagobah" could be achieved by the Light side player. 



#17 hyperion_pb

hyperion_pb

    Member

  • Members
  • 21 posts

Posted 21 August 2012 - 02:54 AM

binarymelon said:

 

 It may not be the norm in day to day conversation, but I think objective is actually the proper term, especially when discussing military targets.

 

 

 

"Objective" seems also a suited term for me. However, it would be also a good feature if at least some of the objectives of its own side could be fulfilled in some way, be it to deprive the enemy to opportunity to thwart it (destroy it), or to gain some bonus. Based on the pictures of the cards posted elsewhere on the web, I think that it would be thematic that Objectives like "Last Minute Rescue" or "A journey to Dagobah" could be achieved by the Light side player. 

 

Edit: sorry for the double message. i'm new to this specific forum!



#18 dbmeboy

dbmeboy

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,328 posts

Posted 21 August 2012 - 02:56 AM

 Yes, objective is what you'd call your targets, but the light side player's objectives aren't their targets, they're the dark side player's targets. If it's my objectives deck I want it to be my objectives.



#19 binarymelon

binarymelon

    Member

  • Members
  • 7 posts

Posted 21 August 2012 - 03:02 AM

Possibly, but that would add another mechanic in an already cluttered game.  I am very interested in this, because…well it's Star Wars, but it's toeing a very fine line.



#20 hyperion_pb

hyperion_pb

    Member

  • Members
  • 21 posts

Posted 21 August 2012 - 03:19 AM

binarymelon said:

Possibly, but that would add another mechanic in an already cluttered game.  I am very interested in this, because…well it's Star Wars, but it's toeing a very fine line.

 

What about being able to "attack" some of its own Objectives? (adding a different type of counter (advancement instead of damages) to the card, and letting the adversary player the possibility to "defend"). The same mechanism could be used to avoid too much cluttering ; also, maybe not all the Objectives could be affected by this feature (the Coruscant objective would not make sense being fulfilled by the Dark Side for instance) but this would both gives some control on its own objectives and a new way to fight against the opponent (fulfulling its objectives would be a way of protecting them). As the victory conditions appear to be asymmetric, this could be made with limited change of the game balance: if the Light Side fulfills its objectives, he is not progressing toward victory; if the Dark Side fulfills its own, he might occupy (focus) valuable assets that would not be available for defense against the Light side.

Anyway, it's just some of the rambling thoughts I had reading about the demos and looking at the videos posted.






© 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