Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
18 Posts

Star Wars: The Card Game» Forums » General

Subject: So I picked up the core set, but will I like it ? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Simon Worger
United Kingdom
Bordon
Hampshire
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hi,

Just picked up the core set I've been looking at getting it for a while but I'm no Star Wars geek ! I'll always watch it if it's on TV but it's the not the end of the world if I miss it.

I do like card games and I play Netrunner but one of the reasons I've picked up Star Wars is I've read the deck building part is a lot easier or straight forward than Netrunner which I do find quite hard or at least knowing where to start, what to add etc etc.

I'm hoping Star Wars will sort this part out for me. I know you can just play Netrunner with the core set or copy someone's deck but it's not the same I'd much rather build my own except I'm no good at that part

Anyone else play both, prefer one over the over or dropped one to play the other ?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Donny Behne
United States
Fate
Texas
flag msg tools
designer
www.punchboardmedia.com/geaux-gaming/
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
No telling if you will like it until you play it. I've played both and I greatly prefer Star Wars both thematically and mechanically. Because you draw to your hand limit (reserve) every turn, Star Wars games can be very swingy. You'll find hand management is a huge component of the game.

Deckbuilding is very straight forward in that you pick 10 objectives (maximum of two of each unless it is listed that only one copy can be included) and then you're required to take the five cards associated with each of those objectives. So the choice is what objectives to include based on the cards in the pod. You never have to pick two or three individual cards. Some like this, some feel it overly restrictive. Personally, I don't have the effort or desire to commit to building decks one card at a time so I like this system.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul DeStefano
United States
Long Island
New York
flag msg tools
designer
badge
It's a Zendrum. www.zendrum.com
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Desperately wanted to love this one.

Really don't like it at all.

Oh, well.

For LCG I have Netrunner, for StarWars I have XWing.

Not for everyone.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bryce K. Nielsen
United States
Elk Ridge
Utah
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I hate most card games but love this one for the following reasons:
- Artwork (sooooo glad they didn't do stills from the movie)
- Good thematic match on cards (Yoda feels like Yoda, etc)
- Objective Sets (deck building done right)
- Edge Battles (no such thing as a 'worthless' card)
- Fill Your Hand (instead of draw-1-card)
- Semi asymmetrical play (Game play is same but objectives are different for both sides, which affects how you play)
- Rules for 3-4 players
- Force Struggles

My first go at the rules, the game seemed like it was going to be a mess of mechanics with a non-existant theme slapped on. Then I played the game, and everything just clicked and fit the Star Wars theme so perfectly, I really enjoy the game. So, I can't really comment on how it compares with NetRunner (don't know that game, refuse to play as it's a cardgame and I hate cardgames), but those positives may help you see what good there is in SW LCG.

-shnar
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Aaron Edwards
United States
Nashville
Tennessee
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It's definitely the easiest game from a deckbuilding perspective, since you customize your deck with sets of cards rather than with individual cards. Thw artwork is indeed fantastic, but I personally think the gameplay is pretty meh. I have a buddy who really loves it, so I'm happy to play when he wants to, but it would never be my go-to choice for a head-to-head card game. I can't put my finger on why it doesn't thrill me--but it's definitely centered around the combat mechanics, which I just find to be abstract and confusing. But you may very well find it interesting.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve
United States
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I've played both. Used to play a lot of Netrunner. Won a few tournaments and all, but it's been three months since my last game. Star Wars is the LCG for me these days.

Like Netrunner, one core is okay, but a 2nd will give your decks much better consistency.

Since you're in the UK: https://www.facebook.com/groups/swlcgukirl/
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John
Norway
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
Building decks for SW is technically much easier, as it just about picking whatever objective sets you want and off you go. It does feel more restrictive though and I personally find it much more rewarding to build decks for Netrunner, even though I don't count myself as a good deck builder. I find it harder to find those synergies that I want with SW when I feel that certain pods have good cards and then some I don't really want.

Still, gameplay is good fun. It's not quite up there with Netrunner for me, but still a great game.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pauli Vinni
Finland
Espoo
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Yep! The deck building is the best part of SW lcg. It is logical, guite thematic and so easy that even persons who don't play card games so much can make their own decks very easily!
If you give starter box of Netrunner to beginner, he most probably make quite horrible deck in the beginning. In SW it is almost impossible. If you make three faction deck it can bounce back, but even that can be made and two faction decks are easy to make so that they work very nicely.

