Jump to content



Photo

Win Condition Ideas


  • Please log in to reply
35 replies to this topic

#1 Roman_Sandal

Roman_Sandal

    Member

  • Members
  • 67 posts

Posted 01 September 2012 - 06:08 PM

Hey team,

I've opened up this post so hopefully FFG staff can see the fans ideas and thoughts on the win conditions.

I reckon both sides should have the same win conditions.

Ideas?

 



#2 MarthWMaster

MarthWMaster

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,206 posts

Posted 01 September 2012 - 06:30 PM

A player's own Objectives should present her with objectives that she can complete, either to acquire various benefits or win the game outright. They should not simply be targets for the opponent to attack.



#3 Roman_Sandal

Roman_Sandal

    Member

  • Members
  • 67 posts

Posted 01 September 2012 - 08:21 PM

An idea I like taken from the BGG forum:

Talking about theme and objectives, i really dont like the different victory conditions. I think it will hinder gameplay instead of encouraging different playstyles. I would much rather see that they discard the "death star counter" and having both sides battling out via objectives. I also want to see that you're trying to complete your own objectives while still trying to hinder your opponents for completing their own. So maybe two types of objectives?

example: I have two objectives i want to advance & complete(journey to dagobah and jedi training) and one i want to defend(secret rebel base). The secret rebel base gives me more resources but are a risk, if my opponent destroy it i lose the game. The journey to dagobah and jedi training gives me less resources but when i have advanced them enough they i complete them and draw new ones. Both types of objectives can have the same mechaninc meaning that i can either attack my opponents objective or try to advance my own.
example in the example: I focus luke to advance the jedi training, my opponent can choose to try to hinder me and in that case a conflict begins.

You keep both the ones you destroy and the ones you complete.
When, during your refresh phase, you have no more objectives to play and no more to advance this will end the game and either you win or you count points and the one has the most wins. You gain points by completing objectives and you lose them if your objectives got destroyed/hindered.

I think this will do more to bring the theme alive and also give both sides equal winning conditions. You can still have the thematic differences in the objectives instead of like right now with with counter thingy.
 

 



#4 aussiecossie

aussiecossie

    Member

  • Members
  • 21 posts

Posted 01 September 2012 - 08:40 PM

 I know that no one understands the mechanics of the game quite like the designers but I must say I'm not much of a fan of the doomsday clock either. The issue I have with it is that it's one sided. If the dark side can stall for long enough they can win and nothing will stop it. The light side does not get that luxury. In the interests of fairness I would vote to scrap the death star counter mechanic entirely and focus on destroying 3 objectives.

I like the previous posters idea of scoring your own objectives except rather than having offensive and defensive objectives I would suggest each objective has health and can be scored under the right conditions. It could add a depth in strategy when deciding how to build your deck.



#5 Bolfa Fluffbelly

Bolfa Fluffbelly

    Member

  • Members
  • 52 posts

Posted 01 September 2012 - 08:48 PM

Roman_Sandal said:

 

An idea I like taken from the BGG forum:

Talking about theme and objectives, i really dont like the different victory conditions. I think it will hinder gameplay instead of encouraging different playstyles. I would much rather see that they discard the "death star counter" and having both sides battling out via objectives. I also want to see that you're trying to complete your own objectives while still trying to hinder your opponents for completing their own. So maybe two types of objectives?

example: I have two objectives i want to advance & complete(journey to dagobah and jedi training) and one i want to defend(secret rebel base). The secret rebel base gives me more resources but are a risk, if my opponent destroy it i lose the game. The journey to dagobah and jedi training gives me less resources but when i have advanced them enough they i complete them and draw new ones. Both types of objectives can have the same mechaninc meaning that i can either attack my opponents objective or try to advance my own.
example in the example: I focus luke to advance the jedi training, my opponent can choose to try to hinder me and in that case a conflict begins.

You keep both the ones you destroy and the ones you complete.
When, during your refresh phase, you have no more objectives to play and no more to advance this will end the game and either you win or you count points and the one has the most wins. You gain points by completing objectives and you lose them if your objectives got destroyed/hindered.

I think this will do more to bring the theme alive and also give both sides equal winning conditions. You can still have the thematic differences in the objectives instead of like right now with with counter thingy.
 

 

 

 

That monkehbwoy from bgg is one sexy bastard ;)

Here's some more ideas;

Cruel Interrogations: When you defeat a character in a conflict you can choose to capture him on this card instead of discarding. You get x number of points depending on the cost/force/hit points of the character.

