First Impression of SW:TCG

Okay, I took my starter decks out and played a sample game against myself, just to get a flavor for the game and see if I like it enough to get "serious" about it.

First thing I did was read through the rule book. Ouch! The rule book is almost 60 pages long, 20 of which is a glossary (which is nice) but still, that leaves 40 pages of rules. The typeface in the card-sized rulebook was incredibly tiny. I hope none of you have poor eyesight!

The rulebook is not very well organized. You may have to read it two or three times before you understand everything it is trying to say. "Attacking", for example, is discussed before the actual turn sequence; "play-or-pass chances" (a horrible name for a game mechanic, btw) -- a key element in attacking -- isn't even discussed in the "attacking" topic. "See page X for more information" is littered throughout the rulebook.

To be fair, though, I have NEVER read a rulebook for any CCG that was written well....

During my sample game, I had a few rule questions, and I had a hard time finding the answer. One question was, "When do mission cards take effect?" The answer is in the discussion of card types (answer: immediately after it is "built").

Other questions I had were "What does it cost to bring a retreated unit back into the appropriate arena" and "What happens when a unique unit is discarded - can it be 'built' (deployed) later, or is it permanently 'dead'?" These two questions were not answered directly by the rulebook. The first was answered indirectly, when the rulebook says you can return a retreated unit to the arena during your build step (no cost is mentioned, so it must be free). The second was never answered not even indirectly, so I assumed since there was no rule that said otherwise that a discarded unique unit was not "dead" and could be rebuilt later in the game if desired.

So after reading the rulebook I began playing. The first thing I realized is that the Setup phase is perhaps the most important part of the game. The first 30 points' worth of units you build will end up being the bulk of the forces you play during the game. The units you manage to build during the rest of the game just seem like "reinforcements". To me, that makes the game feel like it is split into two major phases: Setup and Battle. After the Setup phase, it only took me three or four turns to finish the game!

In general, it is a fun game. The Speed mechanic does introduce a nice level of strategy different from all of Decipher's Star Wars games. Retreating is a good mechanic, letting you save your forces while you bring in reinforcements. But there were elements I didn't care for, and that's what I want to focus on, not because I want to pound the game into the dust, but because these are the things you need to know before deciding to play the game yourself.

A few features of this game have been praised by the game designers and other reviewers, but I've found them overrated. One is stacking. I found it to be a non-factor in the overall game. The other is being able to play with main characters. So what if you get a main character on the table, if that character is no better (or only marginally better) than a non-main character sitting right next to it? Perhaps main characters should have been reserved for uncommon and rare cards, not common cards. I found it completely unexciting that I had 2 Anakin D's in my hand.

While playing, one annoying factor was Battle and Mission cards. These cards are horizontally oriented, for no good reason. (Although for the collector it is very nice, it gives the image a dynamic "widescreen" feel.) I fan my cards so that I can see the left hand side of each card - this works very well for units, where all the key stats are on the left, but is HORRIBLE for Mission and Battle cards, whose text is all completely on the right! Plus, in order to read the Battle or Mission card, you have to either tilt your head or turn the card, both of which kinda gives it away to your opponent. Hopefully, eventually you'll learn

 

Very well written review, Artie! I must say, what you said pretty much mirrored my expectations. The game does seem to be very much on the level of Jedi Knights, not the same as Jedi Knights but on roughly the same level of depth. On the one hand this is fine, because when Jedi Knights came out I really liked it a lot. But on the other hand, with JK I still had my old good Star Wars CCG to go back to when I felt the need for that depth of play that no other game can match. Now, while I can still play SWCCG if I want to (and I often do), it's just not the same as when new sets were coming out. So I guess what I'm saying is, SWTCG might make a fine "side game", like JK and YJ were, but now that SWCCG isn't around anymore, I'm looking for a new "main game" to focus my time and money on, and SWTCG doesn't sound like it'll be it. And it doesn't help that SWTCG was what sent me out looking in the first place.

