My initial review of the Star Wars TCG

I have played a few games by myself with the two player contents and have formed some opinions about this game and also have some comments about some of the issues that have been brought up previously.

First, the game is very easy to learn, which is a positive in my mind. Easy to learn does not equate to easy to master. I constantly found myself trying to decide whether to expand my power in one of the arenas in an attempt to overwhelm the other side, or to cover my butt in all three arenas. You definitely have to think ahead in this game. Keeping a presence in all three arenas is key as it allows you to get an extra build point per turn.

I like the mechanics of the game. Unlike other card games, both players start out with a nice amount of cards in play, so an initial crappy draw doesn't screw you over for the entire game like it can in other games. I have played alot of games of Magic where one person didnt draw much land early on and got so far behind that the game was over before it even started. That is much less likely to happen with this game. One other nice feature is that you don't have to put a completely built card into play immediately. This will allow you to build several units and then put them into play all at once, avoiding the problem of sending in one unit at a time to get destroyed if your opponent has a strong presence in one of the arenas. This was a BIG problem in Decipher's swccg.

I found the game to be fast paced and fun. The mechanics are simple, but there are alot of decisions that need to made along the way, mainly with how to manage your force and build points. Also, when to play your mission and battle cards.

A few of the issues I have seen brought up on this forum are the way build points work and also lack of variety in game play. First, the build points work fine. You roll ONCE for build points, both players get the same amount per turn plus a bonus point if you have a card in all three arenas. This works just fine, you will average 4.5 build points per turn if you have cards in all three arenas. I was able to put a card in play almost every turn. Most cards have build costs in the 3-5 range, so you should be able to get something out most of the time. One other thing to keep in mind is that partial builds go a long way toward getting those higher cost cards into play.

As for lack of variety in game play, I agree with this to some extent. The thing you have to keep in mind is that there are only about 75-80 unique cards for each side right now, so the pool of possibilities is rather small. Decipher's initial offering had 324 cards with no duplication, so the pool of initial cards was much larger. Wait until a few of the expansions are out and then form your opinion about the variety. There will be cards of Mace Windu, Darth Maul, Ki-Adi Mundi, and many other jedi plus some other characters that have not been released yet such as Owen Lars and Shmi Skywalker.

Overall, I found the game to be very smooth to play and quite alot of fun. Yes, the mechanics are pretty simple, but that is good IMO. I believe the game will get a little more complex with new releases of cards, so I intend to enjoy the cards that are available and eagerly await the next release!

 

Nice review, Yaddle.

You really like the way the build points work? Even with 4.5 build points per turn you're likely to only build 1 unit per turn, maybe 2. Putting out only 1 or 2 new units per turn doesn't seem slow to you? How about the card drawing? Doesn't drawing just one card per turn seem too slow? (Shrug) Just wondering....

You mention the "lack of variety in game play", but you attribute that solely to the small card pool. Actually, the "lack of variety" is the lack of game mechanics. The fact is, all you can do in this game is battle, battle, battle. SW:CCG offers much more variety through a multitude of options BESIDES battling. Do you think that SW:TCG could be expanded to the point it offers similar variety? I tend to think SOME variety could be introduced with more card types (weapons, locations, "effect"-type cards, etc) but ultimately the game is only about battling. What do you think?

How was the 2-player game's rulebook? I only have the "Advanced" Rule Book, and I didn't like it at all. Was yours easy to read?

I noticed from the cardlists posted elsewhere that "stacking" is a non-issue in the 2-player game. Does the rulebook discuss it at all? If so, how well does it explain this?

Thanks!

 

Hey Artie,

I don't disagree that the build mechanic may need some tweaking, but I'm ok with the basic set up, there are several cards that can help speed up the drawing aspect of the game so I think that's fine.

In terms of the only battling aspect, some of my best experiences with SWCCG were games with lots of interaction between mains or when both players were playing big blue. I find it somewhat refreshing that the game is all about interaction right now. What they do with the game in future expansions will determine whether I stay satisfied with the game, nothing can remain static and survive.