 

Counsel of the Sith: Every advancement token gives you +1 in the force struggle perhaps?

Hit and Run: Pretty straight forward, whenever you complete this objective you can damage/destroy one enemy vehicle/star ship/location?

Reconnaissance mission: Everytime you advance(put a advancement token on) this objective you may look at one of your opponents card at random.

 

 

Last minute rescue: Advance to complete. Upon completion you may put one character from your discard and score it on this objective based on cost/force/hit points.

 

I dont know, i'm just brainstorming here. It seems like a fun idea but maybe it will be hard to balance?

I think it will be easier(and more fun!) to 'theme' your deck and easier to get a rebel-feel, empire-feel, bounty hunter-feel etc rather than just dark side and light side. On the other hand, maybe ffg just want a DS vs LS.



#6 pomomojo

pomomojo

    Member

  • Members
  • 7 posts

Posted 01 September 2012 - 10:34 PM

Perhaps the Force Battle mechanic could be reconfigured to help with advancement of objectives? 

So winning the Force Battle at the end of each round allows the winner to add advancement tokens to objectives and once they reach a certain point they "score." 

Then you can have bounty hunter objectives that score by allowing the player to eliminate any character from the opponent's deck, or rebel objectives that score and give the player a boost of reinforcements.  Maybe the Empire has an objective called "Build the Death Star" that takes many, many advancement tokens to complete but instantly wins the game?  Players will have to balance short-term objectives that grant an immediate tactical advantage with long-term objectives that score "points" toward winning the game. 

The objectives I saw were rather bland - get an extra card, or something like that.  Using them didn't make me feel any more like I was playing the Dark Side and destroying them didn't feel like any sort of victory for the Light Side.  But there's a ton of potential in the concept of objectives.  I'm mildly intrigued by the pod system for deck building just because it will be different, but if your deck not only determines your units but also the very win conditions you have to fulfill then the idea of building decks around pods of cards attached to certain objectives becomes much more interesting. 

With objectives determining the win conditions there also opens up a number of interesting metagame decisions.  If all the best Light Side decks play Luke Skywalker, should I play an objective called "I Am Your Father" that scores me points if I can put X amount of exhaust tokens on him and, thus, turn him to the dark side or should I keep that card out of my deck because every time Luke attacks it he does double damage?  If all the best Scum and Villainy decks score bonus points for killing Han Solo, then I have to think about whether or not he's worth playing even though he might be a great card (let's hope). 

In summary, do I build a deck around executing my strategy or denying my opponent's?  If each side only has one win condition and it is known ahead of time then this decision becomes less interesting. 

 



#7 Bolfa Fluffbelly

Bolfa Fluffbelly

    Member

  • Members
  • 52 posts

Posted 01 September 2012 - 10:45 PM

pomomojo said:

Perhaps the Force Battle mechanic could be reconfigured to help with advancement of objectives? 

So winning the Force Battle at the end of each round allows the winner to add advancement tokens to objectives and once they reach a certain point they "score." 

Then you can have bounty hunter objectives that score by allowing the player to eliminate any character from the opponent's deck, or rebel objectives that score and give the player a boost of reinforcements.  Maybe the Empire has an objective called "Build the Death Star" that takes many, many advancement tokens to complete but instantly wins the game?  Players will have to balance short-term objectives that grant an immediate tactical advantage with long-term objectives that score "points" toward winning the game. 

The objectives I saw were rather bland - get an extra card, or something like that.  Using them didn't make me feel any more like I was playing the Dark Side and destroying them didn't feel like any sort of victory for the Light Side.  But there's a ton of potential in the concept of objectives.  I'm mildly intrigued by the pod system for deck building just because it will be different, but if your deck not only determines your units but also the very win conditions you have to fulfill then the idea of building decks around pods of cards attached to certain objectives becomes much more interesting. 

With objectives determining the win conditions there also opens up a number of interesting metagame decisions.  If all the best Light Side decks play Luke Skywalker, should I play an objective called "I Am Your Father" that scores me points if I can put X amount of exhaust tokens on him and, thus, turn him to the dark side or should I keep that card out of my deck because every time Luke attacks it he does double damage?  If all the best Scum and Villainy decks score bonus points for killing Han Solo, then I have to think about whether or not he's worth playing even though he might be a great card (let's hope). 

In summary, do I build a deck around executing my strategy or denying my opponent's?  If each side only has one win condition and it is known ahead of time then this decision becomes less interesting. 