For game play I prefer Netrunner, because it is more complex. But it is a matter of taste. But the deck building part is really good is SW. It makes a card game almost mundane to normal people. I was making Introduction to cards games in RopeCon (LOTR, Netrunner, SW) and SW was really good to all beginners! Those with long ccg backround seems to prefer Netrunner. And casual players liked LOTR lcg when they did get premade decks... Without those LOTR could have been quite frustrating experience...

The best choice for casual player would be co-op like LOTR with SW deck building... Waiting for FFG to publish one. SW co-op please ;-)
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
heyyouyeahyou 12
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Hannibal_pjv wrote:
The best choice for casual player would be co-op like LOTR with SW deck building... Waiting for FFG to publish one. SW co-op please ;-)


The funny thing is this game was originally slated to be a new co-op game, but they changed their minds and made it a 1v1 with asymmetrical play instead.

For myself, I am a VERY recent SW player. I run a local league night for FFG games at my FLGS, but up until recently it had only been people playing Netrunner. I have gotten kind of frustrated with some off the design/meta for Netrunner and (after 500+ games) found myself wanting to play/promote some of their other games. I'd previously played SW once and did not like it. Looking back, I think the problem I had was the game was so different from Netrunner (and I was still learning to play) that I couldn't wrap my head around it and decided I didn't like it. So recently, I decided to give it another try.

I REALLY like it! I'm still learning a lot about it, as I've only play 4-5 games, but I actually love how different it is from Netrunner. Things like resource management, card advantage, winning edge battles are all very fresh and cool mechanics in the game and are concepts not present in Netrunner (which is fine, games need to be different). Deckbuilding is so different too, but I like how there are no "unusable" cards, since you are locked into certain cards because of the "pod" building. But even if there is a card you don't love, you can always use it in the super important edge battle! Also, see the card synergy within pods is amazing.

Anyway, I wish more people were playing this game. The Netrunner community is huge and always growing; I want Star Wars to get some of that love too (and not go the way of Warhammer: Invasion). I've got a bunch of people trying out SW at league night and even a few people who actually bought sets. The word is spreading!

(Side note: I think SW really suffered from a low card pool at the beginning, more so than most of these games, and I think that is because of the deskbuilding style. Now that there are so many more options/cards, it really is feeling like a more fully realized game!)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve
United States
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Hannibal_pjv wrote:
For game play I prefer Netrunner, because it is more complex.

Having played both games hundreds of times, I disagree.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
badalchemist
United States
San Antonio
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
To me, the biggest difference between the deckbuilding in Netrunner and Star Wars is that you HAVE to have a plan in Netrunner. You can't build a successful Runner deck without thoughtfully constructing your breaker suite, and you can't build a successful Corp deck without carefully choosing your ICE and thinking about how you plan on scoring agendas.

In Star Wars, you can pretty much throw a bunch of main characters together, and while you may not have a tournament-capable deck, you'll at least have fun and won't feel like your deck is fundamentally broken.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Duncan Idaho
United States
NYC
New York
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Oph1d1an wrote:
I can't put my finger on why it doesn't thrill me--but it's definitely centered around the combat mechanics, which I just find to be abstract and confusing. But you may very well find it interesting.


I agree with Paul and this.

Aaron - I think it's because they took what should have been a very thematic part of the game (Edge battles - jockeying for position with a ton of supporting characters so that you gain an advantage), and instead made it completely abstract (toss a few cards and add up pips). Outside of a handful of cards, the game doesn't even recognize that cards you throw into these parts of the game have names/titles/artwork. And it becomes the deciding factor in many games.

To the OP - the ease of deckbuilding is a great plus in Star Wars if you dislike that aspect of other LCGs. That said, I find it pretty restrictive (though I've been playing CCGs for over 2 decades), and also contributing to games being unbalanced.

The artwork is great (which is why I still own my copy, and keep buying packs to hit free shipping thresholds - yes, I have a problem), and they do a good job of making the "big" cards thematic (and some of the smaller ones).

