WotC Info Part III

I doubt mats are truly needed unless for aesthetic reasons.

 

Yeah, I guess mats are unnecessary, but probably nice for keeping arenas straight, knowing what cards are "in the battle", and keeping track of Force points.

Sorry for all the posts, everyone, but I have a few observations directed, I suppose, in reply to others' complaints.

I'll first be honest; I'm not a huge fan of CCG's, preferring the deterministic nature of comic books and strategy games (where every box has the same armies). I'm not a devotee of Decipher's game, and this is really the first CCG I'm going to try.

That said, a few complaints *might* be unwarranted.

The complaint about randomized resource gathering might be justified, but it seems like the rules imply this:

1. The Light Side player rolls one die.
2. BOTH players then use that die to determine how many build points they can use.

In that case (I could be wrong; it's why I pose the question above), you're NOT going to be screwed over by a bad die roll in the build phase.

If each individual game is a giant war, and each turn is a battle, the build roll could be analogous to the time between battles. Sometimes, there could be one day (1 point), allowing both sides to get only a few reinforcements; sometimes, there's six days (6 points), which let's both sides bring in the big guns.

An unexpectedly low (or high) build roll could cause you to change your strategy - building infantry instead of capital ships, or vice versa - but it won't necessarily cripple you. The only way it could would be if you COMMIT yourself to building a capital ship and small build rolls let the other player deploy enough "cheap" cards to beat you in the meantime.


Finally, there was this complaint:

"I'm still unsatisfied with the idea that all I have to do is win 2 of the 3 arenas to win the game. That seems ... lame. Suppose I win the Space and Ground arenas only by a narrow margin, but my opponent thoroughly trashes me in the Character arena. Why should I win the game? I should have to win all three arenas."

My response is that you should win in the above circumstances because your opponent used his resources very poorly.

In the scenario mentioned, the opponent whupped your behind in one arena. More likely than not, he did so by pouring most of his resource points into that one arena. He lost the overall game by narrow margins in the other two arenas, when all he probably needed to do was deploy a *little* bit more in an least one of them.

The two-out-of-three victory conditions could actually make the game quite interesting. In the three-out-of-three scenario, both players storm all three arenas to win all three. In the best-of-two game, you might have this scenario:

* Both players deploy in all three arenas.
* Player 1 sees that he's lost the character arena, more-or-less withdraws, and uses the free build points to focus on the ground battle. (Here is where "un-building" could be useful.)
* Player 2 has basically won the character arena, but sees he's now losing the ground battle (thanks to Player 1's reinforcements). He then abandons THAT arena and no longer reinforces the claimed Character arena and focuses on the space arena, since he now only needs one of the two to win.

Now, Player 1 has the ground arena, Player 2 has a nearly abandoned character arena and is pushing for the space arena. Player 1 must now decide to try to quickly reassert himself in the character arena or hold his position in the space arena - and so on.

The possibility for gambits like that could really make for interesting game.

 

First, in response to Kenix Kil, I'm not "criticizing the game before I play it." I'm criticizing what I know about the game so far, and that's completely fair. I have every intention of trying this game when it comes out. And when it does come out, and when I've had a chance to try it out, watch this space for my review of it!

Second, in response to Achtung_Bubba, regarding randomized build costs. My concern is not that it is unfair, it is that it is unnecessary. Why not just have a fixed build cost per turn like Young Jedi? That's fair, strategic and uncomplicated. This new game's method just uses more dice.

And third, also in response to Achtung_Bubba regarding the 2-out-of-3 win scenario. My problem with this is not primarly the gameplay, it is the conceptualization of it. Picture the end of Return of the Jedi, and what would happen if Han and Leia destroyed the Shield Generator and Luke manages to save his father ... but Lando and the fleet are thoroughly destroyed trying to blow up the Death Star II. Is the war over? Hardly.

Or picture the end of Episode I, and what would happen if Anakin blew up the Droid Control Ship and Amidala took over the throne room ... but Darth Maul killed Obi-Wan in the generator room, and with no Jedi to protect her Maul waltzes into the throne room and assassinates the Queen. Would we call that a victory?

You see what I mean? I just can't conceptualize it. What would have happened in World War II if the Allies had beaten the Germans but not the Japanese? Winning 2-out-of-3 arenas to me is an incomplete victory. That's why I've used terms like "unsatisfying" to describe it.

 

Recently I made a comment that this would be "Young Jedi with Dice" and I was told how wrong I was.