 

 

I'm loving this!

Also, i think the objective cards DESERVE to be more thematic/better/more fun to play with the great art that comes with them. Okay, deserves is a big word, but you know what i mean. With great art comes great responsibility!



#8 Andur Saibot

Andur Saibot

    Member

  • Members
  • 57 posts

Posted 01 September 2012 - 11:51 PM

This is the thread I wanted to write in!

I am 100% with pomomojo and Bolfa in this. That should be the way. It's all about the strategy and versatility of gameplay. Two kind of objectives, to fulfill and to destroy, with more game and thematic impact, are only the first thing to do to upgrade the game system (maybe some of them only can be attacked/fulfilled/defended by starships and some other by characters so you can build a starship-themed deck with all its pros and cons without having the rancor eating all of them?).

Maybe you can "commit" characters/starships to fulfill objectives and therefore the other side can attack such objectives, forcing the commited character/starship to fight or flee, so you have to think about it twice due to the risk of losing whoever you've sent? For example, if the Emperor is in the Counsel of the Sith, giving the Dark Side amazing benefits, the Light side can attack that objective and win the game if they kill the Emperor (really, many bothans died to bring us this information). Or you can send Luke to Dagobah for training and, if Vader manages to get there (prevented if you've sent Yoda too), he can corrupt and turn Luke. Or the Empire can get Han red-handed only during an attempt of a Kessel run, or retaliate when LS player tries to pull a Hit-and-Run and send all the stormtroopers (maybe Vader as well if he senses a Skywalker is in) to fight the rebels who participated in the operation (so, do I send Madine and Wedge to the mission, where thay can die, or only Porkins?).

Examples are unlimited and all incentivizing. Also, this game mechanics scenario also recovers the feeling of having the characters "somewhere in the galaxy" and not just in a blurry, conceptual space, able to defend in Coruscant and Tatooine at the same time.

Anyway, I love different winning conditions, not for each player but in general terms (like L5R), or at least, I think is mandatory to have various ways of achieving those conditions (just destroying each other's objectives via attacking with your characters only makes this game "Star Wars: The Gathering"). Maybe a winning counter for the Light SIde too just to start talking?

Count me in for the brainstorming.

 

 



#9 spalanzani

spalanzani

    Member

  • Members
  • 806 posts

Posted 02 September 2012 - 12:10 AM

Wow, there are some awesome ideas here! I actually love the idea of the Empire having a build the Death Star objective rather than an abstract clock that represents building it. The idea of bounty hunters being after someone could be represented by focusing a bounty hunter to search the opponent's top five cards or something, showing a proper "search" for that character? The strategy of playing different characters, and they way the opposing decks will synergize with each other, I'm sure will be a feature of the game. Star Wars, after all, isn't just all fighting on a battlefield. 

Having objectives to complete is an idea I'm really firmly behind! However, I suppose doing this could possibly mean that the objectives you need to defend are nothing more than location cards? And having objective advancement tokens could just add to the complains about this being a token-fest. I hope we see objectives that have a bonus when you complete them, or something, in future expansions, but I'm not really holding my breath at the minute for such objectives to be included in the core box. I suppose, too, that deciding whether to commit characters to advancing an objective, to attack objectives, or to defending objectives, might add a layer of complexity that they're trying to avoid. Perhaps in later expansions, but to essentially try and make this card game a gateway game to sucker the vast majority of Star Wars fans into who are non-gamers, it seems to be a bit much. 


www.spalanz.com - everything you never wanted to know about me, in one place.


#10 Roman_Sandal

Roman_Sandal

    Member

  • Members
  • 67 posts

Posted 02 September 2012 - 12:34 AM

I reckon the death star counter needs to be canned, within my group it could be the make or break decision whether to purchase the game or not. The consenus seem to be that both the light side and dark side should have the same win conditions.

I would be happy if it was keep as basic as destroying a certain number of your opponents objectives and rather than having to complete your own objectives each of your own objectives should have a game text you are able to utilise when the force is on your side. eg. If you control the force by 2 all your characters are deploy -1.

This provides an easy transition which gets rid of the doomsday clock, provides equal win conditions and also provide a reason to commit resources to the force.

Sometimes simple is better.

Thoughts?

 



#11 Bolfa Fluffbelly

Bolfa Fluffbelly

    Member

  • Members
  • 52 posts

Posted 02 September 2012 - 12:46 AM

Roman_Sandal said:

I reckon the death star counter needs to be canned, within my group it could be the make or break decision whether to purchase the game or not. The consenus seem to be that both the light side and dark side should have the same win conditions.

