Star Wars LCG: A Case for the set-focused deck-building
By Zach Bunn– September 4, 2012
There has been a lot of debate surrounding the upcoming Star Wars LCG by Fantasy Flight Games. When the game was initially previewed, it was set to be a cooperative game where players acted as the Rebellion attempting to stop the Empire from controlling the galaxy. A few months after GenCon 2011, it was announced that what had been previewed was being totally scrapped due to it having what FFG described as a lack of innovation.
At GenCon 2012, we were fortunate enough to sit down for a full demo of the redesigned and completely innovative Star Wars LCG. The entire time I was playing the game I couldn’t help but smile. Unlike the original, this game was a competitive game that pit the good guys against the bad guys (including jedi and sith, rebels and the empire). Insert even more intense debates on forums across the internet here.
But it wasn’t until later that we discovered one of the biggest innovations that the game was bringing to the table. This innovation is something that Fantasy Flight today revealed as set-focused deck-building (and even more previews here). Insert even more intense debates… A lot of players who were behind the competitive remake of this game feel as though this is a major injustice and are crying for reprieve. After two full demos of the game, re-watching one of the demos on video, and reading the article today, I’d like to make a case for this set-focused deck-building.
Do or do not, there is no try
I have a very high amount of respect for what Fantasy Flight Games is doing with their tabletop card games. The LCG model is, quite simply, brilliant. They have designed a truly innovative system on to which they can release new games, with new flavor, and beautiful art and very likely have a huge following. They have already successfully used the LCG model for Game of Thrones, Call of Cthulu, Warhammer Invasion, and are releasing this week the Netrunner LCG that is about as hot of a game as there has been in years.
Of course it makes sense that they would scoop up one of the most popular card game titles, let alone brands in general, and drop it into their LCG system. Yet this is where my respect for Fantasy Flight has only grown with the Star Wars LCG. They could have done just that. They could have literally created a game that is true to the Star Wars universe, slapped it into the LCG model, and been done with it.
I don’t think any of us can really expect that Fantasy Flight, the one who invented the LCG model, would just sit back and rinse and repeat. Unlike other companies, they continue to innovate. Instead of the standard card game, where you build a deck and are done with it, they have done something drastically different.
This building mechanic is wildly innovative and brings an entirely new twist to the card game format. In fact, since I’ve had time to reflect on it I’m quite relieved that they didn’t do this as a standard game. I’m already playing the Game of Thrones LCG and plan to play Netrunner. Had Star Wars been the same old same, I doubt I would have ended up seriously playing all three. This gives Fantasy Flight a chance to entertain their most intense of gamers by offering a completely new experience.
On top of all of this, the format is actually VERY friendly to newer players. I’ve seen countless times new players coming in to our store looking like a deer in headlights with a pile of cards in their hands. For the newer players, the LCG format is great. Having a simplified deck building system is going to make it even easier for new players to hop on board, and with the Star Wars license behind it I imagine there will be no shortage of new players.
And yet I still don’t think this leaves card game veterans in the dust. It’s definitely a different deck building mechanic, but that does not mean that there isn’t skill placed on deck building. Further, unlike Game of Thrones (where I think a large share of the battle is won before you sit at the table), this could really place an emphasis on player skill as opposed to deck building.
At the end of the day, this system is completely innovative, competitive, and definitely a swing for the fence by Fantasy Flight Games. I couldn’t be more excited. What are your thoughts on the set-focused deck-building system? The full demo video is below.
Zach
This is something I was equally excited about it when I watched your video from GenCon. I play Warhammer Invasion, soon to be Netrunner and this game. Yes you are correct, having a different way to deck build is gonna be amazing.
Sure purists might complain and fuss, but there are plenty of other games to satisfy that crowd. This is new and simple. The best way to bring a new IP to life. It is easy enough a new player can do it, but has enough wiggle room that expansions and new rules can make it just as intricate in the deck building fun.
Sets can be a little firm on how decks are built and metagame, but FFG knows what they are doing, and the fact they have spent this much time trying to refine the game, I am willing to give them a try. So far they have done a solid job with their games and overall as a gaming company.
