Fantasy Star Wars CCG 2.0

Discussion in 'Games: CCG, TCG, and Boardgames' started by Red84, Mar 19, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Red84 SWCCG Content Mgr. (Card Games)

    VIP
    Member Since:
    Oct 20, 2000
    star 4
    So.. we are Decipher and are charged with streamlining the Star Wars CCG rules. Which rules do you propose to be among the first to be modified/thrown out?
  2. Shewski Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 12, 2002
    star 4
    Wow, good question.

    I think that much of the game is found outside of the cards themselves (ie Undercover rules, MPG rules) and that should be kept to a minimum, if possible. Try to keep explanations on the cards themselves. I think the rules could be clarified and explain special "rules" cards in a small glossary section, or perhaps create game aids like the Nav Chart. GT can obviously be tightly focused and standardized.
  3. Bib Fortuna Twi'lek Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Jul 9, 1999
    star 10
    I would ditch the cumulative rule. It just creates too many headaches.
  4. NissoJape Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Nov 15, 2002
    star 1
    Deployment restrictions on the card themselves.
  5. Artie-Deco Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Aug 23, 2001
    star 3
    I don't know. The thing about SW:CCG that makes it complex isn't the rules so much as it is the cards themselves. For example I think the timing rules are complicated, but that's because the cards themselves have no keywords to indicate timing. Bib is right that the cumulative rule is confusing, but if you take that rule away without fixing many of the cards, you'd have a lot of abusive cards ... A half-dozen Palace Raiders in Patrol Speeders come to mind! :)

    Here's a couple of ideas, though:

    - Weapons. We old timers know that conceptually everyone is armed with a weapon of some sort ... X-Wings are not head-butting TIE fighters in space ... Wicket is not thumb-wrestling a Biker Scout Trooper on Endor. But if you have no weapon card (or permanent weapon) you can't "shoot" anyone. Why not have all "warriors" have a built-in blaster? Draw destiny, target "hit" if destiny > defense value? Would create a little more excitement in battles, with everyone shooting at everyone else.... Weapon cards like the original Blaster could be used by non-warriors, or a warrior may still carry a Blaster Rifle to get that +1 to destiny, so there would still be some use for weapons cards.

    - Unpiloted space ships. Why not just assume that every ship has a permanent pilot (ability = 1) which may be replaced with a pilot character? That would encourage me to use those ships more often. Likewise with vehicles....

    - Deck building rules. Rules that said you must have X characters, Y starships, Z locations, etc. etc. This would help new players tremendously, and force decks to have more balance.

    Those are just off the top of my head. If I think of others, I'll post them here....

  6. The2ndQuest Tri-Mod With a Mouth

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Jan 27, 2000
    star 10
    >>Rules that said you must have X characters, Y starships, Z locations, etc. etc. This would help new players tremendously, and force decks to have more balance. <<

    Eek, no. That would be limiting to deck type possibilities. You wouldn't be able to make a characterless-deck, for example, with those building requirements. If you wanted to build a deck around a weak character or species, you'd not be able to compensate with numbers as well.
  7. Anakin_Solo73 Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Oct 4, 2001
    star 2
    change deck size. There are too many cards able to be deployed on table. Look an an open tourny deck using Local uprising (V). Too many card on table and not enough in deck. I feel that really hurts deck building and what you feel could be useful in the deck. Change the deck size. Do whatever. Don't count starting cards. Change the rules so that losing force is not losing cards and instead something else. Start with "force points" and you lose them instead of cards from the deck. 30 force points? 20? 60? I don't know. Something needs changed to fix this problem.

    Seriously, i feel that something needs changed in the game. It's too overwhelming anymore. If i was a new player, and i had a choice between CCG and TCG, i would go TCG. why? not because it's the only one sold, but because the rules are simpler. There are a lot of outside rules that bog down the game. And the limited decksize, the amount of starting cards, and limited movement is seriously hindering the game...IMHO.

    I always thought that movement is so limited in the game. You have to play Docking bays to move around? Sure there are nabrun and elis, but they are very limited anymore. and you have to draw the card to move them. i think an effect that allows characters to move, sort of a nabrun effect, would be nice. But then again, that's more of a (V) card idea. ;)
  8. Anakin_Solo73 Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Oct 4, 2001
    star 2
    i noticed someone mentioned something about unpiloted ships.....

    What about a rule that says every ship has a perm pilot ability = 1 unless otherwise stated. And any ship with perm pilot can have the perm pilot suspended by adding a pilot if no other room is avaible. That would make a generic X-wing, Y-wing, and Tie Fighter pretty good in a deck not centered around them.
  9. Artie-Deco Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Aug 23, 2001
    star 3
    >>What about a rule that says every ship has a perm pilot ability = 1 unless otherwise stated. And any ship with perm pilot can have the perm pilot suspended by adding a pilot if no other room is avaible.

