As of V-set 14's release - The V-sets have reached an impressive milestone.

We have surpassed Wizards of the Coast in number of stat sets produced.

Many thought we wouldn't make it past a couple of sets - but credit is due to hard work and dedication from everyone involved in the process, and most importantly the PLAYERS who keep this game alive.

We are in rare company, very very few (if any) fan created continuations of a cancelled game have ever achieved even close to that. Much less having an organized body to keep the community cohesive and producing professional looking cards to distribute throughout the world.


I can speak from a designers standpoint that designing SWM stat sets has gotten much harder over the years. We are one of very few game systems that allows every piece ever made to be legally played in a tournament. There have of course been a small handful of errata over the years, but compared to the number of stat sets created, we have had a very small number necessary.

Due to the exponentially expanding nature of our game, and the literally impossible-to-prevent power creep that has occurred throughout the life of the game (sometimes faster than other times), designing stats has become exponentially harder.

There are countless combinations to cross check power levels with, and the interactions between all those characters has created a myriad of webs that has become increasingly harder to navigate. As opposed to Wizards of the Coast who is a for-profit company, we want to make every piece playable. Playable is a completely subjective term, but in the often used 1-10 power level scale, we have been aiming for 6-10, with a couple 5s as "fun/theme pieces". Wizards made many 1-4 power level pieces, and duplicate stat sets for the sole purpose of another sculpt. Their goal was to make money. Our goal is to make well balanced, interesting pieces. Of course it's impossible to nail down the exact power level of any piece, much less EVERY piece. Though the years of V-set creation, few 11s have slipped through (and even a 12 in one won't-be-mentioned case), but the overall track record is pretty good.

In V-set 14, we aimed for a "bell curve" spread of power levels between 5 and 10. Most of the pieces were to be 7s and 8s, a small handful of 6s and 9s, and only one or two 5s and 10s. Several sets before 14 had used the same system, but every set is designed differently. Some didn't use that system at all. We found it to be essential to avoiding a broken piece. By broken piece - we mean a character so powerful that it warps the meta into playing that piece or playing hate vs that piece. Or at least when building a squad you have to think about that piece (playing it or playing against it) every single time. It shrinks the meta, it doesn't expand it. Most of those pieces in the V-set era end up requiring an errata, and that was something we strongly wanted to avoid.

Another reason designing has gotten harder, is that the set size has shrunk. We used to have 72 piece sets (including the subset) - but we now have literally half that size. In some ways you'd think that smaller sets would make it easier to design. That's not really true. It makes them easier to playtest, but difficulties arise with designing smaller sets.

With a smaller set size, it has to be tight. By tight I mean well crafted. No room for "what are we gonna do with this fig?"

The first inclination is to make each figure great. "There are so few, no room for something someone won't use!" That can be dangerous thinking. We still had to follow an in-set power curve. We did't want to be another set that had multiple broken figures that destroyed the meta and made repercussions that we still have to deal with years later.

Since it needed to be "tighter", it actually took more pre-prep time. We needed to have a very good idea of what each piece was going to do, why is was needed (in the faction or for gameplay reasons), and how to implement it - BEFORE THE SETLIST WAS EVEN MADE.

This was key. Too many sets just make a setlist based on "cool characters", and then figure out later what they will do. Then they run into - "Well, to be accurate in universe, they have to do this . . . but that makes them exactly like this other character, and nobody will use it then . . . So we'll just have to make it stronger!" Or "I know this faction needs a certain piece of tech, but it's not accurate on this character - oh well, shoehorn it on anyway!" This is one reason we wanted to do plenty of prep work before the setlist was even made. Of course we weren't perfect in that execution, but it was certainly the conscious aim, as opposed to winging it.