I also was quite happy because thie really really helps avoid players abusing “OP” cards. Because to take that single card they feel is super strong, they have to take cards that might not be powerful at all. As long as FFG watches their cards, weird infinite loops and strange combo breakers should be held to a minimum, or at the cost of running a severely hampered and unbalanced deck. We shall see how it plays out, but I’ll be playing for sure.
I like the idea. Summoner Wars has similarly restricted deck building options: all your events are chosen for you with the summoner. In addition to other restrictions, this makes it easier for newcomers to make a deck, retains an emphasis on skill, and makes it easier to balance power cards. It also means theme decks will be more viable, I think, which I always like in a game.
Another intense debate going on now is an issue with characters versus ship combat. Did this come up in your games? The specific example that repeatedly comes up is a rancor being able to destroy a cruiser ship of some sort. I can imagine weird scenarios where a rancor somehow gets on a ship and eats the crew then laugh it off,but it is odd. I wonder why they didn’t just leave ships out or make them support cards like in Thrones.
One thing I picked up after watching this video for the 3rd or 4th time at 18:16ish of the video Zach asked about paying for cards from an objective with a specific faction. I hoping/assuming that Jedi, Sith Rebels are what they are refering too.
I bring this up because each objective card puts 5 cards into your deck and it would be a real pain if those cards required resources from their objective card to be played.
Did they say if the objectives are picked at random or if the player got to pick the order in advance or even on the fly midgame?
One last thing about factions, I’m pretty sure I heard the FFG guy say their were Dark Neutral cards. That seems kind of odd when I think about it. Unless there are Dark Neutral objectives.
Basically, each objective has an affiliation. You start the game by drawing five and playing three. To play a sith card, you have to spend at least one resource from a sith objective.
The Sugi hit on what I think is the truly ingenious aspect of the “pod-based” system. It allows FFG to balance the game fairly easily while retaining considerable design space for individual cards. They can make a godly Boba Fett and pair him with four other subpar cards. Alternately, they can make a set of five solid cards without any real superstars. If managed correctly, this model could provide considerable parity across card sets while still allowing characters like Vader and Luke to be as epically powerful as they should be.
Another upside that merits mention is the impact on retail distribution. Since each pod may be included at most twice in a deck, there should be NO reason to need more than two Core Sets. Even the most competitive players can acquire full “playsets” of card pods without buying the same product three times. So, if you do decide to dive into this game, it won’t be as pricy as LotR or AGoT.
Totally! They can make lots of great cards and balance them with other cards from the pod
I see great potential about this new podbuilding mechanic. Coming from a non-hardcore, non-competitive cardgaming background i appreciate how it speaks to new players. I think deckbuilding will be important but i like how it makes faster and easier while still having a strong thematic feel to it.
Someone mentioned the rancor-frigate debacle wich i must say im more and more okay with. I guess it wouldnt be that hard to deal with (having capital ships etc be support or have them be flying like magic). To be honest i was and am more concerned bout the DS dial and the asymmetrical victory conditions while everything else is symmetrical. I think i would rather see both sides having the same vc, destorying x number of objectives and possible more types of objectives(completing your own objectives perhaps?)
But i’ll guess i’ll have to wait and see. I’m still psyched. And i would buy the game ONLY to get that Leia card. Ka-blam!
I dislike change. Oddly enough, I love innovation. It was only 5 or 6 years ago that FFG transitioned over to LCGs…and look at the success they have had since. Each game they produce injects some new mechanic into the rusty old “draw, play resource, tap to play cards” mechanic nearly every other CG is using. Cthulu introduced story-based objective cards, GoT has its Plot cards…both thematic additions that change and add to the CG frame. Warhammer: Invasion and the LotR LCG are both fantasy themed games that play very differently because of these kinds of innovation.