About the dice: I know what you mean about them making the game too random. I've lately been working on a CCG based on the Mega Man video games (just on my own for fun), and I decided to use dice for the random element. I like destiny numbers better, but I figured it would be too hard for me to balance a bunch of cards AND give them reasonable destiny numbers all on my own. What I noticed is that the happy zone between too powerful and too weak is VERY small, and what's there isn't always what's fun. What I had expected would be a minor tweak (making an ability require a roll of >2 instead of >3, for example) often sent an ability from the depths of uselessness to the heights of brokenness. I hope dice don't give the SWTCG designers the same trouble with maintaining balance in future sets. The trouble, it seems, is that each of the 6 sides on a die are equally likely to be rolled. In SWCCG, your destiny draw was generally 3, sometimes + or - 1. Anything higher or lower was a particularly good (or bad) draw, so the designers were able to balance cards against these typical destiny draws. But you're just as likely to roll a 6 on a die as a 3, so it's more difficult to balance, and a lot of the time a lot of the fun is lost in the balancing. It might be better if they make some cards that have you roll two dice and use the total, so that some numbers will be more likely than others. Of course, it's still more fun when your odds are part of your deck design process, not an absolute probability, at least that's my opinion.

 

Padawan Deflection (Pay 1 Force -> it is pay 3 force not 1

i found that out at deckbuilders you may ahve the card and it says something else. but i'm pretty sure it is pay 3

if not can you tel me artie deco

 

Varsmkm:

Whoops! I erred. You are right, Padawan Deflection does cost 3 Force, not 1. It is a powerful card, being able to turn 1 damage to you into 1 damage to your OPPONENT, and the Dark starter deck suffers from not having an equivalent card, but it is hardly imbalanced.

Thanks for pointing that out!

 

"If you are a regular SW:CCG player, it will NOT satisfy you."

While I will still try and play this game, it seems that Artie, whom I admire and trust, has stated my fear all along. I have said since the beginning that unless this new TCG is more dynamic and fun, as well as challenging, I will stick to the CCG and buy cards wherever I can find them. It seems that this might be the case afterall.

 

Nice review!

You get a constant 4 Force at the beginning of each turn which you can carry over from turn to turn ... but you get a variable 1-6 build points per turn (roll one die) and those do NOT carry over. Why?

However you can partially build, so it is almost the same, unless you draw cards later you would have rather built.

You'll need a lot of counters. You need about 6-8 Force counters per person; you rarely carry over more than 2 Force per turn.
You need SEVERAL damage counters, about 20 per person; you're going to have about 5-10 units in play at any one time, and each one will probably have 2-3 damage counters on them on average. And don't forget you need build counters for units in the build area, although probably no more than 4 or 5 per player should be enough. When you add all that up, that's a LOT of counters!

I think it is easier to use dice for counters. Use a 20 sided die for the force accrual each turn. Use 6 sided die (preferably different colors that the ones you roll) for the hit markers, turning the die side up to reflect the damage amount.

Also, rolling dice is random, but it can work for you as well as against you.

Ijust hope there are more dice modifier cards in the future, which i am sure there will be.

 

Excellant and fair review, AD.

I am looking forward to the dice element (although I'm conerned about the random build portion). Some of my worst SWCCG gaming experience were against force choke and manipulation decks, they are simply not fun to play against. I believe dice will eliminate that aspect.

The game obviously lacks a lot of the depth, but appears to be fun. I'm not sure if my initial excitement for this game is tied to the fact that its coming from AoTC, something that is extremely exciting to me at this point. Only time will tell if my initial buzz fades after time passes.

 

Excellent review, Artie. As expected, a couple rebuttals.

* Yes, the dice may add to much randomness, but you should have plenty of abilities to allow you to reroll a particularly unlucky attack on your part and to allow you to lessen the damage caused by a particularly good roll by your opponent. THAT is another area of tactics within the randomness: that is, when is a roll so bad that you should try again and when is a card so important that it should be protected?