I also had no trouble with the rulebook explaining basic elements, stacking included.

 

I was just asking.

I know there are cards that can help the building/drawing aspect, but as it is now I think it is too slow. Now I have to waste card slots just to beef up my building/drawing. (Shrug) YMMV...

In SW:CCG, I enjoy battling, but I also enjoy Carbon Freezing, freeing Frozen Han, playing Sabbacc, gambling with Figrin Dan, feeding captives to the Sarlacc, podracing (yes, I *like* podracing!!), building the Death Star II ... the list goes on and on and on. SW:TCG just doesn't seem to have the infrastructure in place for most of that. *I* don't think SW:TCG will ever come close to the variety SW:CCG had, and I was just asking someone else who had played SW:TCG if they thought the same, and if not why not?

I had and still have a lot of trouble with the Advanced Rule Book. I didn't even know about this +1 build point bonus until I read Yaddle's review above! But sure enough, I looked it up, and it is in there. I think it's mentioned exactly once.... Oh, well.

 

Excellent review, Yaddle.

Artie:

On the issue of "slow" build points and card drawing, I believe that those aspects force the players to be more thoughtful on the deckbuilding that precedes the game and the building of units during the game. Let build points and cards flow more freely, and you'd have less need for strategy in that area.

On the issue of lack of variety in gameplay, I personally see no problem. I think my occasional comparison of this game to a turn-based strategy game (be it chess, Risk, or Axis & Allies) is apt here: All strategy games are nothing but "battle, battle, battle," but that doesn't detract from the internal complexity or - MOST importantly - the fun factor.

Third, I'm not sure if the difficulty of the rulebook is THAT big of a problem. Like you've said before, there are very few good rulebooks. (And, honestly, solving the "problem" of lack of variety would have most likely exacerbated the rulebook problem; just as more build points and card draws would have made more valid your claim that game has very little strategy.)

Finally, I still think it's way, WAY too premature to rule stacking a non-issue. If you also observe what people are managing to actually get, it's very few "A" cards. I suspect that the primary reason people don't include all four Anakin's in their decks is because they do not yet HAVE all four Anakin's.

The idea in stacking is that you improve the abilities of the most powerful cards. These cards include:

* Anakin Skywalker A
* Anakin Skywalker B
* Darth Tyranus A
* Jango Fett A
* Jango Fett B
* Obi-Wan Kenobi A
* Padme Amidala A
* Padme Amidala B
* Yoda A
* Zam Wessell A

Guess what? They're all rares.

Heck, even if MOST players don't stack, the really good players might - and that's still noteworthy. If the competitive decks in the first tournaments are FREE of all stacking, then you might have something.

 

Artie,

I agree that SWCCG had a lot of wonderful elements and I love the game passionately and I'm still saddened at the loss of it, but I still can play SWCCG, the V sets will continue to keep the game fresh.

I find SWTCG fun right now and will reserve judgement on its limits for the time being until I see some more expansions to see what WoTC has in store for the game.

 

Artie-Deco, building 1 to 2 units a turn seems ok to me. I know swccg allowed you to put out much more than that, especially after you got a little further into the game, but a slower game doesn't bother me at all. Makes me value the stuff I have out already.

I agree with you that all you can do in this game is battle. I hope they do add some other aspects to the game, although I will have to point out that IMO all games come down to wiping out the other guy eventually. But, it is fun to have some other diversions along the way. One thing I'd really like to see is some CHARACTER SPECIFIC cards. An example would be a made up card called "Maul's Fury" that is playable only on Darth Maul and would give him +2 power if there are two or more jedi in the character arena. I'd like to see these things to give the characters a little individuality. A card called "Force Lightning" for a dark jedi master would be nice too...