We scoured the "what characters do you want to see?" list. We combed the "what abilities/CEs do you want to see?" list. We researched the Custom Character Competition threads. We made long lists of characters new to the Star Wars Universe (Force Awakens, Rogue One, Rebels, books, etc), as well as overlooked characters from past cannon and/or legends. We determined needs of the game (faction needs, overall gameplay needs, countering NPEs and overpowered squads and abilities, etc) and researched what characters would best represent those aspects through SAs, FPs and CEs. We accessed the overall strength of each faction and took steps to help the lesser factions cover their weaknesses and boost their strengths, while being cautious that we weren't making dominant squad-types in other factions even stronger. We even did multiple bloo-milk polls to ascertain community feelings about several aspects of the game. And since there is overlap in set design, as set 13 was still moving along, we were starting as well. We had to constantly monitor set 13 as changes were made since it could easily effect what we were doing.

We had over 80 "finalist" characters (over twice the number we needed). These characters weren't just a name on a list. These were fully fleshed out stat sets. Essentially a rough draft for each piece. The reason we did this is simple - once we started to cut the list down, we needed to have a good idea of what that character would bring to the game, not simply a name. It was a very hard process to slash so many pieces. We did the best we could, with 4 very different personalities often pulling in different directions. We did it as diplomatically as possible, through multiple votes (and a bit of campaigning the merits of certain pieces). At times it felt like losing a child (or at least a beloved pet) when a character we were passionate about ended up on the cutting room floor. Who knows those - some of them may eventually see the light of day in a later set.

We focused on creativity as much as possible. We didn't want to do the same old thing time and time again. Instead of thinking about something being "stronger" or "weaker" but in the same category, we tried to move laterally and make new options to play with. Fleshing out subfactions and even starting a couple new ones was certainly one way we did this. Adding preventative measures became necessary to avoid broken accidents. We fenced in certain pieces and abilities purposefully to try to prevent even future brokenness.

The prep work before the set list was even finalized was absolutely crucial for our set. It laid the foundation for the rest of the design, and I hope future sets will follow the same (or similar) process.


Overall goals of the set were pretty simple:

1. Fun! We wanted something for each person to get excited about, knowing it wouldn't be the same for everyone.
2. No broken pieces! No errata. (I hope we achieved this goal)
3. Strive to make struggling factions better, and make new squad-type options for several factions.
4. Introduce new ideas to the game (through SAs, FPs, and CEs) that will be used and expanded upon in future sets.


In the coming days I will make more threads detailing our process. I recognize that it probably opens us up to criticism of how we failed in certain aspects, but let's try to keep that to a minimum. We already have multi-page threads on very specific things some people don't like. The reason for this post (and others to follow) are simply to share our process.

Note - this post is obviously directly from me (TimmerB123), and though I tried to make it general, ideas from other designers on V-set 14 may differ on some aspects. I welcome them to post their thoughts as well.

I am of course happy to answer any questions to the best of my abilities as well.


Above all - sincerely - thank you to all the players who continue to play the game. PLAYING THE GAME, is by far the single most important aspect to keeping our game alive. Not everyone can travel halfway across the country - or halfway around the world (props to Paul Moore!) for a tournament, but there is little excuse to not at least play on Vassal. There would be virtually no point to designing if nobody was playing.

Keep on playing, and may the Force be with you!

Thanks for sharing Tim, overall you guys are doing a pretty solid job. It's awesome that we have made it this far as a community and grown this big in the game. It's quite the balancing act for sure and there have been some pretty cool new ideas coming out lately. I think the only advice I have for you guys from your northern players is:

-keep it simple - the more abilities on a single character really add to the potential combinations and complexity of the gam, this is compounded when they are so low costed that you can fit multiples into a single squad. I don't think there is really a reason to have more abilities then a characters cost divided by 10 +1 (excluding the basics Double, Melee, Unique, twin)

-listen to the community - don't forget that the community is what drives the game. Sometimes when designers try to fix issues that aren't there, for the sole reason of what they think the game should look like, and against what the community desires, things go wrong.
We all have personal NPEs for sure (I wish strafe didn't exist in this game) but to use personal bias while designing to drastically alter the game and forver remove a barely played or competitive playstyle, it's not right and it shows a lack of communication, openness and in some eyes respect for the community that funds, playtests and supports this game. And further it makes the community not want to keep supporting a team that ignores or disregards them. Instead, keep on going with the polls, look and tournament results, hear what the issues actually are, and what the majority actually want SWM to look like and work on that. Otherwise keep pieces fun, thematic and simple without breaking the game.