* Quite true, the fact that Build Points are randomized (though randomized fairly, one roll determines both players' points) and Force Points are static *does* seem a bit arbitrary. I personally don't mind too much though; the random Build Points (and the lack of rollover) is another thing to influence the order in which you build. And static, rolling Force Points allow you to carefully plan an attack of attrition that would open up a SERIOUS weakness for your opponent.

Consider: you could spend Force Points through bidding for contested units, through abilities in the space arena, and through abilities in the ground arena - ALL before getting to your Jedi, who may desparately need those points. Very interesting, indeed.

* On the fact that Anakin D is a fairly average card (of presumably common rarity): that's NOT actually a bad thing, especially when you consider the RARE versions, as shown in the new images at the Rebel Base:

Anakin A (rare):
Build=7, Speed=60, Power=6, Health=5

Obi-Wan A (rare):
Build=7, Speed=40, Power=6, Health=7

Darth Tyrannus A (appears to be rare):
Build=9, Speed=50, Power=7, Health=5
...and a LOT of Force powers.

I believe we're seeing WOTC's intentional efforts to please everyone: the kids who HAVE to have Anakin in their decks can easily find a common but mediocre Anakin D. The more serious players who want the more powerful cards can hunt down the rare but potent Anakin A. And everybody's happy, more or less.

* Also, it may be the case that your trial run was shorter than a typical game - that, in time, better tactics would lead to longer games. In such a case, reinforcements become more important, and you're more likely to draw enough cards to make stacks.


In response to your unanswered questions...

1) Unless I'm REALLY wrong, there is no cost whatsoever to move an already built card in and out of an arena. Build Points are solely for first putting those cards into play (and the rules about rearranging one's stack appear to prevent somebody from cheating the system by putting an expensive card into the middle of a stack and bringing it to the top on the next turn).

2) The discard pile is what it sounds like: once a card reaches it, it cannot be used again - unless, of course, you play a card that "resurrects" destroyed units. That's why multiple copies of the same card may be useful; each non-unique card represents one particular instance of that ship or soldier; once gone, it's gone. The reason you can't assume otherwise is the following:

"During your build step, if you have at least 1 build point left, you can choose a unit card or Mission card from your hand and put it face down in front of you."

You only build cards from your hand, and there's no rule within the book that allows you to move a card from the discard pile back to the hand.

(Again, you CAN use certain cards to draw from the discard pile and return a card to your hand, but even the presence of such a card implies that the ability is an exception to an implied rule.)


At any rate, your review was again very well written, and it's allowed yet another good discussion about the potential pro's and con's of the game. Hopefully, the good will far outweigh the bad.

 

Continuing the discussion, then...

Consider: you could spend Force Points through bidding for contested units, through abilities in the space arena, and through abilities in the ground arena - ALL before getting to your Jedi, who may desparately need those points. Very interesting, indeed.

Not that interesting. Every decent CCG has the same feature: managing resources.

* On the fact that Anakin D is a fairly average card (of presumably common rarity): that's NOT actually a bad thing, especially when you consider the RARE versions ...

The comparison I'm making is more along these lines:

Anakin D (common): Build 4, Speed 50, Power 4, Health 3, Pay 1 -> Evade 1

Padme Amidala D (common): Build 3, Speed 50, Power 3, Health 3 (no game text).

Clone Warrior 4/163 (uncommon): Build 4, Speed 40, Power 4, Health 4 (no game text).

I believe we're seeing WOTC's intentional efforts to please everyone: the kids who HAVE to have Anakin in their decks can easily find a common but mediocre Anakin D. The more serious players who want the more powerful cards can hunt down the rare but potent Anakin A. And everybody's happy, more or less.

My point was not that common mains are a bad thing, just that they are perhaps overrated. As shown above, you would do just as well using non-main characters as you would common mains.

Common mains won't have any impact on the game, non-mains are just as good. Stacking is not going to have that much of an impact, you're better off having multiple units in an arena than having one stacked unit.

* Also, it may be the case that your trial run was shorter than a typical game - that, in time, better tactics would lead to longer games. In such a case, reinforcements become more important, and you're more likely to draw enough cards to make stacks.