I accept that I was wrong. This is "Jedi Knights" with dice.

I apologise for my error.

 

Artie:

Sure, the randomized build cost is unnecessary, but I wouldn't say that it's there to simply "use more dice". It is a complication, but one that adds another layer of strategy.

Let's say there's a specific card you really want to build. If the build cost is set and known from turn to turn, the build cost itself does not factor into the decision making process of "when to build." Instead, you simply look at the condition of the board, what you have, what you're opponent has, and wait until the time is right.

But let's say the build is determined by die roll, your card takes five points to be built, AND you roll a 2. NOW you have to decide whether to start building that card when you're not even guaranteed to complete building it on the next turn (you could roll another 2 next time) - OR build something cheaper and hold on to the 5-point card until you roll something higher. There's another wrinkle to add to your planning and decision making.

Honestly, I don't know whether that additional complication is worth having to roll a die every turn, and I'm pretty sure I would have made the build cost deterministic (either static from turn-to-turn or maybe based on the number of cards in play). But it *does* seem that it's more than just a die roll for its own sake.


Finally, I will stand by my defense of the best-of-three victory condition. I'll grant it's out of the bounds of what would really happen in the Star Wars galaxy (or in WWII), and that's reason enough to examine it carefully. But first, a breach of such logic is not necessarily enough to call foul - otherwise, it should be against the rules to deploy Anakin and Vader (the same character, diff't sides) in the same game, or Qui-Gon and Luke (since the former died more than a decade before the birth of the latter).

Second, the breach of logic is MORE than justified in this case. By forcing the three-out-of-three game, you run the risk of causing games that are far too long and ultimately result in needless sieges: one side firmly holds one arena, doesn't stand a chance of winning the other two, but can defend his one arena indefinitely.

You also completely eliminate the possibility of surprise gambits.

In the game of chess, as it is now and has been for centuries, the objective is to pin ONE piece, the king. There have thus been BRILLIANT games where one side seems to give up nearly everything but ultimately wins by a surprising, nearly insignificant but masterful assault on the king. Logically, the side that is handily winning mourns the loss of its leader, but doesn't give up automatically. But if you then make the objective "take out all the other pieces", gambits would disappear and the game would become a battle where material advantage is literally everything.

Same thing for strategy games: if the victory condition moves from "capture the HQ or eliminate all enemy forces" to JUST "eliminate all enemy forces" in every single scenario, you'd have full frontal assaults every single time. Yes, that might be more realistic (if a couple commandos happened to capture Berlin for a moment or two, WWII would have still continued), but it eliminates the clever schemes that allow material underdogs to win.

I think the two-of-three condition (and the ensuing ability to sacrifice one arena to win the overall game) is, in this case, a great idea and definitely worth the price of lost realism.

Ultimately, this is just my 'umble opinion, and I'm willing to wait and see how the game actually plays. I suppose all I'm really asking is for everyone to note that many of the questionable design decisions might result in a better game and to keep an open mind until the game has been released and played.

(Oh, and nice signature.)

 

You're right that a 2-out-of-3 condition is good for gameplay, if winning arenas of combat is going to be the basic win condition. I just think there ought to be more to this game than winning fights. Lots more stuff happened in Star Wars than people shooting at each other, and I think this game should reflect that.

 

I think the two-of-three condition (and the ensuing ability to sacrifice one arena to win the overall game) is, in this case, a great idea and definitely worth the price of lost realism.

You see, another of my problems is that on top of everything else, a best-2-out-of-3 win condition is not a great idea. It's not even an original idea. It's pretty hum-drum, IMO.

Ultimately, this is just my 'umble opinion...

Mine too!

... and I'm willing to wait and see how the game actually plays. I suppose all I'm really asking is for everyone to note that many of the questionable design decisions might result in a better game and to keep an open mind until the game has been released and played.

And in spite of my misgivings, I'll be giving the game a chance, too. It's STAR WARS, after all!!

(Oh, and nice signature.)

Thanks.

 

"I think the two-of-three condition (and the ensuing ability to sacrifice one arena to win the overall game) is, in this case, a great idea and definitely worth the price of lost realism"

But the "lost realism" is precisly the reason so many of us are against the game. We had a game that represented a fairly high degree of realism, and we have had this game ripped from us, and now where all told to try this unrealistic game.

Again, I agree that the whole best of three concept is completely unoriginal!(even/especially in SW card games) Why couldn't it be a card game where we had to solve who was trying to assasinate Padme, or a mission based game where your Jedi/ Rebel stike team/ Rogue Squadron/ whatever went on a mission, and you played dark side cards to prevent you're opponent's success? Why the best of three combatagain?