The two player rulebook was great, actually. I read it once, and started playing. I only had to look up a rule one time during my first game. Not bad at all. The 2 player rulebook is identical to the advanced rulebook online. It covers character stacking in complete detail. One thing I forgot to mention in my first post is that character stacking is huge if you get to do it during setup. For example, if you draw Anakin B and C, you can stack them with B on top and only pay the setup build points for version B. So, you get the +10,+1,+1 from version C for free.

A few other strategies I discovered while playing my games so far: it makes sense to deploy the more expensive cards during setup, this will allow you more flexability during the game (you won't get stuck with 4 or 5 cards with build costs in excess of 5, for instance). Of course, you have to draw the bigger cards to be able to do this during setup. I also like the fact that you build face down, you don't have to deploy immediately once a unit is completed, and third you can put more build points on a unit than it needs. These three points allow a player to have multiple cards, partially/completely built in front of him and his opponent won't know what is coming. I could have three completely built units there, or two partials, or whatever. Keeps the opponent guessing as to when the next wave will come...

 

Hey, Bubba! Is it your goal in life now to try to contradict me at every turn? Ha ha! Here we go again. Let's not get ugly this time, okay?


On "slow" build points, my point 2 weeks ago was that with such slow building, the Setup phase becomes of UTMOST importance, as it represents AT LEAST five turns' worth of building (with a roll of 6 each time) and quite possibly eight or ten or more turns' worth (with an average roll of 3.5). That's a lot!

My point this week is that the "slow" building is just frustrating. You want to put a card out, but you can't because of bad die rolls. Ugh! You can't control the die rolls, and that's frustrating. I'm not aware of any other CCG where the build points (or their equivalent) is RANDOM.


On lack of variety, I was just asking a question, not making a criticism. SW:TCG lacks the variety of SW:CCG ... but so did Young Jedi and Jedi Knights, which I like to play too. There are a lot of things to do in SW:CCG, there just isn't as much in SW:TCG, and I don't think there ever will be. I think that's too bad. Doesn't make SW:TCG a bad game, it just makes me sad that SW:CCG had to go away to make room for SW:TCG.


As for stacking, I wasn't going to discuss it this time, but since you brought it up....

In my previous review, I made sure it was called "First Impression". So Bubba, don't criticize me for making premature judgements, because I said going into it that it was premature.

My point about stacking was that it was OVER-RATED. In my review, I said stacking was a "non-issue". Well, it was in the first few games I played. I've played some more games since then, and stacking HAS BEEN a factor, but still not a MAJOR factor in those games.

Stacking was one of the new game mechanics that was supposed to sell players on this game. I didn't find it to be that big a deal. I thought Speed was an interesting new mechanic, and Retreating too, but Stacking (as well as common/uncommon mains) did not impress me as much as I thought they would.

Understand my POV now?



Oh, and Yaddle, you better go back and re-read your rulebook. During setup you don't get to build Anakin B and stack Anakin C for free. "C" still costs you one build point.



So, in answer to my previous questions:

- None of you think building & drawing is too slow?

- You all agree there is a lack of variety, there will always be a "gap" between SW:CCG and SW:TCG, but that doesn't detract from the fun of SW:TCG?



As I said before, I'm just asking. Don't take any of this personally....

 

RE: "Stacking was one of the new game mechanics that was supposed to sell players on this game. I didn't find it to be that big a deal. I thought Speed was an interesting new mechanic, and Retreating too, but Stacking (as well as common/uncommon mains) did not impress me as much as I thought they would."

I think maybe you had higher expectations for it. For me it has worked exactly as I imagined the first time I read the rules for it when MJK posted them. It is a nice advantage, especially in combination with Jedi Call For Help, but it alone is not the savinf aspect of this game. The game as a whole is just well,..fun.


"- None of you think building & drawing is too slow?"

I did think it was very slow, until I built decks with smaller build cost averages. It makes you work with what you have and the turn sequence can go fast enough that you can still get stuff out pretty quick. I can't think of the card name, but ther is a card that allows you to skip an arena completely, so you can build up there.