Oh, I didn't say reinforcements were not important, in fact just the contrary, they make or break the game, even in a short game. But the game still has a feel of "Setup up, then battle". Most of your forces are built during the Setup phase of the game. Think about it: you're putting 30 points worth of units in play. That is AT LEAST five normal turns' worth of units (5 turns rolling a 6 for build points each time), more likely 10 or more turns' worth (average roll of 3).

2) The discard pile is what it sounds like: once a card reaches it, it cannot be used again - unless, of course, you play a card that "resurrects" destroyed units.

Not what I'm talking about. I'm saying, if Anakin (any version) is discarded, can I play another copy of Anakin (any version) from my hand? Or is Anakin "dead"?

 

Not that interesting. Every decent CCG has the same feature: managing resources.

I believe you miss my point: what I'm saying is getting a static number of Force Points (and allowing those to rollover) could allow one player to carefully plot against your opponent - to put the player in a position of either losing cards or wasting Force Points. THAT's what I think is interesting.

On the issue of common mains, I'm not sure anybody was giving them an inflated value.

Nor do I think that stacking is necessarily a poorer use of resources than having multiple units. Don't rearrange your stack *too* much, and a stack IS less expensive and may thus be more efficient. Further, a LOT of the battle and mission cards affect just one card, so it might make it easier to "protect your eggs" if they're all in one basket.

Finally, I agree that setup is VITALLY important, but I don't think that's a bad thing. It gives you a way to implement a broad strategy without immediately dealing with battles in the meantime. (Besides, I don't see any other reasonable way to start the game.)

Basically, it's still waaay too soon to pass absolute judgment on the game.

 

I believe you miss my point: what I'm saying is getting a static number of Force Points (and allowing those to rollover) could allow one player to carefully plot against your opponent - to put the player in a position of either losing cards or wasting Force Points. THAT's what I think is interesting.

No, I got your point the first time. You think that's interesting. It is, but it's not THAT interesting; my point is every decent CCG out there forces players to make the same decision -- take a hit now, or spend your precious resources to prevent that hit.

On the issue of common mains, I'm not sure anybody was giving them an inflated value.

My point is, making a main character a common card makes that character less ... interesting. It reduces our heroes and villains to mediocrity. Anyone who thinks otherwise is, in my opinion, overrating them.

Remember, this is my "first impression" of the game. Having common mains was supposed to be a feature to generate interest in the game; for me, common mains have become uninteresting.

Nor do I think that stacking is necessarily a poorer use of resources than having multiple units. Don't rearrange your stack *too* much, and a stack IS less expensive and may thus be more efficient.

No, a stack is NOT less expensive. The rules keep it from being less expensive. Go back and re-read section 5 of the advanced rules. It even gives a useful example, demonstrating how you save nothing:

Anakin C is in battle, and it cost you 5 build points to put him out there. You have Anakin A (cost 7) in your hand, and want to build him -- add him to the stack. You would have to spend 3 build points to stack him on top of Anakin C, or 1 point to stack him under Anakin C. If you stack Anakin A under Anakin C, it will cost you 2 points. Either way, you've spent 8 points to get Anakin A stacked on top of Anakin C, which is the same you would have gotten if you had Anakin A out first and wanted to add Anakin C to the stack.

You might say it's less expensive because you only spent 8 points when, if deployed separately, you would have had to spend 12. But you are not comparing apples and oranges. In the first case, you spent 8 points to put a power 7 health 6 speed 70 Anakin in play. In the second case, you spent 12 points to put two characters in play with combined stats of power 11 health 9 and speed 60!

As for rearranging your stack, as far as I can tell you are always going to want to have the "highest" version on top. Let's say you have a stack with Anakin A and Anakin D. If Anakin D is on top, you have speed 60, power 5, health 4, Pay 1 -> Evade 1. If Anakin A is on top, you have speed 70, power 7, health 6, Pay 3 -> Evade 3. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever that I can fathom for having Anakin D on top of the stack.