I would be happy if it was keep as basic as destroying a certain number of your opponents objectives and rather than having to complete your own objectives each of your own objectives should have a game text you are able to utilise when the force is on your side. eg. If you control the force by 2 all your characters are deploy -1.

This provides an easy transition which gets rid of the doomsday clock, provides equal win conditions and also provide a reason to commit resources to the force.

Sometimes simple is better.

Thoughts?

 

IF they would choose to scrap the DS counter (wich i hope) this is the option they'll probably choose. And i would have nothing against it, if they're going for a more streamlined/basic approach (to the core game anyways) for simpler gameplay. It also would be pretty easy to expand on with different types of objectives etc.

 

But ofcourse i would rather see more focus on theme than making the game "easy to play". I think going the extra mile with theme can do alot more for new players than making the game abstract and "streamlined".



#12 spalanzani

spalanzani

    Member

  • Members
  • 806 posts

Posted 02 September 2012 - 01:06 AM

The trouble with this word "theme" is that it could lead to all sorts of craziness, to my way of thinking. Thematically, then, the Rebel player must play like it's an uphill struggle to even get anywhere. The Imperial player can swarm the game from the get-go with stormtroopers by the billion. Aside from the presence of Luke, who, if the eu is to be observed, was possibly the strongest Force-user in the history of these things, the Rebels don't have a hope in hell, and you'll need a tremendous amount of luck to get anywhere. Be prepared for crushing defeats, with winning perhaps one in four times. 

Same for victory conditions. The Rebels will win if they destroy the Emperor and turn Vader back to the Light Side. The Empire will win when there are no Rebel units left in play. To talk about theme means you need an asymmetrical game system that is ridiculously heavily skewed to the military might of the Empire. 

That's what I think, anyway!


www.spalanz.com - everything you never wanted to know about me, in one place.


#13 Bolfa Fluffbelly

Bolfa Fluffbelly

    Member

  • Members
  • 52 posts

Posted 02 September 2012 - 01:26 AM

spalanzani said:

The trouble with this word "theme" is that it could lead to all sorts of craziness, to my way of thinking. Thematically, then, the Rebel player must play like it's an uphill struggle to even get anywhere. The Imperial player can swarm the game from the get-go with stormtroopers by the billion. Aside from the presence of Luke, who, if the eu is to be observed, was possibly the strongest Force-user in the history of these things, the Rebels don't have a hope in hell, and you'll need a tremendous amount of luck to get anywhere. Be prepared for crushing defeats, with winning perhaps one in four times. 

Same for victory conditions. The Rebels will win if they destroy the Emperor and turn Vader back to the Light Side. The Empire will win when there are no Rebel units left in play. To talk about theme means you need an asymmetrical game system that is ridiculously heavily skewed to the military might of the Empire. 

That's what I think, anyway!

Yes, but you can still have a strong "theme" with similar victory conditions instead of having different ones. It's just that the theme comes from the objectives themself so that theme and playstyle may be overlapping. So let's say i'm playing a jedi deck, i will have alot of mystery sites, jedi training, traveling to different locations contra a rebel deck where im having a secret rebel base and sneeky military operations. For the dark jedi the theme can come from having some dark mischevious plans like building the death star or gathering lore from a sith library contra the imperial deck wich focus on searching planets for rebel bases, interriogating prisoners and other police-state stuff. The objectives themself will still be completed/hinderd the same way but you get different feels from each type of deck.

So instead of being forced a theme from the game-mechanic itself i can actually MAKE my theme and choose a playstyle while still having an equal way to victory as my opponent. In a way the theme is a sort of disguise for the gameplay so to speak. The goal with "theme" should be that it feels like you're playing as a jedi or a imperial officer without actual forcing you play a certain way. Or i like it to be anyways.

Do i make any sense or i'm a just contradicting my self?



#14 spalanzani

spalanzani

    Member

  • Members
  • 806 posts

Posted 02 September 2012 - 01:54 AM

Bolfa Fluffbelly said:

spalanzani said:

 

The trouble with this word "theme" is that it could lead to all sorts of craziness, to my way of thinking. Thematically, then, the Rebel player must play like it's an uphill struggle to even get anywhere. The Imperial player can swarm the game from the get-go with stormtroopers by the billion. Aside from the presence of Luke, who, if the eu is to be observed, was possibly the strongest Force-user in the history of these things, the Rebels don't have a hope in hell, and you'll need a tremendous amount of luck to get anywhere. Be prepared for crushing defeats, with winning perhaps one in four times. 