Even after all that, I would still like to see more build points, but in a starting mission card or more cards that allow this. IF it was built in automatically, I think it would make tha game last too long. I played a really long game (over 3 hours, of course it was online) with the BP the way they are.

"- You all agree there is a lack of variety, there will always be a "gap" between SW:CCG and SW:TCG, but that doesn't detract from the fun of SW:TCG?"

No, because it is not SWCCG and it is not supposed to be. I look forward to more depth, but I think if Lucasfilm wanted the level SWCCG was at, they would have either kept it at Decipher or bought the mechanics from them. The game needs to stay simple enough to attract new players today, tommorow, next year, and 5 years from now, while keeping the rest of us. I think SWTCG is built to do this.

 

"Hey, Bubba! Is it your goal in life now to try to contradict me at every turn? Ha ha! Here we go again. Let's not get ugly this time, okay?"

My goal? No. A hobby? CERTAINLY.

(And I don't see our discussions actually getting that ugly.)

Certainly, getting bad build rolls can be frustrating, but - like real life - it's something you have to work around, by designing a deck with a low average build cost and deciding to either build a cheap unit or start to build the unit you want.

Even if this aspect doesn't have an analog in any other CCG, it certainly does in actual combat. Sometimes, the fighting starts before you're ready.

(And I think it's good that it has some features unique to itself.)


Concerning stacking...

First, I misread your original statement in this thread, that the basic two-player box doesn't require you to know how to stack.

That said, I think the fact that it depends on having many/all of the variants of one character (including several harder-to-find cards) may force stacking to slowly develop. I think stacking will be among the last tactics to propagate, but I think it may yet be a powerful one.

Finally, it's probably just a difference of taste, but I'm really beginning to like the multiple copies of main characters and the ability to stack them, especially now that I've gone through the LS and DS starters. I look at my cards, and I now know three things:

1) I can ALREADY put a decent version of Obi-Wan, Anakin, Padme, Jango Fett, and Darth Tyranus in my decks. (Frankly, if I can't put Obi-Wan in my deck, there's no point. )

2) There are BETTER, more rare versions of these same characters out there somewhere.

3) Once I find the better cards, these current cards can still be useful to apply to a stack.

All good things, in me own 'umble opinion.

 

Bubba,

You said:

Certainly, getting bad build rolls can be frustrating, but - like real life - it's something you have to work around, by designing a deck with a low average build cost and deciding to either build a cheap unit or start to build the unit you want.

Do you see this as a good game design, forcing players to keep their average build cost low or else frequently go one or more turns without putting any new cards into play?

In Young Jedi, you can spend up to 6 "counters" per turn, use them or lose them. The cards in Young Jedi all have a cost between 0 and 6 counters. You can put Qui-Gon into play this turn (cost = 6) or you can put 3 Gungan soldiers into play (cost = 2 each). Unless you have a hand full of battle cards, you must be able to put SOMETHING into play! You may not want to, it may be your strategy to concede this location, but you can always put something into play if you want to.

In Jedi Knights, at the start of each turn each player chooses a "Force card". This card has a Force number, a Credits number, and a Draw number. Credits indicates how much you can deploy that turn. Draw indicates how many cards you get to draw at the end of that turn. And the player with the highest Force number goes first that turn, a big advantage in the game. But the higher the force number, the fewer credits you get to spend on deploying cards (although the fewer credits you get to spend, the more cards you get to draw). It all balances out. You get eight Force cards at the beginning of the game, and once you use a Force card you can't use it again.

I mention those two games because they are on par with the new SW:TCG in terms of complexity. (I won't mention SW:CCG because it is on a whole different level.) To me, both of those games have a better "build" mechanic than SW:TCG.

 

Artie-Deco, you are right about the stacking during setup, I did go back and read the rules and you do have to pay one point during setup, but that is still a good deal. I look at stacking the same way as Bubba the Genius, that it allows you to have different versions of a character in your deck. I HATED the fact that I had to own two or three copies of a very tuff main rare just to have a chance to put it out in swccg. In this game, many of the versions of a character are not rare, which is really great. One card I hate though is Zam Wessel version B. There is such a gap between that and version A in terms of power it isn't funny. Version B should have had at least one special ability (she's an assassin after all) and power of 4 since version A has power 6 (I think).