    Ummm, yeah, I like that idea. Why didn't I think of that? Why does that sound familiar to me? ;)


    >>Eek, no. That would be limiting to deck type possibilities. You wouldn't be able to make a characterless-deck, for example, with those building requirements.

    "Eek?" What are you, a mouse? :D

    I'm thinking I don't want anyone to make character-less decks -- or more likely, starship-less or weapon-less decks!

    But let me explain a little bit. I'm not suggesting there be a fixed number of each card in your deck, like you have in YJ. I'm thinking of something more like this:
    "You must have at least 5 and no more than 15 of each of the following major card types: Character, Starship, Vehicle, Weapon (!!), Effect, Interrupt, Location." At a minimum, that only dictates 35 cards in your 60 card deck, that doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

    Also, "You may have no more than 6 [or some other number X] of any one card or persona in your deck". (Why "card or persona"? So that you can't have 6 Qui-Gon, 6 Master Qui-Gon and 6 Qui-Gon w/Lightsaber!)

    With these two rules, new players would have some guidelines at least as to how to build their deck. And, it would force some diversity in your deck. If people have to use weapons and vehicles in their decks, they'll try to find a way to make them useful.

    (Shrug) FWIW, anyway....

  10. Artie-Deco Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Aug 23, 2001
    star 3
    Maybe another rule change would let you deploy all your locations at the start of the game, like the way ST:CCG deployed all of their missions at the start of the game....

    (Shrug) Just another random thought....

  11. The2ndQuest Tri-Mod With a Mouth

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Jan 27, 2000
    star 10
    I don't know about all your locations- there'd be way to much force generation at the start of a game.

    Though, perhaps allowing, say, an additional starting location (or a starting site AND a starting system, for example), in addition to an objective's initial location deployments mkght speed things up a bit.
  12. Bib Fortuna Twi'lek Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Jul 9, 1999
    star 10
    Maybe they could make a rule where your all of your starting cards don't count towards your deck limit.
  13. Anakin_Solo73 Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Oct 4, 2001
    star 2
    I like what bib said.....

    Too bad they couldn't do locations like LotR and ST:CCG. The locations are limited to X (say X = 10-15 for deck like hidden base that require a large number of locations) number and are a seperate deck outside the 60 cards. You can deploy one location per turn. Could free up some deck space.

    Cards like IAO, that pull sites would then pull from your location deck.

    I would also make a rule that no more than X force may be generated per turn by each player. It could cap force generation so it doesn't become outragous.

    I guess deck space would be the major thing i would improve upon...regardless of how it is achieved.
  14. Artie-Deco Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Aug 23, 2001
    star 3
    Another random thought, but a little more radical this time: Eliminate attrition. Attrition confuses practically everybody who starts to learn this game.

    Battle destiny would simply add to your power. You would still be able to forfeit cards at the site to satisfy battle damage; in fact, to offset this rule change, maybe you make another rule change so that you MUST forfeit cards from the site first ... and "immune to attrition < X" would become "immune to battle damage < X" ....

  15. Anakin_Solo73 Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Oct 4, 2001
    star 2
    hmmm.... i like that idea.
  16. The2ndQuest Tri-Mod With a Mouth

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Jan 27, 2000
    star 10
    Radical, but agreeable- I often skip attrition at first when teaching people how to play, then introduce it later one as they become familar with the other gameplay mechanics.

    Though I do quite enjoy storming the senate with BFBH and an Imperial, and taking down senators through attrition >::)
  17. Red84 SWCCG Content Mgr. (Card Games)

    VIP
    Member Since:
    Oct 20, 2000
    star 4
    I don't agree with dumping attrition. I mean, if it was that difficult would the CCG have as many players as it does? Of course it was hard for a lot of players at the beginning because there wasn't the internet or a TD we could ask.

    One of the first things I would do to help make actions more understandable is to create a keyword system similar to LOTR. The LOTR keywords do so much to simplify what can be done more than once and what can't.
  18. MoronDude Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 1, 2000
    star 6
    I just taught 2 people how to play the CCG last night, and they didn't have any problem understanding the whole Battle Destiny/Attrition thing. In fact, there wasn't much that was tough for them to understand.


    If I was going to change ANYTHING about the game, it would be deployment restrictions. I hate having to wait for a Dagobah location to deploy my Yoda! It's the one thing I wouldn't mind to lose.
  19. Artie-Deco Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Aug 23, 2001
    star 3
    Well, Red, if we use that logic we wouldn't change anything, now would we? :)

    I just think that attrition is an unnecessarily complicated rule. Drawing battle destiny and adding it to power is one thing; using it to determine attrition is something else. You always have four numbers to keep track of: your total power and attrition, and your opponent's.

    ....