The game itself, however, is very swingy, quick, not hugely strategic (though it is tactical), with some horrible mechanisms (the Edge battle, neutering the Force struggle), and an overall feel that they just missed the Star Wars mark. But, as you've seen, others disagree.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Aaron Edwards
United States
Nashville
Tennessee
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Idaho11 wrote:
Oph1d1an wrote:
I can't put my finger on why it doesn't thrill me--but it's definitely centered around the combat mechanics, which I just find to be abstract and confusing. But you may very well find it interesting.


I agree with Paul and this.

Aaron - I think it's because they took what should have been a very thematic part of the game (Edge battles - jockeying for position with a ton of supporting characters so that you gain an advantage), and instead made it completely abstract (toss a few cards and add up pips). Outside of a handful of cards, the game doesn't even recognize that cards you throw into these parts of the game have names/titles/artwork. And it becomes the deciding factor in many games.
I think I'm sort-of on board with you there. I actually think edge battles are a neat concept in that they give cards that might not be useful at a given time an alternative purpose. But I agree 100% that it all just feels too abstract. As you say, it's like you're jockeying for power, but on a very macro level. When attacking and defending, you can't think of it as literal (it's nonsensical to have a single rebel soldier defending against a star destroyer). Plus, I still haven't gotten the hang of the combat mechanics. I often find myself doing things that are futile, or that are actually worse for me than doing nothing. To be clear, I don't think these are problems with the game, just an explanation of why it's not a personal favorite of mine.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve
United States
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Idaho11 wrote:
Oph1d1an wrote:
I can't put my finger on why it doesn't thrill me--but it's definitely centered around the combat mechanics, which I just find to be abstract and confusing. But you may very well find it interesting.


I agree with Paul and this.

Aaron - I think it's because they took what should have been a very thematic part of the game (Edge battles - jockeying for position with a ton of supporting characters so that you gain an advantage), and instead made it completely abstract (toss a few cards and add up pips). Outside of a handful of cards, the game doesn't even recognize that cards you throw into these parts of the game have names/titles/artwork. And it becomes the deciding factor in many games...

...The game itself, however, is very swingy, quick, not hugely strategic (though it is tactical), with some horrible mechanisms (the Edge battle, neutering the Force struggle), and an overall feel that they just missed the Star Wars mark. But, as you've seen, others disagree.

My more detailed take: I found Netrunner's mechanics harder to grasp. It's very different than most customizable card games. However, I found the path to competence more difficult for Star Wars. I think a lot of people do and it's why, I think, it gets prematurely bad reviews sometimes.

Playing edge battles well--tossing cards, saving them for later actions or turns, bluffing, fate card play--is, perhaps, the biggest skill test in the game. It's where you can really see the difference between the experienced and the inexperienced.

The swinginess of the game is overstated by a lot of folks in my view. Again, it's a matter of experience. It usually is a swingy game when played by two new players. The draw mechanic gives the trailing player a way to catch up more than a lot of games do, but "swingy" isn't a word I would use.

As for quick: Well, again, when you're new, yes, but when you get better and start planning ahead more, no. In particular, with the latest cycle and its buffs to the light side's ability to take the force the average game is a little longer than I'd like. We had 75-minute rounds at our last local tournament to avoid matches (2 games) going to time.

I think they're both excellent games. Give Star Wars a fair shot. We have an active group around here who love the game. I still like Netrunner, but there are only so many nights in a week so I've dropped off of it for now.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bryce K. Nielsen
United States
Elk Ridge
Utah
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I find the 'swingy' aspect of Star Wars part of what makes the game great. In a lot of card games, once one side gets ahead, they dominate for the rest of the game. Many of my Magic games, I either destroyed the opponent and took only one or two hits, or was obliterated myself having only dealt a couple damage points. In Star Wars, this 'swingy' aspect allows someone to come from behind and makes the entire game competitive, not just the opening volleys.

Even though some feel the game is 'swingy', the vast majority of my games have very, very close. To the point that if there was just one more turn, the losing side would have won. Games that are that close are so much more satisfying to play (both win and lose) than the dominated-by-one-side games. So I think Star Wars' swingy-ness is a major plus for this game.

-shnar
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Duncan Idaho
United States
NYC
New York
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
stevepop wrote:

My more detailed take: I found Netrunner's mechanics harder to grasp. It's very different than most customizable card games. However, I found the path to competence more difficult for Star Wars. I think a lot of people do and it's why, I think, it gets prematurely bad reviews sometimes.