We "Decipher loyalists" are being bagged all the time about unwillingness to change, or critisizing before playing. Well, give us something new and we might just come to the dance.

Building over a series of turns, as well as random (but manipulable) resource production are two concepts I think are interesting. But the interest stops there.

Honestly, if this was a Decipher made game, I would probably be saying the same thing. And I am not the only one. Did the gaming community flock to JK? Yet, here WotC produced a game that is conceptually the same thing and expects us to get all excited?

Okay, the bitter taste of losing the CCG makes me a little biased. But I am still a Star Wars fan before a card game fan, so I was willing to give thye game a go. However, there is nothing there to excite me. Honestly, why am I supposed to sit for the anticipated 45 - 60 minutes playing something I don't get anything out of just because it's Star Wars? it's the same reason why I can easily watch ESB time and time again, but I don't really watch TPM all that much.

The Star Wars label MUST be attached to something enjoyable. Just because it's Star Wars really means little. Unless your 10 years old of course!

 

Decipher's game wasn't entirely realistic either. Four X-Wings have a power equivalent to that of Executor, even though they're dwarfed by even a regular Star Destroyer. There are a lot of cards in any given CCG that allow a player to do things that seem impossible to do, especially in the context of a film or television series. But as always, realism is sacrificed for gameplay at every step. The game would be no fun if Executor could singlehandedly whoop every starship the opposing force could throw up against it.

 

Ok everyone here is talking about the best of three rule. They are saying about how it is unrealistic that you could win the battle in two senerios (bad spelling I know) and even if you got beat in the third you still win the game. Ok let me throw this in, how is it any different from Decipher? If the classic game you could utterly defeat someone in space but they could still win the game by beating you on the ground. So really how is it that different?

People on here are saying that if the sheilds around the Death Star had been brought down but Lando hadnt destroyed it how could the Rebels have won? The same thing happens all the time in the classic game! I have played in and seen games played where someone utterly defeats someone in space but then the opponent ends up winning the ground senerio. Everyone on here is complaning about the realism of the two out of three but how is it any different from what Decipher did except this way you have a third area to battle on to get rid of any ties.

Now another aspect I have been hearing is that the two out of three senerio is not realistic. Ok let me ask you this. If a giant battle is taking place at the same time between characters, ground, and space if a force wins two of these and loses a third whats to say that the winning force won't then focus their attention on the one area they lost? Its a case of losing the battle but winning the war. What's not realistic about that?

The biggest fear I have about this game is that Wizards might treat it like X-Man. If anyone here has played the game then they know that when the boosters finally came out you had an enjoyable, fun, and entertaining game (which also happens to use dice and in no way takes away from the game in the opinion of the twenty people in my town that plays it). My biggest fear is that we will get a great game and then for some reason support for it will fall through. Delays in boosters or something else like that. From what me and the other people in our local card shop see this is shaping up to be a very interesting game.

In my opinion judging by the comments on this board there are really only two reasons while this game should not succeed. The first one would be Wizard's fault by not giving the game proper support. The other will be if people utterly condim this game by not giving it a chance by comparing it to the classic game.

One other thing I have to say. Someone on here was saying that the us versus them attitude with Wizards and Decipher. Everyone was mad at Wizards for getting the licenese but I would like to say something about that. The thing that everyone is saying is that Wizards knew that they were getting the license a year in advance. What about Decipher? There is no way you can convince me that they did not know they were losing the license. Everyone on here is saying how it stings having their game taken away from them but it makes me mad that Decipher knew they were losing the license but did not even give the loyal players of their game any warning. There was not even a notice on their site about losing the game until long after Wizards announced it. Instead what did they do? They said dont worry, the CCG will be around for a long time. Yet around three months after they announce this, there is a notification, on a competitor's site, that they lost the license. And that the game was being developed for a year. I harbor no anger towards Wizards for aquiring the license like some do but I do have some small anger towards Decipher.

 

Don't forget. Decipher also released an entire new game, JKTCG, when the license thing was being worked on. Warren Holland said they have known the license was in jeopardy for about 2 years I think. Why release a whole new game and not only that, withhold key cards like Chewbacca and Dash Rendar (when they made an Outrider) right up to the end?