Let's make the example more interesting. Anakin B has the most interesting game text of the four versions so far: "Tap- One of your units in the Ground arena gets +20 speed and +2 power until end of battle....Pay 1 -> Evade 1." But Anakin B has speed 50, power 4, health 4. So let's say you have Anakin A and B in a stack. If Anakin A is on top, you have the same stats mentioned above (70,7,6,Evade 3). If Anakin B is on top, you have (60,5,5,Tap- speed +20 power +2). So Anakin loses 10 speed, 2 power, and 1 health (!) and must tap ... all in order to give another unit 20 speed and 2 power. The cost outweighs the benefits. Sure, you may be able to untap Anakin with a battle or mission card ... but it will cost you force and maybe build points. Is it worth it? Once in a blue moon, maybe. I'd say the vast majority of times, no it won't be worth it.

So stacking becomes overrated IMO. Not much benefit to it, no cost savings, not much strategy (always put the most powerful version on top).


Further, a LOT of the battle and mission cards affect just one card, so it might make it easier to "protect your eggs" if they're all in one basket.

I have no idea what you mean by this.

None of the b

 

By all means, let's continue the discussion!

(And anyone who wants to join it is of course welcome to do so.)

If you don't mind, I'll focus on the more interesting points...

My point is, making a main character a common card makes that character less ... interesting. It reduces our heroes and villains to mediocrity. Anyone who thinks otherwise is, in my opinion, overrating them.

I would agree with you if they were making main characters MERELY mediocre, common cards. As it is, there are also very powerful rare cards that should still be considered, and there's the fact that different versions of the same card can be used cooperatively as a stack. It seems like you're judging the character as a whole on JUST the most uninteresting component, rather than the entire card set.

No, a stack is NOT less expensive. The rules keep it from being less expensive. Go back and re-read section 5 of the advanced rules. It even gives a useful example, demonstrating how you save nothing:

Anakin C is in battle, and it cost you 5 build points to put him out there. You have Anakin A (cost 7) in your hand, and want to build him -- add him to the stack. You would have to spend 3 build points to stack him on top of Anakin C, or 1 point to stack him under Anakin C. If you stack Anakin A under Anakin C, it will cost you 2 points. Either way, you've spent 8 points to get Anakin A stacked on top of Anakin C, which is the same you would have gotten if you had Anakin A out first and wanted to add Anakin C to the stack.

You might say it's less expensive because you only spent 8 points when, if deployed separately, you would have had to spend 12. But you are not comparing apples and oranges. In the first case, you spent 8 points to put a power 7 health 6 speed 70 Anakin in play. In the second case, you spent 12 points to put two characters in play with combined stats of power 11 health 9 and speed 60!

That's what I meant by "less expensive", comparing 8 and 12. As you said, you're not likely to rearrange the stack too much, so the total cost will still probably be less.

But let's look at this again:

STACK:
B=8
S=70
P=6
H=7

SEPARATE:
B=12
S=60 (average)
P=11
H=9

Certainly, the stack has less total power and less total health, but it also COSTS less (and it's actually faster than either individually).

It's yet to be seen, then, that the stack is somehow a waste of build points. It's kinda like a strategy game where you're trying to decide whether to deploy tanks or infantry. You don't just compare one tank to one infantry; you compare one tank to a tank's worth of infantry. The way you can do this is to adjust the stats so that the costs are equal. Let's do that to our example, multiplying (most of) the stack stats by 1.5 to make the build points equivalent:

STACK x 1.5:
B=12
S=70 (not sensible to change speed)
P=9
H=10.5

SEPARATE:
B=12
S=60 (average)
P=11
H=9

What this says is, normalized for the build cost, the stack is still faster AND has more health while the separate cards have more power. You're getting more health for each Build Point, but less power. It's simply not clear that the stack is worse.

None of the battle and mission cards I've seen affect just one card in a stack. They affect a unit, which by definition affects a whole stack.

In this game, it is always, always better to have more units in play (in an arena you intend to win, anyway). Why? Because at the very least you spread out your opponent. Don't give him one target to beat on over and over again, give him multiple targets so that he'll end up wasting hits and never knocking you out of the arena completely.

