I won't mind if the leave the option to play it as a solo/co-op, but seriously, i will not buy it unless it can be played AGAINST another person, i was so dissappointed when i played LotRm that i gave it to a friend.

Ok, they don't mention co-op game but they said that :

"Take command of a Rebel strike force in the Star Wars universe! "

They don't mention of Empire strike force. in my opinion, the co-op game experience is always on the road.

 I cancelled my pre-order, mainly because of the amount of time delay and because I had already paid in full. But if it turns out NOT to be co-op (with solo play option), I will not purchase it.

I personally think Co-op gets the feel of Star Wars much better. Star Wars is about great heroes defeating great evil, not crushing your rivals (which suits Game of Thrones and Warhammer much more). It is similar to Lord of the Rings in that way. Now, I would be miffed if there was no way to play Imperial characters in a RPG (and please, no first level Jedi), but and RPG is much more about the story you as a player are making, while a card game/board game is about creating a game which creates the feel of the setting it is based on.

Also, as said, PvP games rely much more on there being a community to play with, which not everyone has access to and quickly produces various circles of elites, making it less approachable. A co-op game is (obviously) less advesarial, so more approachable, and is more practical to have 1 person in a circle of friends having the game and everyone playing it occasionally (without everyone required to have their own decks).

AI will never make the game such challengeable as an actual person will, and since the moment that you know the mechanics of the game and the deck you are facing, it's more like an automated game. I will really like a solo game that makes me feel like i'm facing another person, but i don't think this game will do so.

I collect both Lotr and WH:I. Both are enjoyable. The coop haters are a bit annoying and subjective. However I do think going for pvp with SW is a better move. The pvp market is arguably far larger AND will more easily handle giving access to both sides of the fence... which was a huge breaking point for many including me when it came to the SW LCG.

Well, they don't say much, but I am guite sure that it will be co-op. They are just making gameplay changes. I hope for good!

Personally, I have a feeling the shinyness of co-op has fallen off of LoTR.  I know a lot of people who were very excited early, and then fell off quickly.  I know a lot of store who don't sell anything associated with it anymore.  It was a great thought, and a great product, but it is just hard to sell over a longer period of time especially with a big licence (no way LoTR sales should fall off a cliff when aGoT keep goign up and up ).  All IMHO since I know nothing of the finances of FFG obviously, just assuming from store owners and a ton of FFG gaming fans I know. 

I totally expect to see a PVP product come out of this.  There is a reason there are 8+ viable PVP CCG/TCG/LCG's and...1?...Co-op card games in existance.  *shrug* (I am sure people will say 'what about apples vs. apples or some such thing that isn't even remotely comparable, but I can't think of anything that is - especially with a license).  If it somehow has a multi-player (high odds) or Co-op (lower odds) component, more power to them. 

borithan said:

I disagree Lotr is very much heroes against evil while the Star Wars saga pays far more attention to both sides of the fence. Heck i frequently sympathize more with the Imperial side than with the Rebel side. While I'm unable to do so with Lotr.

I wouldn't hate this if it were made to be PvP, and I'd most likely still buy it, but I'd be buying it because it has the Star Wars brand, and not because it is a game I think I'd enjoy or get a lot of gameplay out of. I'm still off-and-on collecting the WotC card game simply to have the product; all the cards are in little wallets and filed away with no intention of playing them.

In my experience, Star Wars gamers are a breed apart from regular gamers, and are a fickle pack, too. It's been mentioned many times that the other card games that have been put out in the past have largely had the player base fall through quickly, with just a very small core of dedicated people who still play the Decipher game to this day. FFG surely doesn't want to see that happen with their game, so are more than likely trying to shuffle things around in the hope the mechanics can support any style of game play.

There is of course the spectre of the Decipher game hanging over any Star Wars card game - it certainly seems likely that was the reason for the TCG being put on indefinite hold, or at least it was one major reason. There will no doubt be a lot of furore about this December, when the game is hopefully finally released, and people will be once more invoking the holy grail of the CCG over all. To make another attempt at a PvP card game is to court disaster in that respect. Something different seems to be called for, which is perhaps what made them pick co-op as the game's format to start with.