 

>>>>Ok everyone here is talking about the best of three rule. They are saying about how it is unrealistic that you could win the battle in two senerios (bad spelling I know) and even if you got beat in the third you still win the game. Ok let me throw this in, how is it any different from Decipher? If the classic game you could utterly defeat someone in space but they could still win the game by beating you on the ground. So really how is it that different?

People on here are saying that if the sheilds around the Death Star had been brought down but Lando hadnt destroyed it how could the Rebels have won? The same thing happens all the time in the classic game! I have played in and seen games played where someone utterly defeats someone in space but then the opponent ends up winning the ground senerio. Everyone on here is complaning about the realism of the two out of three but how is it any different from what Decipher did except this way you have a third area to battle on to get rid of any ties.





It doesn't sound like you really know what SWCCG was all about at all. YOu didn't "win scenarios", there weren't any scenarios to begin with. You had space stuff and you had ground stuff, but you weren't just competing to win these arenas. You might dominate space at one time, but at any time the other player can conceivably take control of at least part of space. That's where SWCCG is different than the WotC game. There's not just ONE space and ONE ground. There's all different places in both, plus places like clouds, asteroids, and holosites to boot. One player might take control of the Kessel and Ralltiir systems, while another might take control of the Tatooine and Ord Mantell systems, and at any time, one player could oust the other from any of those locations. Or none of those locations could even come into play. Maybe both decks just play ground, and one deck controls most of Endor while the other takes over Bespin. Or maybe both control different parts of Tatooine, or nobody takes definitive control of anything, and conflict rages to the last. You don't just "win space" or "win ground" in SWCCG. You CAN win by controlling portions of the board, or you can win by doing none of these things. You can win by podracing, carbon-freezing, dueling, blowing up the Death Star, or manipulation of the Galactic Senate. There are no ties to be broken. One player wins when the other runs out of cards, and you make them lose cards by doing something, just about ANYTHING really, that might be considered "bad" for their side.


>>>>>One other thing I have to say. Someone on here was saying that the us versus them attitude with Wizards and Decipher. Everyone was mad at Wizards for getting the licenese but I would like to say something about that. The thing that everyone is saying is that Wizards knew that they were getting the license a year in advance. What about Decipher? There is no way you can convince me that they did not know they were losing the license. Everyone on here is saying how it stings having their game taken away from them but it makes me mad that Decipher knew they were losing the license but did not even give the loyal players of their game any warning. There was not even a notice on their site about losing the game until long after Wizards announced it. Instead what did they do? They said dont worry, the CCG will be around for a long time. Yet around three months after they announce this, there is a notification, on a competitor's site, that they lost the license. And that the game was being developed for a year. I harbor no anger towards Wizards for aquiring the license like some do but I do have some small anger towards Decipher.



Decipher was legally bound not to say anything about the contract negotiations. And WotC certainly started development of their new game before they even got the license. They had to have something to go to Lucasfilm with, after all.

 

Kenix,

You can't defend SW:TCG gameplay by attacking SW:CCG gameplay, that's called a strawman arguement.

Your evaluation of the win condition in classic SW:CCG is flawed, anyway. In your example, both players -- one playing a "space" deck and one playing a "ground" deck -- are ultimately trying to accomplish the same objective: deplete their opponent's life force. The purpose of force drains in SW:CCG is to penalize your opponent for not battling you. Ultimately, SW:CCG comes down to resource management. If you deplete your opponent of resources, you win the game, regardless of what is left on the table. The example you gave is nothing like a "best 2-out-of-3" scenario.

None of which says anything one way or the other about SW:TCG's gameplay, as I said at the beginning.

Now another aspect I have been hearing is that the two out of three senerio is not realistic. Ok let me ask you this. If a giant battle is taking place at the same time between characters, ground, and space if a force wins two of these and loses a third whats to say that the winning force won't then focus their attention on the one area they lost? Its a case of losing the battle but winning the war. What's not realistic about that?

Don't you see? In your own scenario above, the war isn't over until all three arenas are won. You prove my own point. What if the player who won two arenas but lost the third does focus their attention on the arena they lost ... and still loses??

The biggest fear I have about this game is that Wizards might treat it like X-Man. ... (which also happens to use dice and in no way takes away from the game in the opinion of the twenty people in my town that plays it).

X-Men is fun enough. But it is too much dice. I'm rolling nine or ten dice per turn, and each dice roll does something different ... you had to keep referring to the die chart to see what effect each number has.

In my opinion judging by the comments on this board there are really only two reasons while this game should not succeed. The first one would be Wizard's fault by not giving the game proper support.