Sorry, what I meant is that most cards affect just one unit as opposed to all the units in an arena.

And a stack may be easier to protect than a group of units, for the following reasons:

* Defensively, it's obvious that you should spend Force Points and Mission Cards to protect your stack, with no ambiguity. You can better defend the one unit because you

 

Okay, last post of the day...

It's yet to be seen, then, that the stack is somehow a waste of build points.

I didn't say it was. I was refuting the idea that a stack is somehow more "efficient".

It's simply not clear that the stack is worse.

I didn't say it was "bad" or "worse". I said stacking is "overrated". It's not an exciting, interesting component of the game. It is confusing at worst, a non-factor at best.

* Defensively, it's obvious that you should spend Force Points and Mission Cards to protect your stack, with no ambiguity. You can better defend the one unit because you're not distracted by the loss of others.

Stack to avoid distraction? I'm sorry, that's a poor excuse, IMO.

You just want to protect your units with the highest power, 'cuz they're the ones who will inflict the most damage. No ambiguity there. Plus, with battle cards or activated abilities, you can wait until after your opponent rolls to see if you NEED to protect your units.

(Look at "A Moment's Rest", where you can prevent all damage to just one unit in a turn. With a stack, you protect everything; with separate cards, you have to pick which to protect.)

That's just one example, and since it is a Mission card, you're really talking about an exception, not a rule. Most cards that prevent damage only prevent a certain amount of damage, like Hero's Dodge. As a general rule, then, it is still better to spread your defenses out and not put everything into one stack.

* Offensively (and this is key), certain abilities become more powerful. Critical hit is more powerful since a unit with power=7 is more likely to roll a 6 than either of the individual cards deployed separately.

Okay, now there's a valid point. Stacking marginally increases your chances for activating certain abilities.


Overall, though, I am still persuaded that stacking is not that useful. Anyone can come up with exceptions to the rule, but all things being equal, I'd rather have 3 separate characters in the character arena than 1 stack with 3 cards stacked in it.

Don't misread me here. I'm not saying that stacking is WORTHLESS. If Anakin A is on the table and I'm holding Anakin D in my hand and I'm only given 1 build point this turn, adding Anakin D to my stack is better than nothing! But all things being equal, I'd rather build a new unit and spread out my forces.

 

I have a small comment of the dice asect of the game. I think that it makes the TCG more fair then the CCG ever was. In the CCG any of the better players, ranked in the top five of the state, count cards. This is completely unfair to the casual or starting player simply because they cannot stand up to the experienced player when they know what is coming. As an experiment we put the number two ranked player in our state against a newer player but made both players use starter decks straight out of the box. The new player won. The number two player in the state said he didnt win because "I didnt have a chance to go though the cards before the game and start counting them". I think that is one reason a lot of top CCG player, the one in the experiment included, dont want to TCG. They actually have to think up a different way to cheat.

 

Kenix, I agree that tracking is a component that is devastating and only certain types of players can do that. But I disagree with it being labeled as cheating, its a skill I happen to have a lot of respect for, let's face it SWCCG is a pretty complicated game, to be able to keep track of all the elements of a game and still know where your destiny 6 is in your deck is a skill that I for one wish I possessed.

To be honest your experiment does not make a lot of sense to me, the #2 player in the area should be able to beat a newbie even if the decks were identical. That might have been luck or the good player taking it easy on the newbie.

 

All you have to do is play Bith Shuffle/Ommni Box, and you've ruined your opponent's tracking....

The problem with the dice is that the WHOLE ENTIRE GAME depends on it. In SW:CCG, battle destiny -- a random element -- is ADDED to your power. In SW:TCG, the random element IS your power. Like I said, what this does is change a card game into a card-and-dice game. If you like card and dice games, then you should like this game just fine.