As for the slow build process, yes, I do find it a LITTLE slow, but not too bad. I am still getting a feel for the game, so that may change over time.

Also, I wouldn't be too quick to write off the future potential of this game as far as gameplay variety is concerned. You have to remember that this initial card set is quite small and there are many more cards to come and WotC has promised new game mechanics along the way. Be patient...

 

Do you see this as a good game design, forcing players to keep their average build cost low or else frequently go one or more turns without putting any new cards into play?

In Young Jedi, you can spend up to 6 "counters" per turn, use them or lose them. The cards in Young Jedi all have a cost between 0 and 6 counters. You can put Qui-Gon into play this turn (cost = 6) or you can put 3 Gungan soldiers into play (cost = 2 each). Unless you have a hand full of battle cards, you must be able to put SOMETHING into play! You may not want to, it may be your strategy to concede this location, but you can always put something into play if you want to.

The fact that you can't always put something into play with the TCG forces you to make the tough decisions, in both deck building and unit deployment. I don't see that as a bad thing. Further, it *does* have a military analog. Think of a situation from WWII: your small group of soldiers are holed up in a couple buildings face the onslaught of two approaching tanks; you call in air support, and it's coming within the next 30 minutes, but you'll have to hold off the tanks until then.

I mean, me personally, I would have designed the game so that you can deploy fleets of units at a time. They did things differently, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.

 

Aw, come on, Bubba. That's silly. The build mechanic in SW:TCG is similar to real-life military decisions? I'm talking about rolling for build points, and being choked by dice, a random element. The fact that the build point dice are random, and the fact that the build points are equal for each player means it is NOTHING like real-life military decision-making.

You're either misunderstanding me or working WAY to hard to defend this game.

But while we're on the subject of how this game mimics "real life" decisions ... every rule in this game is contrived, why start arguing this "real life" stuff now?

Oh, man, I bet I've just opened a big ol' can of worms now, huh?

....

Yaddle,

I can "write off" the future potential of this game for a couple of reasons. First, as others have mentioned here and/or elsewhere, it is not WOTC's intent to provide the same variety found in SW:CCG. They want to keep it simple, that was their big selling point!

Second, the infrastructure just isn't there. Sure, some extra card types and mechanics could be introduced: weapons/devices, locations (in a limited capacity, one per table, or one per arena for example), effects ("permanent missions" maybe?) etc. But there is one and only one thing to do in this game: battle. In SW:CCG, the goal was to deplete your opponent of Force, and the game designers came up with SEVERAL DIFFERENT ways of doing that. That's what made the game interesting, always fresh and new. Do you ever think you'll see Kessel Running in SW:TCG? I don't. Kessel Running has nothing to do with battling, so it has no place in SW:TCG.

It's just not possible for SW:TCG to be as varied as SW:CCG is, any more than it is possible for Young Jedi or Jedi Knights to be as varied.

I'm not saying SW:TCG couldn't grow and develop and evolve into a more interesting game than it is now. I'm just saying it will never compare to SW:CCG.

Agree?

 

Artie:

I mentioned a while back my idea for a way to add a lot more depth to SWTCG. There would be some new card type (I'd have called it a Mission, but they already used that, so how about Objective?) that gives you some kind of goal in a specific arena. Like as the Light Side you could put out the Death Star (which your opponent could use or at least reap some benefit from; I don't see the Death Star being a normal unit), and your goal in the space arena would be to blow it up, using some mechanic described on the Objective card (like on Attack Run). At the time I came up with that, I had though control of an arena would be like control in YJ or JK, where once you got it, it lasted for the rest of the game, so that you could "win" an arena in definite gameplay terms. Now that we see it's more flexible like in SWCCG, it wouldn't be as easy, since they can't really make a card that lets you win an arena. They could still make cards that give you such a bonus in one arena that it's like you won it, or who knows, maybe they could give you an arena outright (probably not though; nobody would battle anymore!). If they made some sort of objectives for the different arenas that you could use as an alternative road to victory, the game could have room for a lot of variety, depth, and most importantly longevity. But given what we've heard as the official word from WotC (basically, that they don't want to let you do anything but battle), I don't see this happening.

