So, first things first, I have yet to actually play this game. I played several CCGs back in the day and I'm wanting to really be sure if I want to start investing the time/money into this again.

So as I've been looking through all sorts of reviews and videos, one thing I noticed and several others have mentioned, is how ships/vehicles/people aren't treated any differently and can all attach eachother with no regards to how they would actually interact. Obviously, some people have a big problem with this, some don't.

Im not really too fond of it, I think that its a missed oppotunity to bring in more of the theme of star wars, and just makes the game play seem strange, but as I was thinking about it, I think I have a simple solution that could have been applied to address this.

There are essentially 3 types of "character" cards: Ship, Vehicle (Air or Ground), Person.

They way they could attack would be, they all can attach same character types and with different types:

Ship: Only attacks Vehicle (Air)

Vehicle: Air can attach both Ship & Person, Ground can only attach Person.

Person: Only attacks Vehicle.

What do you guys think? Bad idea, good idea? Would this not work in the game? It seems like a simple enough addition to help add back in some thematics.

Thanks!

Bad idea. There is no need to over complicate this game. It is not SW CCG.

well I agree, it can't be like SWccg. But being able to attack  a space ship with a simple charter and vise versa seems almost like a mistake.

RendTheHeavens said:

The problem, which has been one in every Star Wars card game that has done so, is that dividing the theaters discourages interaction. Seperating even just Air and and Ground units, while improving the simulationism of the game, causes the gameplay to suffer. Allowing all units to interact regardless of their characteristics is a necessary abstraction to encourage interaction in the conflict phase of the game, which is when it's most important right now.

Bad idea

One of the reasons this game is so great is that it is very streamlined without being overly simplistic.  The curret method gives them designers/developers much more levity in designing great cards without the restrictions imposed by trying to be more "realalistic" regarding unit types.  Maybe a guy isn't just a guy, but his power/life/abilities represent not just him but the resources available to him, etc… 

RendTheHeavens said:

Maybe, but you're asking the developers to create an unnecessary layer of complexity for a battle system that is already a little rule heavy, all in the name of flavor.

It's preferable that the game doesn't embrace the "rules" of the Star Wars universe. The card titles/art and effects are satisfying, it should be a good game first and foremost.

RendTheHeavens said:

If this helps at all; there are a few objectives that say they can or can not be attack by one or the other..  So ships can only attack this one.. or Units can only attack this one.. alalala

I find more abstract thinking helps dissolve these problems entirely,

A character attacking a ship - doesn't mean they aren't in a ship of their own -

(Luke destroyed the death star, red 5 destroyed the death star)

or just as simply - character A kills the pilot for the ship before he can get into the ship…

It's very much, character A does something that affects character B, though there's nothing

wrong if you want to imagine the rancor destroying the home directly, someone tried to

transport it, it got loose in engineering….

I agree with the others - that restricting the fields of battle doesn't help the game. Magic The Gathering's

system would support flying units pretty easily - but, then, "why not play magic instead?" would be the

common reply.