 

Kenix: I don't understand what you meant when you said the #2 player said he didn't have a chance to go through the cards before the game and count them. BEFORE the game doesn't matter. You have to shuffle your deck and let your opponent cut it befor eyou start, and you can't look at the deck again after that. To track a destiny, you have to find it first. If you never draw them or get them for destiny by chance, you'll never know where they are and cannot track them. When I was learning to track, I played against myself with the DS2 starters, and I was lucky enough to get an Intruder Missile for my first LS battle destiny. For the rest of the game, I never drew a different card for battle destiny, but until I had found it through luck, AFTER THE GAME HAD STARTED, I had no idea where it was. And if ever I searched my Reserve Deck or had it shuffled for whatever reason with the Missile in there (or just made a counting mistake), I would have lost it. Finding the destiny is luck. Keeping track of it is skill. None of that is cheating.

Now, if this guy looked through his deck before the game to know where cards were, and started playing WITHOUT shuffling, so he started the game knowing where everything in his deck was, then I'll wholeheartedly agree with you that that IS cheating, and cheating pretty badly too. But it isn't tracking destiny.

 

Your exactly right Ocelot, that was the other part of the experiment that did not make sense to me. Tracking cannot begin before the game begins, decks must be shuffled or your are right its big-time cheating.

 

About stacking:
Stacking has its advantages in the initial setup phase. Lets say you have 5 points left during your setup phase and you're holding Anakin A and Anakin D. Place Anakin D (4 points) on top and Anakin A underneath (only 1 point since its underneath). Then in the build phase you can bring Anakin A to the top for only 3 points. If Anakin A wasn't stacked underneath during the setup phase he would have cost you 4 points (3 for the difference + 1 for cost) to place on top of Anakin D. So you save 1 build point which could mean the difference between bringing an extra unit to the battlefield.

Another thing I like about stacking is that its a good way to get rid of "doubles" but also make a unit stronger. Since you can't have two of the same unique character on the table at once this will give more strategy towards deck building. Is it better to place "4 of Anakin A's" in your deck (better chance of getting it) or "2 Anakin A's and 2 Anakin B's"? Because, what happens when you have an Anakin A in play and you keep drawing more Anakin A's? I would rather be getting some Anakin B's or even C's and stack them under Anakin A.

Also stacking is important when the characters get contested. The stacked cards count towards the outcome and if it is a powerful neutral character then your going to want him instead of your opponent.

Balancing:
But about the Padawan Deflection card being only for the light side. You have to remember that the Dark Side always wins ties, so the Light Side needs some other benefits as well.

MISC
I wish build points would carry over also. But if you have extra build points place them on any card being built. You can deploy anytime you wish and can place as many build points on a card as you want. If a card only cost 4, place 9 and make your opponent sweat a little thinking your gonna be bringing Yoda to the table He might retreat an injured character, then he will be pissed when its actually just Anakin D.

I never thought about the trouble of mission and battle cards being sideways. That can be quite an annoyance.

I think this game has some good potential and I am sure there are gonna be some rule changes in the future expansions.

 

Lets say you have 5 points left during your setup phase and you're holding Anakin A and Anakin D.

Problem #1: Unless I didn't draw Anakin A until late in the Setup phase, I wouldn't let this happen.

Place Anakin D (4 points) on top and Anakin A underneath (only 1 point since its underneath). Then in the build phase you can bring Anakin A to the top for only 3 points. If Anakin A wasn't stacked underneath during the setup phase he would have cost you 4 points (3 for the difference + 1 for cost) to place on top of Anakin D. So you save 1 build point which could mean the difference between bringing an extra unit to the battlefield.

Problem #2: If Anakin A wasn't stacked underneath during the setup phase you would have spent your last build point to partially build another unit somewhere else, which would have made up for the difference you cite. You don't "save 1 build point".

Is it better to place "4 of Anakin A's" in your deck (better chance of getting it) or "2 Anakin A's and 2 Anakin B's"?

Actually, the best scenario is none of the above: it would be 4 Anakin A's and 4 Anakin B's -- if your deck strategy depends on Anakin, that is.

The one thing you do NOT want to depend on is getting Anakin A AND Anakin B at the same time.

Also stacking is important when the characters get contested.