Same for victory conditions. The Rebels will win if they destroy the Emperor and turn Vader back to the Light Side. The Empire will win when there are no Rebel units left in play. To talk about theme means you need an asymmetrical game system that is ridiculously heavily skewed to the military might of the Empire. 

That's what I think, anyway!

 

 

Yes, but you can still have a strong "theme" with similar victory conditions instead of having different ones. It's just that the theme comes from the objectives themself so that theme and playstyle may be overlapping. So let's say i'm playing a jedi deck, i will have alot of mystery sites, jedi training, traveling to different locations contra a rebel deck where im having a secret rebel base and sneeky military operations. For the dark jedi the theme can come from having some dark mischevious plans like building the death star or gathering lore from a sith library contra the imperial deck wich focus on searching planets for rebel bases, interriogating prisoners and other police-state stuff. The objectives themself will still be completed/hinderd the same way but you get different feels from each type of deck.

So instead of being forced a theme from the game-mechanic itself i can actually MAKE my theme and choose a playstyle while still having an equal way to victory as my opponent. In a way the theme is a sort of disguise for the gameplay so to speak. The goal with "theme" should be that it feels like you're playing as a jedi or a imperial officer without actual forcing you play a certain way. Or i like it to be anyways.

Do i make any sense or i'm a just contradicting my self?

Oh, no, I get that totally now! Yeah, I'm definitely with ya on this. I suppose it doesn't really matter about objectives providing resources in a theme-y way, but some of their special abilities should definitely have a theme. Like a Jedi training one, when completed, giving you more Force icons for the Force struggle or something. 

I'm totally behind that!


www.spalanz.com - everything you never wanted to know about me, in one place.


#15 aussiecossie

aussiecossie

    Member

  • Members
  • 21 posts

Posted 02 September 2012 - 01:55 AM

You're making perfect sense! 

The concunsus seems to be in favour of destructable/progressable objectives. Problem is just because we want it doesn't mean we'll get it. It could be too late in the game's development to make this big a change, who knows? (subtle hint to ffg to weigh in here)



#16 Roman_Sandal

Roman_Sandal

    Member

  • Members
  • 67 posts

Posted 02 September 2012 - 02:07 AM

 Aussie, what do you think of my keeping it simple idea? And if there is any FFG staff reading these posts some input would be awesome.

 



#17 Bolfa Fluffbelly

Bolfa Fluffbelly

    Member

  • Members
  • 52 posts

Posted 02 September 2012 - 02:13 AM

aussiecossie said:

Problem is just because we want it doesn't mean we'll get it. It could be too late in the game's development to make this big a change, who knows? (subtle hint to ffg to weigh in here)

 

Yes, ofcourse. Personally i don't think the victory condition is THAT big of a change, i see it more of a fine-tuning. Then again i'm not a game designer (yet! hehe). I don't really have high hopes that ffg will scrap something they already put time and work in so far in the process (it's star wars and will sell anyway) and i don't know if they actually pay attention to the forums. I don't think i ever seen a staff member post here.

I don't blame them though, there's a lot of unnesscesary hate thrown around here,

But 'm having a good vibe about the disscussion, hopefully it will bring some positive change! 



#18 spalanzani

spalanzani

    Member

  • Members
  • 806 posts

Posted 02 September 2012 - 02:27 AM

I'd like to think they have a passive presence on the forums, watching out for opinions etc, but then it seems to me it'd be a full-time job for one person to watch each game's forum! 

Something that caught my attention at the beginning of the Team Covenant video is that Corey calls it "an early demo" - not really convinced it's that early as they aren't leaving themselves much time to get it out by Winter 2012 otherwise, but at the same time, they demoed it at GenCon, and apparently at Celebration VI, so I suppose it makes good business sense to do this and then keep an eye on their own message boards for opinions on things they can fine-tune, etc. 

I imagine some things can still be changed, specifically the objective cards, to be more interactive - it'd only involve a quick change of the text after all. I know it doesn't usually mean anything, but the Upcoming page still has the LCG in development and not at the printer, so I think it's possible they're still working at things right now…


www.spalanz.com - everything you never wanted to know about me, in one place.