That, I think, is my main problem with this game: the very narrow means b ywhich you can achieve victory. In SWCCG, all you had to do was run your opponent out of cards, and there were any number of ways to do that (or to keep your opponent from doing it to you). In Magic, you can either run your opponent out of cards or life. Again, this goal is general enough that you can achieve it in several different ways, letting players develop more diverse strategies. In Lord of the Rings the goals are quite specific, but there are at least 3 different ways to win (kill the ringbearer - which can be done with wounds or overwhelming, corrupt the ringbearer, or make it to the end), and other cards like The Irresistible Shadow add alternate win conditions, so there are still several ways to win. In SWTCG, it seems that there's only one goal (control 2 arenas) and only one way to achieve it (battle). If the game stays that way, I don't know how long it will maintain anyone's interest, especially with such small releases (some proponents of the game have cited the small card pool of the first set as the reason for the lack of variety; well, why doesn't WotC just put out bigger sets??).

 

" Do you ever think you'll see Kessel Running in SW:TCG? I don't."

Easy enough. First a new card type which stays on the table. Then we say:

Kessel Run
build 1
Deploys only on a card in the space arena. If that card has the highest speed in the space arena tap it. You may discard this card at the beginning of the turn to give youreslf +2 build points this turn.

I could think of a couple other ways to do it with different advantages, or a card which got both players involved to make the run first. Now sure you are not moving planet to planet but that doesn't mean you can't get the same feel out of it. This game has plenty of places to expand into you just have to get in the mindset to do it.

 

Darksbane,

You prove my point for me.

The game text on SW:CCG's "Kessel Run" is this:

Deploy on Kessel. Target one of your smugglers at another system. X=parsec distance between the two systems. When target reaches Kessel, opponent draws destiny. If = 0, starship lost. Otherwise, by returning to first system, 'retrieve' X Lost Force.

This Kessel Run is interactive and requires planning. It has a risk: your opponent has a chance to intercept you, or draw 0 to knock you out. You have to plan ahead because it may take you more than one turn to complete the Run (or if you want to try it in one turn it will take coordinating multiple cards). It requires movement, a feature completely lacking in SW:TCG, since it lacks locations.

SW:TCG simply has no room in it for a card of this depth.

 

Aw, come on, Bubba. That's silly. The build mechanic in SW:TCG is similar to real-life military decisions? I'm talking about rolling for build points, and being choked by dice, a random element. The fact that the build point dice are random, and the fact that the build points are equal for each player means it is NOTHING like real-life military decision-making.

You're either misunderstanding me or working WAY to hard to defend this game.

Or, a third option: the aspect of few build points per turn - determined by randomness - doesn't represent a military "decision", but it does have analog in military "scenarios", namely the fact that both sides do not always (or even often) agree to attack on a certain day at a certain place.

Look at Pearl Harbor AND Normandy. In both cases, one side was caught with its pants down. Likewise, a low build roll might be enough for one side to do something interesting, but not for the other.

I'm defending my position on this one.


Second, I believe you're making the jump from "the TCG will never compare to the CCG in complexity" to "the TCG will never compare to the CCG, period." It seems implied in your posts.

 

(Sigh) I just don't see it. In Pearl Harbor, the forces Japan and the US devoted to the attack (the "units" they "built" in the "arena") were not determined by random factors that affected both sides equally.

You're saying the build mechanic in SW:TCG has an analog in "real life". None of the examples you've given really explain the analogy. What we're talking about is how the forces you put into play in a given turn are determined by random factors that affect both sides equally. Where's the analogy? In Pearl Harbor, what was the random factor? How did it affect both sides equally?