Well, don't be surprised if WOTC does just that. I may be overly skeptical, but I suspect WOTC's primary motivator in all this was just to take a stab at Decipher, their closest competitor. The fact that Decipher has lost the license could be good enough for WOTC. ... Like I said, I may be overly skeptical on that, so don't read too much into it.

The other will be if people utterly condim this game by not giving it a chance by comparing it to the classic game.

And why would you be surprised by this? We're losing a rich, multi-faceted, multi-layered game, and we're being given something which so far sounds very shallow and ... cheap ... in comparison.

Do you collect SW action figures? Suppose Hasbro decided to stop making the highly articulated figures with ... oh I don't know ... 12 different points of articulation, and went back to the original style that only had 5? Or suppose you were forced to turn in your THX letterbox DVD edition of Episode I and all you could get in return was a mono pan-and-scan VHS? Wouldn't you view each of those as a step backward?

You want those of us who play SW:CCG to show enthusiasm for a game which appears to be a step backward?

Name one thing about this game that I should get excited about? Just one?

I harbor no anger towards Wizards for aquiring the license like some do but I do have some small anger towards Decipher.

You should get your facts straight before attacking Decipher. Decipher couldn't announce anything even if they wanted to, and they didn't want to because they fought up to the last second with LFL to keep it.

All of that is just another strawman, anyway. This is a discussion about gameplay in the new game. It is not about WOTC-bashing or Decipher-bashing.

 

I don't care who releases the game, as long as I look good in the pictures!

 

Yes, they released Jedi Knights when they knew the liscence was in jeopardy, but they had to do something to show they could and should keep making Star Wars. Looking back, it wasn't the best idea, but hindsight is always 20/20.

Decipher were fighting a losing battle against Hasbro. They had a great idea to appeal to the collectors (in the hope of winning Lucasfilm over), only the game and concept weren't as exciting as hoped. At least they released all promised expansions.

Being contractually bound to silence, they couldn't have mentioned anything. So why did they still release product? It's called fan loyalty. It is also called respect for employees who had been working on the game. This "anger" at Decipher for releasing product while they knew the liscence was going is absurd. Decipher was fulfilling their obligation to the fans.

The sets were basically completed. All aspects of the four movies were covered. Even some EU wes thrown in. Honestly, I would have been annoyed at Decipher had they not released Theed Palace, thus not completing Episode 1, the last of the films to be covered in expansions.

Of course the game wasn't completely realistic. Having Jar Jar on the Rebel strike team, or BoShek blowing away the Death Star isn't what really happened. But what about the fact that the Death Star could be blown away? What about Jedi tests, or Death Star Plans? These things are part of what is called plot. The Star Wars movies aren't just two hours of continuous battle. Neither is the Decipher game. You can train your Jedi, capture or free prisoners, rescue the Princess, hunt down the Jedi, free Han, freeze Han, among all sorts of cool things!

Sure there is battle, but it is not the whole game. In Young Jedi and Jedi Knights, there was no story at all. Now, honestly, which of Decipher's three Star Wars games best represents the Star Wars story? Thats right: SW:CCG.

What we are offered is a rehashed, souped up, dice added battle game. I'm sorry, but that isn't my thing. I tried Warhammer 40K, a game that is similar to JK and the TCG. I enjoyed it, but to me Warhammer is about battle. I tried JK and YJ but didn't enjoy them as much because they didn't reflect as much what Star Wars meant to me.

Remeber the point I have made a few times now. I resent the "call it Star Wars and they will come" attitude. I don't collect action figures. I haven't read the books in a while. I don't even repeatedly watch the movies (though I do very much enjoy them) I collect and play SW:CCG because I like it. The TCG, well that's a different story altogether.

 

Certainly, the best-of-three isn't an ORIGINAL idea, but I still think it's at least potentially a good idea.

Either way, it's one thing to complain about the end of the established, expanded, six(?)-year-old CCG, but I don't think it's fair to compare the new WotC game with the fully established game.

Shouldn't we be comparing the new WotC game with the original version of Decipher's game? Isn't that a bit more fair?

 

But it was the origainal game's rules and concepts that were the platform for all the things mentioned. The format of the game left it wide open for the thiongs we were able to accomplish when playing the original CCG. After all, the game we aqre talking about is the original CCG. It has the same winning condition, the same base rules.

Best of three simply doesn't leave the same opportunity for storyline the way the original CCG does.

 

Direct quote from MJK: "One of the beautiful aspects of this game is its flexibility and ability to evolve from expansion to expansion, which allows us to consider many, many possibilities for new mechanics."