FFG scraped their initial Star Wars release mostly because it lacked that innovation. The community latched on to the idea that it wasn’t competitive, that you couldn’t play as the Dark side. Of course, now there’s people complaining that it’s not cooperative…in the end, I think FFG would have made a co-op game if they could have done it differently from the LotR game. I didn’t play the 2011 demo, but from what comments I saw, it was basically the LotR engine with the Star Wars theme. That’s a good system, I enjoy playing it….but it’s already been done, and frankly I don’t think it fits the overall Star Wars theme very well.
I like this innovation. It in some ways is more challenging than standard deck building, because you have to take all 5 command cards with each objective. I’m sure players are still going to try to build maximum decks..but overall, they should be better balanced, and the meta should remain challenging and harder for a single build to dominate.
I think a year or so in, players will realize similar challenges in deck building as in other games. What we probably don’t realize is how often this happens anyway in other games. There are some cards that almost always go in a deck with other cards.
One thing that card games have had trouble with since their inception is balancing out the powerful cards. Since the only restriction on deck building was generally limiting the maximum number of any card, the primary way that was used to balance things was by making the powerful cards rare. That just led to the folks willing to shell out lots of cash being able to field rather obscene decks.
To me, this new idea of pod deck building harkens to the point buy system in most miniature games. Now you can effectively “cost” a powerful card, by requiring you to run a bunch of filler cards with it. Where as the moderate cards are cheaper, in that you get less filler and more useful cards to put in your deck. Admittedly, this assumes that FFG is going to use this mechanic for balance purposes, and that they do a good job with that.
Decks will be more cookie cutter than in a more standard deck building scheme, but things should be more balanced. I’m looking forward to see how this game shapes up.
I think they’ll be cookie cutter at first…but as more objective packs are released, I’m hoping to see more diverse mixes of cards. I have to say, while the game looks fun, I wasn’t ready to be sold on it. I’m still leaning more away than toward, but the pod mechanic makes it more interesting.
I’m also not sold on the art. It’s good, and it looks like Star Wars…but I wonder if FFG purposefully decided to not try for the actor’s historic likenesses in their art? To me, it looks a little like a good cosplay group got together and then converted their images into drawn art format.
I feel like I’m as sold on this as I was on X-Wing a while ago, which means it’s probably going to grow on me. I am disappointed it’s only got the standard two-player game going here. I’d have much preferred it to be two or more players, as that’s easier for me to get my game group interested in. Some of the mechanics intrigue me, others are more meh. At this point, it’s just waiting to see how the whole package comes together.
I see this as primarily a reaction to the non-hardcore player base they expect to garner with the license, as well as the rancor they’ve built up in some parts of the community with the perceived distribution slights. In that way I approve.
If it is actually a way for them to “balance” power cards by pairing them with a similarly underpowered pool, well, to put it simply, that won’t work. And would be a terrible, terrible idea.
My initial impression from the Covenant demo video is that the game has a fair amount of lucksack potential to it. Light side just rolled over Dark in that game, and as was pointed out it was the exact opposite the game before. Was it just a case of he who gets his uber units on the table first wins? If so, that’s going to dampen my enthusiasm intensely.
I hope I’m wrong. I want it to be awesome. And in theory I like the pod deck building mechanic. I just hope they don’t use it as a crutch in design.
I highly doubt that’s the issue, given that both of us had played 0 games beforehand. We’d need to get 20-30 games under our belt before counting “light side victories” and “dark side victories”. There was a lot of subtlety and different options that we just didn’t know to look for.
Also it should be obvious by now that I’m just better than Zach, so it’s not a valid control group
I definitely don’t think that was the case. It was my second game, so I was trying… Different strategies out. I realized lots of mistakes I was making, but I knew I wouldn’t get to play again so I wanted to try things out. I’m very hopeful for this game.
I will withold My judgment untill I give it a good shake. I can see good and bad things with this new deck build design and need to test it out to give a final feeling for it.
There is a zero percent chance I will get into Netrunner but a four percent chance I will try Star Wars out, and the deck design options is the reason that I might explore it.
Temptation is luring me… that’s for certain. The simplified deck build is actually the only reason it’s even entered consideration.