-be able to take criticism - when designers do mess up (Daala, Slaver, Blast Bugs, Unkar, etc...) just own it, say "Yep the community says this is broken" and then fix it. Pride and refusing to admit our failures are bad traits for any leadership.

-have fun and stay strong - don't let negativity get you guys down, it's hard organizing, designing, trying to balance the crazy depth of the game and sometimes mistakes are made. But after working to fix those, stay positive and be encouraged that you guys are doing something great and keeping a game we love going disputed all odds. You guys rock and the game is for the most part a lot more diverse, balanced and interesting than it was under WOTC.

Since it was brought up - I thought I'd point out that Singular Focus and Solitary Attack were not simply added on as preemptive balancing (although it works for that purpose too). Adding those abilities to the catalogue for future use can be a helpful tool to make sure something isn't broken. BUT IN ADDITION TO THAT - there were current reasons that were brought up in playtesting that were problems for each of those pieces.

For the Antarian Ranger Tactical Soldier (which has and gives singular attack to the other Antarians) - no, we weren't worried about Antarians paired with The Jedi Exile. What was brought up was this squad (obviously before singular attack was added)-

--Maximum Antarian Resistance--
General Leia Organa (+4, +10 for Resistance)
Rey (Force User for Antarian Synergy)
Antarian Ranger Captain (AR get Sniper & SF)
Antarian Ranger Tactical Soldier (-1 from ARC)
BB-8
Resistance Officer
Antarian Ranger x7
Rebel Trooper
(200pts. 14 activations)

It was overlooked at first that the resistance officer makes the Antarians resistence, thus giving them all the resistence bonuses, Giving them double and the +4/+10 from Leia.

Rangers get Double Sniper +15atk for 40 dam

It was clear that this would be by far the best Trooper centered Resistence squad. It isn't what was intended for resistance, and we all certainly wanted to flesh out the resistence trooper options in the future, but that would make it incredibly hard to do.

We didn't just look at it on paper and change it based on that. We had it playtested. Side note - it wasn't just a random person that playtested it. We had our most prolific playtester of the last several years - Graham "TheHutts". He has playtested virtually every piece for about the last 5 sets. He is an amazing analyzer of piece strengths and a top notch player as well. He played against the above squad using a Jango Mandalore squad.

The result was shocking. The Antarians destroyed Jango and his Mandalorians. The amount of high powered shots just tore them to pieces.

If Jango Mandalore can't beat them (a squad type Jangalore should have a strong advantage against) - we knew there was an issue.

It was determined that the biggest issue was double. That is when and why we added Singular Attack to the A.R.T. Soldier and his Cammeraderie. The side bonus was adding a useful tool to the SA catalogue for future use - but the main concern was it being overpowered with combinations that exist now.




As for the Defenseman - the current danger is Fire Support Mission (from Cassus Fett). Again it was brought up by a top player and designer - and we had to look close at it.

First off - they are now the singular cheapest piece in the Mandos (purposefully).
Second - they have stealth
Third - If positioned right - an enemy cannot kill more than 1 with gallop, strafe, etc.

So you bring a small handful and then have several pieces that can decimate swarms and hit 1/4 higher hp characters for 60 damage (ouch!). And that is so relively cheap to do, you have about 140 pts left to spend on nasty mandos that can finish off the bigger threats.

We playtested it, it was indeed powerful, and not to mention it wasn't at all the intended purpose of the piece (they are called DEFENSEMEN after all!)

So again - we made the ability because of a current danger, and had the side benefit of adding a useful tool for future figures as well as future designers not having to worry about accidentally having broken 5pt scrubs in the mandos with future synergies.


Hope that gives a little more insight

You didn't come off too strong at all CC! I think I took it all in the tone you meant it in. You're post was overall very posititive.

My response was simply to illuminate some aspects that may not have been seen.