So SWTCG will be able to evolve to a multi-faceted game as well, once it get's a chance.

I know how most of you feel about SWCCG, heck I played it and loved it myself.
None of us can change the fact that Decipher can no longer produce anymore expansions. I just hope this game will be eveything I have so far come to believe it will. I think it will be big.

 

Baca,

I hope you're right, I really really really do.

But I haven't seen anything yet that reassures me it will be "big".

 

Ok first I would like to say again that I am not attacking Decipher. I am just pointing out what I see as flaws. Now to the comments:

First I would just like to say is that I wrote that post at 1:30am so when I refered to senerios in the classic CCG I was just sleep deprived. But besides that my point still stands. You can beat someone in space in the classic game but on the ground you can still lose the game. Also no one was playing a spacce deck or a ground deck it just what happened at the time.

Another thing I would like to say is that it isnt the nnot hearing that the license was in jeopardy but that hearing Decipher say that it wasnt. Also having to see on a competitor's web site about Decipher losing the license and seeing nothing on Decipher's until about a month after the main announcement was made. You talk about fan loyalty but where was Decipher when they lost the license and it was made public?

On the two out of three senerio, no the war isnt over but if you have two of the three you will win. And that is what they are basing it on.

I'm sorry if you think X-men has too many dice but I dont see why you have to keep looking to see what the numbers mean. Its a one activates the defenders mutant power, two deals a damage to the attacker, 3,4,5 hits and deals damage to the defender, and 6 activates attacker's powers. What is so hard to remember about that?

No about having a multi-layered game taken away, it took years for the classic game to become multilayered. Give Wizards a chance and see what happens.

And about not seeing anything that lets you know it will be big, the reason is all you have is basically the rules. You dont have the cards that give you an idea of stragey. In fact all of this game will be good-game wont be good should wait until the cards come out. So many dead card games had great systems but the cards they had just did not measure up.

 

All this talk about 2 out of 3 has got me wondering, how exactly do you WIN an arena? Can we get an answer from WotC about that? This may be how it allows for future multifaceted gameplay. For example, you can win the character arena by carbon-freezing three guys, or you can win the space arena by blowing away the Death Star. Any chance that might happen would give me faith that the new game might be worth playing.

 

You can beat someone in space in the classic game but on the ground you can still lose the game.

You miss my point. First of all, discussing the win-condition in SW:CCG has nothing to do with a discussion of the win-condition in SW:TCG. Second, there is only one "arena" in SW:CCG, not two or three or more, so the analogy is flawed anyway. SW:CCG melded space, "ground" and "character" battles into one arena.

On the two out of three senerio, no the war isnt over but if you have two of the three you will win. And that is what they are basing it on.

Again you miss my point. Not only is the war not over, but the victor in the war is still in doubt. Just because you win 2 out of 3 arenas does not mean you automatically win the war. Maybe you do, maybe you don't.

Don't you think margin of victory should come into play somewhere?? Like I said before, what if one player squeaks by and barely wins ground and characters, and his opponent thoroughly decimates him in space. Why should the first player win the game??

No about having a multi-layered game taken away, it took years for the classic game to become multilayered. Give Wizards a chance and see what happens.

Not true. SW:CCG was multi-layered from the beginning. You have one goal in SW:CCG: deplete your opponent's life force before he depletes yours. But even in the beginning you had more than one way to do that. You could seek and destroy your opponent, fighting him and causing battle damage, or you could spread out and force drain him by controlling locations on the table.

And about not seeing anything that lets you know it will be big, the reason is all you have is basically the rules. You dont have the cards that give you an idea of stragey. In fact all of this game will be good-game wont be good should wait until the cards come out.

Why? Why can't we comment on the rules that have come out? That's all I've done, comment on the rules.

I'm just genuinely curious why some people are excited about this game? What's to be excited about yet? I'm honestly wondering this.

 

>>> Also having to see on a competitor's web site about Decipher losing the license and seeing nothing on Decipher's until about a month after the main announcement was made. You talk about fan loyalty but where was Decipher when they lost the license and it was made public?

This seems a rather odd statement given that the announcement was posted on Decipher's page in December, before it was posted on either Wizards or starwars.com. Which main announcement are you talking about?

 

All I know is that I saw on Wizards site the announcement that they had gotten the license and I immediatly went to Decipher's sight and no matter how hard I looked, I could not find anything about them losing the license. I did not see anything relating to it until about a month later.