It's been said somewhere on these forums that, if FFG have a licence to produce card games in the plural, then it's not necessarily a foregone conclusion that either format is going to be neglected over the other. I would still prefer the LCG to be co-operative, though, and to see a secondary, standalone game for PvP.

borithan's thematic argument for a co-op LCG is also quite the winner, in my view, too. To want to play as an evil, corrupt regime bent on genocide on a massive scale is a bit sick, in my view. The model of LotR lends itself much better to this than AGoT. There is so very little difference between Tolkien's and Lucas' creations, after all. But I suppose we shall see what this year brings. I'm really hoping that the December release date was just playing it safe, and they manage to get it to the shops before summer is out

spalanzani said:

This is perhaps the most compelling argument in favor of the co-op model that I've read thus far. As a fan of the WOTC game, I've really had my fill of people crying for the CCG as the be-all, end-all of Star Wars card gaming, and if emphasizing the cooperative aspect of this game will keep it from having outright enemies in the fandom, as the TCG did, then I'm all for it. I just think that being able to play either side would give the game more widespread appeal. Yes, it's completely sick to call oneself an Imperial sympathizer. But the best villains are the ones who leave an impression. Vader, the Fetts, and Palpatine all fit this category, and while I'll still prefer to play as the good guys, I think FFG would be remiss not to allow players to play as the bad guys as well.

I don't think there's any reason to assume that people who would like to play as the Empire (or as Sauron) have evil intentions, by any means.  Sometimes it's just fun to play the bad guy, and some actors had to play the Emperor and Vader in the films.   I personally don't like playing the sides of the Nazis in WWII games, or the South in a Civil War game, and things like that, because I have a hard time psychologically with rooting for that side to win.  But that's historical.  Star Wars and LOTR are not, of course.

rings said:

It's been the opposite experience for me.  I really liked the game at first, then got away from it, but now I'm into it more than ever since all of the APs and Khazad-dum came out.  I think there was possibly too long of a delay between when the base game came out and the APs started rolling out... I know that's when I lost interest.  But it's still a great game and system, IMO.

I. J. Thompson said:

This is what confuses/bothers me about co-op. You're not really playing with people, they're just extra hands to hold cards.

Hurdoc said:

If that's what's happening, then the most experienced player is not doing their job. They should be teaching the others to make their own decisions. If they do their job right, the other players should pick up on the subtleties of the game in short order. Also, in the original version of this game as demoed at GenCon, players were not allowed to look at the other player's hand and there was a flashpoint mechanic that prevented table talk. Those sorts of rules prevent one player from controlling the other players. Could a player ignore those rules and thus maintain control of his animated card-holders? He could, but then the issue is about cheating and is no longer about a flaw in the design of cooperative games.

Though I'm solidly on the side of this being a solo/co-op game, what is more important is that, whatever it is, it's a good--no, a great gane--that gives whoever buys it their money's worth and more.  With this in mind, I applaud FFG's decision to pull the design back and rework it in an attempt to make it better.  And I have faith in FFG's design team that if anyone can make a great game here, they can do so.  I've certainly enjoyed many of their games so far, including LotR LCG.

I suppose the Holy Grail here would be a game that can be easily and solidly played solo, co-op, or PvP, allowing players to be either side of the Rebel/Imperial divide.  Such a game would honor each of its three facets, not making any one of them an afterthought or subsidiary to one or both of the other two approaches.  Any game can be played solo.  I can play Call of Cthulu LCG solo, but it's not much fun--certainly not anywhere near as challenging or fun as I've found LotR to be.  So the solo element or the co-op element or the PvP element needs to be deliberately and carefully designed into the mix so that it really works for that style of play.

If this is what FFG is trying to pull off so that this product can truly break out from under Decipher's shadow and stand on its own as something different, compelling, and fun for all concerned, then more power to them.  I applaud, as I say, their decision not to go with the good but to aim for creating the best.

Even if it ends up being a product I'm not interested in buying because it can't meet my particular gaming needs and situation.