It doesn't take long for a negative review to be met with, "Well, you just don't get it."

I'd disagree with the statement that it's harder to master Star Wars. I think the general ideas behind it are pretty straight-forward, so you can grasp the strategy/tactics quickly. I think the only thing that makes it a bit harder to develop "mastery" of is the Edge battles, which require knowledge of what's out there as well as development of skills that generally aren't tested in games - the bluffing/reading the other person. But that's present in Netrunner, as well, and I think it's more mature there. The elements to track in SW are the spread of pips and the Edge cards (forget the official name). In Netrunner, you have to have an awareness of a variety of effects that leave the Edge card effects in the dust.

Quote:

Playing edge battles well--tossing cards, saving them for later actions or turns, bluffing, fate card play--is, perhaps, the biggest skill test in the game. It's where you can really see the difference between the experienced and the inexperienced.


I didn't say it wasn't a skill check. I said it was too abstract. In the middle of my Star Wars game, I don't want to be playing a pure bluffing/hand management game. I want to send in some X-Wings to battle a swarm of TIEs. Or infiltrate a base. Or steal plans.

I get the point of it. I even like the hand cycling/"make every card important" aspect of it. However, they should have spent more time to make it interesting from a thematic standpoint, instead of just making it interesting for those who enjoy a blind bid system.

And I agree that it's probably the area that requires the most skill. What to spend resources on, what to attack, who to commit, and where to "spend" your combat icons are all pretty obvious decisions, in general. However, if you dislike the Edge battles (and, believe me, I do), then you're not going to enjoy this game. Because, as you said, it's the place where you make the most interesting/skill-dependent decision. If you find those decisions to be boring/not fun, then you're going to have issues with the game.

Quote:

The swinginess of the game is overstated by a lot of folks in my view. Again, it's a matter of experience. It usually is a swingy game when played by two new players. The draw mechanic gives the trailing player a way to catch up more than a lot of games do, but "swingy" isn't a word I would use.


And, again, I don't like it because I just don't get it.

This goes to Shnar's point a bit, too. But I agree that a lot of games end up close. This can be the sign of a well balanced game. Or it can be the sign of a game where most of the game isn't that important, because a single turn is so important, without any buildup, that it can completely change the outcome. It's like the final round of Family Feud - you might as well not have played the first 2 rounds most of the time, because the third round makes it anyone's game.

Star Wars falls into the Family Feud category for me. There's just too much of a chance for the first half of the game to be rendered irrelevant by a one- or two-turn swing that wasn't generated by bad play, but rather by the mechanisms of the game. Or the second half of the game to be completely co-opted by an imbalance in the first few turns (which comes, in part, from the POD-based deck construction).

Now, you can claim that it's because I don't have enough experience. I'd disagree with that.

Quote:

As for quick: Well, again, when you're new, yes, but when you get better and start planning ahead more, no. In particular, with the latest cycle and its buffs to the light side's ability to take the force the average game is a little longer than I'd like. We had 75-minute rounds at our last local tournament to avoid matches (2 games) going to time.


Tournament play is generally going to be slower than non-tournament play because people take more time to think out their moves. At least, that's how it generally works in my experience.

But let's say that 75 minutes is a good range for 2 games. That's ~30 min. per game, once you take shuffling, pulling decks out, etc... In my experience, that's longer than a game lasts (I've played with many, many people and average around 15-20 min./game). But even at 30 minutes, I'd rather have 150% of that. Give some time for the game to develop, strategies to evolve, things to happen, etc...

But I'm looking for a longer, more involved game. That's not what everyone wants, and that's fine.

Quote:

I think they're both excellent games. Give Star Wars a fair shot. We have an active group around here who love the game. I still like Netrunner, but there are only so many nights in a week so I've dropped off of it for now.


Yep, plenty of people enjoy the game! Just providing a counterpoint to the love it's obviously going to get on the Star Wars forum.


-EDIT-
I love these discussions, because when they remain civil, they make me really think about my position.