As for your second point, you're trying to bait me, but it won't work. I am deliberately not trying to have a discussion on the relative worth of SW:TCG vs. SW:CCG. I am trying to keep the scope of the discussion narrow, because then it will be more productive. A mud-slinging contest between the two games will achieve nothing except hurt feelings.

For now, I am content to discuss the following:

(1) Is the building and card drawing mechanic in SW:TCG too slow? If not, why not?

(2) Is the building mechanic too random because it depends on an uncontrollable random factor (dice)? If not, why not?

(3) Is there an unbridgeable gap in complexity/variety between SW:TCG and SW:CCG? If not, why not?

 

Ok Artie let me have a shot at your questions.

(1) Is the building and card drawing mechanic in SW:TCG too slow? If not, why not?

I dont think that it is too slow. If you look at other card games then most of them only let you draw one card per turn (I should point out that there are cards for both sides that let you draw more then one) and the building is fine in my opinion. Should you spend all your build points to put a large unit into play or a smaller one and partially build the larger one? This is a good question to present the players each round.

2) Is the building mechanic too random because it depends on an uncontrollable random factor (dice)? If not, why not?


I dont think it is too random. The dice force you to make tough decisions before you build something. Let me use Magic as an example. You only have so much land out to build something so which do you choose? This makes you think out the decision before you make one. Plus I would like to point out that there are cards that let you add build points.

(3) Is there an unbridgeable gap in complexity/variety between SW:TCG and SW:CCG? If not, why not?

First I think complexity and variety should be seperated. Is the TCG simpler then the CCG? Yes. Does that make it bad? No. Variety will come in time. Look at the CCG when it first came out. There were only two things to do attack or drain. Thats it. And most people enjoyed attacking more then draining. I don't think it is fair to compare the TCG to the CCG at this point in time. The CCG had years before it got extremly complicated (what helped many people lose interest in the game, argue if you want too many people have told me that to not be true). Give the TCG time.


One thing i would like to add about stacking. I purposly waited until I had played around 10 games before I wrote any reviews about the game. The stacking has help win games in the ones I have played. For example you are a lightside player and you and the darkside player in the character arena have a character out with the same speed. If you stack another copy on the character suddenly you get to attack first instead of letting him go first. If you are darkside you could bump up a character so that you tie a lightside's speed and still go first. The stacking has won games. It is a very interesting aspect of the game.

 

If you look at other card games then most of them only let you draw one card per turn

Hmmm... None of Decipher's games except Star Trek CCG draw one per turn, each one has a different mechanic. All of WOTC's games draw one per turn. Magi-Nation draws 2 per turn. The rest of the top-15 or top-20 games, I don't know. Dragonball Z? Buffy? Warhammer? Legend of Five Rings? Are you sure you are looking at games besides WOTC's?


(I should point out that there are cards for both sides that let you draw more then one)
Plus I would like to point out that there are cards that let you add build points.

This is a common theme I keep hearing. Many complaints are answered by: "Well there's a card that lets you do that." That doesn't address the rules, the game mechanics.


Let me use Magic as an example. You only have so much land out to build something so which do you choose?

Yes, but how much land you put in your deck, and when do you play that land are all decisions you control. In SW:TCG, it is uncontrollable. Your example doesn't work.


There were only two things to do attack or drain.

You forgot "retrieve".

Attacking and draining serve the same purpose: deplete your opponent's life force. Retrieving serves a defensive purpose, preventing your opponent from depleting your force.

But even in the Premiere set there were multiple ways to cause your opponent to lose Force, and/or to retrieve Force. I mentioned one above: Kessel Run. I stipulate that we'll never see a card or a game mechanic like Kessel Run in SW:TCG.

I don't think it is fair to compare the TCG to the CCG at this point in time.

Even comparing SW:TCG now to the SW:CCG Premiere set, SW:CCG Premiere was more varied and complex.