    While I'm here, I'll suggest this, too: remove the restriction of having docking bays to move from one planet's sites to another's. Why not have a virtual Elis/Nabrun rule? Anytime during your move phase, if you want to move from one exterior site to another, hire "Nabrunelis" (draw destiny), and pay that much force. Bingo, you're there.

    Too simple? How about this: if you use "Nabrunelis" to move, place your characters & vehicles face-down in a stack on your side of the table (not at any site). They are not present anywhere while they are face-down. During your next deploy phase, you must redeploy all of the cards in that stack (for free) to another exterior site. So it takes time for Nabrunelis to complete the transport. That rule may not be any simpler than the docking bay transit rule, but it allows for freer movement, and keeps the original Nabrun & Elis cards viable for play.

  20. Red84 SWCCG Content Mgr. (Card Games)

    VIP
    Member Since:
    Oct 20, 2000
    star 4
    Okay, well now that it's obvious there are changes we'd all like to see, it's time to call the board meeting to order.

    We will go through each phase of the game. If there's an issue you'd like to bring up, feel free. Changes that the majority agree upon will be noted.

    At the end I will compile all the "changes" into one document and we'll see what we all came up with. Should be interesting.

    So, first phase is the most exciting: the "Activate" phase :) Thoughts?

    I do not see any reason to change the phase. You activate Force based on your Force icons in play. Pretty cut and dry.
  21. Artie-Deco Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Aug 23, 2001
    star 3
    Whoa, whoa, hold on there, Red! You skipped some of the most important steps in the game already: the "Set Up" phase! :)

    I propose to keep the first two steps of the Set Up phase intact: (1) deploying Starting Effects and (2) revealing/deploying a starting location or objective.

    The third step of the Set Up phase would be a new step where each player deploys up to 5 locations from their deck, one location at a time, alternating between players starting with Dark Side. If a player does not have a location to deploy he may "pass", but once he passes he may not deploy another location during the Set Up phase.

    These locations are deployed from the player's Reserve Deck, so they still count toward the 60 card limit. A player may have more locations in his deck, and may deploy any five locations from his deck during this step of the Set Up phase (assuming deployment restrictions). In essence, a player may now have up to SIX starting locations instead of one.

    The last step of the Set Up phase -- playing and resolving Starting Interrupts -- would remain unchanged.

    I think the impact of this rule change would be obvious: more force generation at the start of the game, making game play quicker; eliminates (or at least lessens) the chance of losing a key location needed for your deck (Hidden Base system, Death Star II sector, etc.); makes certain decks more viable (the aforementioned Death Star II for example)....

    Sorry, I just ran out of time, I'll pick this up later....

    :)
  22. The2ndQuest Tri-Mod With a Mouth

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Jan 27, 2000
    star 10
    You would end up with too much force generation though- convievably, someone could make their 6 locations dual icons and deploy 6 locations completely different from what the opponent deploys, which could, say, have 1 icon for you.

    18 Force to start the game off would be way too much. It also could unbalance the game depending on starting hands and what you darw the first turn.

    For example, with 18 Force, the opponent could deploy Thrawn, Chimeara, Zuckuss in Mist Hunter and a cheap TIE Fighter for good measure all on the first turn. He could deploy them to a key system for your deck.

    Meanwhile, you might have in your hand only one or even no starships to counter. And even with one or two, you probbaly wouldn't be able to counter such a force.

    With the current number of locations, the opponent would have to wait several turns in order to be able to affoird to deploy those cards, which buys you some time to draw up cards able to counter them by time they're all deployed.

    Also, with your DS2 example, the opponent would be able to start the game with the DS2 already built, which would seem a tad unfair.

    So, I guess what I'm saying is, 6 locations is to much [face_batting]

    I'd say one or two locations in addition to your starting location or objective-deployed sites.
  23. Artie-Deco Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Aug 23, 2001
    star 3
    But in your example, Light Side would have the same opportunity.

    Let's say Light Side is playing Lightsaber Combat. With 19 Force, Light Side could deploy Qui-Gon Jedi Master with his saber, Obi-Wan Jedi Knight and his saber, and Jedi Luke and his saber! Now which player did you say was at a disadvantage? :)

  24. Red84 SWCCG Content Mgr. (Card Games)

    VIP
    Member Since:
    Oct 20, 2000
    star 4
    Six is too much, but the mechanic has its potential (I'm in favor of anything that gets 0's out of my deck ;)).

    I would say this: you either start an objective or up to three non-battleground locations. This prevents a massive amount of Force to start and further prevents anyone from dropping a big main or beefed up ship at a bg for early, unopposed drains.

    It also prevents the Death Stars or Jedi training from getting set up too fast. They're fast enough as is.
  25. BrenDerlin Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Apr 20, 2001
    star 2
    I think what he was saying that you need a few turns to build up your hand at the same time you build up your force.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.