I wanted to add, about the Family Feud comparison, that I think I was a bit off. It's not that the first half of the game can be made irrelevant, but rather that you're trying to create that one turn where you swing big to finish the game off. Which is, admittedly, Star Wars-esque (they blew up the Death Star...twice!...for God's sake!). However, I think my issue is that we don't get any Bothans dying to get the plans, or any small moments of triumph like escaping the garbage chute. For me, those are what make Star Wars special. And here, they're abstracted away into the Edge battle. So couple the moments of the series I love being abstracted away with the mechanism that does so being one I don't enjoy, and you get a game that I don't particularly care for.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Patrick Brennan
Australia
St Ives, Sydney
NSW
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
And yet you're here in the SW forum, spending time discussing it, so it's got you engaged and interested at the least.

In the end, all games are nothing but abstractions - cards, dice, mechanisms are all used to achieve game results. All a game can do is give flavour through the art, and then it's up to the players to ham it up as much as they like. Everyone chooses what level to suspend their disbelief at so that they can enjoy their pastime, be it movies or games. As such, there is no "right" or "wrong" levels of abstraction for a game, because it's different for everyone. I'd say to the OP, enjoy the game for what it is, and you'll add the right level of flavour yourself to add to your enjoyment.


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve
United States
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Idaho11 wrote:
It doesn't take long for a negative review to be met with, "Well, you just don't get it."

I don't like a popular euro and I also know that I don't get it. I didn't find the mechanics enjoyable and so don't want to explore it any further to understand good play. Too many other games.

It's fine not to like a game. I don't like plenty of them. I disagree with specific statements made about SW, but if someone doesn't like it, oh well.

Idaho11 wrote:
...bluffing/reading the other person. But that's present in Netrunner, as well, and I think it's more mature there. The elements to track in SW are the spread of pips and the Edge cards (forget the official name). In Netrunner, you have to have an awareness of a variety of effects that leave the Edge card effects in the dust.

Particularly with the expansion of the card pool I don't find that there are fewer or less complex effects to be aware of in the game overall (beyond just the edge battles). SW has the extra concern of your opponent playing cards from his hand during your turn, but overall they feel equal.

Idaho11 wrote:
I didn't say it wasn't a skill check. I said it was too abstract. In the middle of my Star Wars game, I don't want to be playing a pure bluffing/hand management game. I want to send in some X-Wings to battle a swarm of TIEs. Or infiltrate a base. Or steal plans.

Yes, it's abstract. It's as abstract as putting money into your breakers to get through ice. You can construct stories in either game to work around the abstractions. I don't. I enjoy the theming I do get from some cards, e.g. Witness Tampering or Han shooting first, and I love the art in both games. I wouldn't go into either game with expectations of great theme, but I think it's pretty good with Netrunner having a slight edge. So yeah, expectations.

There is that Star Wars RPG. And, by the way, if FFG can find the resources to make an Android RPG I think it'd be like printing money.

Idaho11 wrote:
This goes to Shnar's point a bit, too. But I agree that a lot of games end up close. This can be the sign of a well balanced game. Or it can be the sign of a game where most of the game isn't that important, because a single turn is so important, without any buildup, that it can completely change the outcome.

It often seemed like that to me early on. Not anymore. I played 6 games last night. We had two blowouts, two very close games, and two in which one player slowly established board control and then closed it out with a few scares from the trailing player.

Idaho11 wrote:
But let's say that 75 minutes is a good range for 2 games. That's ~30 min. per game, once you take shuffling, pulling decks out, etc... In my experience, that's longer than a game lasts (I've played with many, many people and average around 15-20 min./game). But even at 30 minutes, I'd rather have 150% of that. Give some time for the game to develop, strategies to evolve, things to happen, etc...

But I'm looking for a longer, more involved game. That's not what everyone wants, and that's fine.

Games can take 15-20 minutes, sure, but most don't for me or any of the regulars I know. I only see those kinds of games when one person draws much better than the other or someone's playing an all-in vehicle deck and winning or losing quickly is the point.

Short games like that often happen when people overcommit on their turns and leave themselves defenseless. Big damage then just goes back and forth wildly. This is the impression I got from the Shut Up and Sit Down review. It's (almost always) not good play, of course.

I haven't played Netrunner in a few months, but unless something's changed those games were averaging noticeably shorter times than Star Wars for my friend and me as well as when I'd play tournaments. For a while we'd get together to play 2 games of each. Now we just play Star Wars although every time a new pack comes out we talk about picking up Netrunner again. It'll happen sooner or later.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.