No, stacking may be a factor, but it won't be an "important" factor when contesting unique units. The most important factor when contesting unique units is your current Force total. The second most important factor is your unit's build cost. A distant third is the number of cards stacked under it.

You have to remember that the Dark Side always wins ties, so the Light Side needs some other benefits as well.

The Light Side has one of the biggest advantages in the game by going second in the build step and retreat step. The advantage is Light Side knows exactly what Dark Side is doing, and can react (if possible). Let's say both sides are fairly even in the ground arena. Dark Side builds a ground unit; Light Side can choose to either build a ground unit to keep the balance, or retreat his ground units and spend his build points somewhere else. Dark Side does not have this luxury. Dark Side has no idea where Light Side is going to build this turn, or where Light Side is going to retreat this turn. He's shooting in the dark. In the games I've played so far, Light has a HUGE advantage.

If a card only cost 4, place 9 and make your opponent sweat a little thinking your gonna be bringing Yoda to the table. He might retreat an injured character, then he will be [mad] when its actually just Anakin D.

That would be a foolish thing to do, wasting 5 build points like that. Build points are more precious than anything in this game. Besides, your opponent has no clue that that bluff is a character unit; it could be a space or ground unit, so there's really no point in retreating a character unit. And further more, Dark doesn't have to retreat until AFTER Light builds their units, so if that unit stays face down in the build area why retreat?

 

Padawan's Deflection is a Neutral card, not a Light Side card. I have the card and spotted the Neutral symbol on it.

Ironflak

 

I finally scored a 2 player starter and got a chance to check this new game out.

I want to start off by saying that I'm one of the few people on this board who loves CCG and is also excited about TCG, with regards to the disputes that have popped up lately, I'd suggest that although everyone is entitled to their opinion, if a comment or thread is going to be imflammatory to one side or anther its probably best left unsaid.

With regards to the game, my first impressions is that of a game that is ultimately fun and uncomplicated. More involved and interesting than Young Jedi and about on par with Jedi Knights in many ways.

If you don't like dice you won't like this game, dice is a key ingrediant and must be dealt with if you are going to enjoy your gaming experience with TCG.

I'm looking forward to getting some of the rares and playing with complete 60 card decks to get the full experience intended with this game. I feel the cards are nicely constructed, I don't feel a need to break things down to details, Artie already did a great job of deconstructing this game, I did not have any of the issues with the game that he did as of yet.

I found the game fun, fast paced and easy to play and would recommend it as a welcome addition to the previous SW card games out there, it in no way replaces SWCCG and should not be considered as such.

 

The weirdest thing happened to me the other day. I was grumbling about being home mulching the gardens while my wife was out shopping. When she got home, she said "come and look at this"

"There was 15% of everything at K-Mart today, so I got you a treat."

She got out a EpII book ( ) and ...

a 2 player starter box of TCG

This is the 1st time my wife has supported my Star Wars fanship or card playing hobby.

Anyway, here's what I thought.

Simplicity
Awesome. The way you can get used to it with the playmat and a few cards is great.

damage tokens
At first I thought huh? Cardboard? But then I thought. Having just cardboard tokens rather than glass beads in other games maked it affordable. Not as cool, but affordable.

The general look of the game
The most enjoyment I got was lookign at the pictures before playing. Cool pics.

gameplay
Good. A lot more fun than I suspected. There is enough variety in the cards to last a few games with the same sets.

Thoughts
I thought reinforcements came in very handy, and I like the "hidden build" mechanic.

A gameplay question.
Let's say my card says "pay 3 force - Evade up to 3 damage"
Does that mean I pay 1 for each damage, or I pay 3 force whether I evade 1, 2 or 3 force.

Can I deploy cards to an arena that I have lost?

Thanx.

 

You have to pay 3 whetehr you evade 1,2, or 3.

Yes, you can deploy to an arena that you do not currently have units in. It's not really "lost" until you lose the whole game by not having units in 2 of the 3.

Awesome news about your wife buying some. That is now the 4th or 5th case of Spousal support of this game. And the second case of them actually buying it!