My question is, is that gap in variety and complexity unbridgeable? Is there any chance that SW:TCG could be as varied and complex as SW:CCG? And if so, how?

 

If you want another example of a card game that only lets you draw one per turn how about WWF: Raw Deal? Unless otherwise stated you only get on card per turn. One thing I didnt like about the CCG was that there was no set draw step. You were not garenteed to get a new card. Granted the decision to draw made you determine how much force to spend but it just did not see right to me.

The different cards that let you draw more or get more build points are part of the game. You said did it seem slow and I stated that if you thought it was slow there were ways around it. The CCG before objectives started off even slower then the TCG sometimes.

And I would also like to state that the CCG had about three times as many cards in the Premire set. Give the TCG time and see how complex it can get.

 

Time to defend my card :

********EDIT*******
Let me make an edit here as I realized what might be causing confusion with my card...

Kessel Run
build 1
Deploys only on your highest speed unit in the space arena. That unit becomes tapped. You may discard this card at the beginning of the turn to give youreslf +2 build points this turn.

there I think this now does what I intended it to do. Now I think that forces you to leave your fastest space unit vulnrable for a turn in order to get the benifits of this card. I'll go ahead and leave my original responses ot Arte's comments with the understanding that he cant read my mind so perhaps the changed version will alter his opinion.
********EDIT*******

"This [SWCCG] Kessel Run is interactive and requires planning."

So does this one.

"It has a risk: your opponent has a chance to intercept you, or draw 0 to knock you out."

Well you have to tap your fastest space unit during the build step one turn and have it survive until the next turn. This gives your opponent plenty of time to "intercept" you along the way.


"You have to plan ahead because it may take you more than one turn to complete the Run (or if you want to try it in one turn it will take coordinating multiple cards)."

I could have easily required it to take a variable amount of turns depending on the speed of your ship but this seemed like a needless complication. It would be hard enough just to keep that ship alive unitl the next turn if your opponent has any type of space presence. Notice that it must go on your fastest space unit this is most likely not your beefiest space unit. So you have to be prepared to keep this unit alive in order to reap the benifits of this card.

"It requires movement, a feature completely lacking in SW:TCG, since it lacks locations"

Well you got me there but I really don't think movement matters THAT much

"SW:TCG simply has no room in it for a card of this depth."

I disagree, and feel that I have showed with a (badly worded )dream card just off the top of my head that it does have the potential to match the CCG's depth just from a different point of view.

 

>>2) Is the building mechanic too random because it depends on an uncontrollable random factor (dice)? If not, why not?


>>I dont think it is too random.

What could be more random than rolling a die? It's the classic mathematical example of a random occurance. Well, I guess they could have had you roll a die with more than 6 sides, but really, rolling a die is as random as random gets.

On the subject of build points, from what most of the proponents of SWTCG have said, that's where just about all of the strategy in the game comes from. It seems like every time someone says the build points are too random, or that the game is lacking in strategic options, someone trots out the same tired example of "you have to decide, to you bring a cheaper unit into play now, or partially build a more expensive unit and put it in play next turn?" Please. Every CCG has something like that. SWCCG: "Do I put out a Star Destroyer now, or save up another turn for Executor?" YJ: "Do I put out Darth Maul, or three Battle Droids?" LotR: "Do I put out two Orc Soldiers or a Band of the Eye?" I don't really know Magic, but: "Do I put out these two guys for three mana each, or this other, bigger guy for six?" You see my point, I think. And even though in most of these examples you get one or the other right away and in SWTCG you might not, I really don't see how partial building in SWTCG is all THAT different than saving up Force in SWCCG.

 

Its easy to see the difference. Say you had three force left in the CCG. With the CCG rules you could put out something that cost three or would have to wait to put it out if it cost more. With the TCG if you have the three and a card that costs four, you can partially build that card then put it out next turn. And you can sit with all your units partially built to see how battles go to descide which ones you want to finish building. Doesnt sound bad to me.