#19 hyperion_pb

hyperion_pb

    Member

  • Members
  • 21 posts

Posted 02 September 2012 - 04:28 AM

About the conditions for a Win, I have personally no problem with the difference between Light Side and Dark Side win conditions, and the slight asymmetry it provides (nothing like NetRunned though). Thematically, having the Dark Side win by default (because their influence is spreading with immense means across the galaxy) whereas for a win, the Light Side must strike a decisive blow at the heart of the Empire or defeat its main schemes to stop the DS and the Empire, feels right. Episode IV is all about the LS having to fight in an hopeless situation, only to "win" because of an audacious run against the Death Star. Episode VI plays rougly the same (with 2 parallels undertaking that should have no hope of success if it were not heroic undertaking: Luke in confrontation of Vader and the Emperor; The Rebel Alliance trying to destroy DS2). Hence, thematically, the DS victory counter is not bad.

Gamewise, I hope that it would work so that it 's not a too great incentive for the Dark Side to remain on a defensive stance. I agree that I am not certain about the fact that winning the Force Balance gives DS a 1 tick bonus for their timer, is a geat incentive to win this Balance, and just keep the rest of the cards in defense, waiting for 6 turns to pass… I trust the designers to avoid this issue, as we all would like the DS to be also compelled to work out their own plans and assaults (clearly, in Episode V, the DS drive their own plans).

However, I liked reading this thread because one of my first suggestions for design development was to have not only Objectives that count as targets for the enemy and resources (and assets) for your own side, but also (some, not all) Objectives that on can fulfill. In a previous post, I even proposed that a simple mechanisme would be to let a player make an attemps against one of its objectives, with the other side trying to thwart that. The ideas published above are good ideas!

Anyway, having yet to see definite previews of the game, I will let the designers and playtesters do their jobs…



#20 Bolfa Fluffbelly

Bolfa Fluffbelly

    Member

  • Members
  • 52 posts

Posted 02 September 2012 - 05:42 AM

hyperion_pb said:

 

About the conditions for a Win, I have personally no problem with the difference between Light Side and Dark Side win conditions, and the slight asymmetry it provides (nothing like NetRunned though). Thematically, having the Dark Side win by default (because their influence is spreading with immense means across the galaxy) whereas for a win, the Light Side must strike a decisive blow at the heart of the Empire or defeat its main schemes to stop the DS and the Empire, feels right. Episode IV is all about the LS having to fight in an hopeless situation, only to "win" because of an audacious run against the Death Star. Episode VI plays rougly the same (with 2 parallels undertaking that should have no hope of success if it were not heroic undertaking: Luke in confrontation of Vader and the Emperor; The Rebel Alliance trying to destroy DS2). Hence, thematically, the DS victory counter is not bad.

Gamewise, I hope that it would work so that it 's not a too great incentive for the Dark Side to remain on a defensive stance. I agree that I am not certain about the fact that winning the Force Balance gives DS a 1 tick bonus for their timer, is a geat incentive to win this Balance, and just keep the rest of the cards in defense, waiting for 6 turns to pass… I trust the designers to avoid this issue, as we all would like the DS to be also compelled to work out their own plans and assaults (clearly, in Episode V, the DS drive their own plans).

However, I liked reading this thread because one of my first suggestions for design development was to have not only Objectives that count as targets for the enemy and resources (and assets) for your own side, but also (some, not all) Objectives that on can fulfill. In a previous post, I even proposed that a simple mechanisme would be to let a player make an attemps against one of its objectives, with the other side trying to thwart that. The ideas published above are good ideas!

Anyway, having yet to see definite previews of the game, I will let the designers and playtesters do their jobs…

 

 

I think the winning conditions can still be asymmetrical as long as the mechanic is indeed symmetrical. Especially since everything else is the same. i Mean netrunner is as asymmetrical as can be and i would never want to change that game but the Star Wars LCG demo is a symmetrical pvp with a victory condition mechanic that somehow is assymetrical.

 

You could easily change the DS counter for a Death Star objective. It can still work smiliar, that 13 tokens/13 rounds in, your Death Star is activated/built and you win the game. What the big difference is you dont have to have the death star objective. You could make other "empire prescense to great -> DS wins" objectives. You can make thematic wins for the Light side, for the rebels, for bounty hunters, for smugglers etc (in future expansions). So instead of a DS counter (that symbolize the dominating empire) you could have alot of different objectives that symbolizeses the same thing!

 

And from a buisness perspective this is great. I can come up with a hundred different expansions with a lot of theme and none of them will need the DS counter.






© 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