Let's not hijack the vset 14 stat thread. This is a topic worthy of its own thread.



In the planning process for set 14, we dove deep into research, preparation and even core game identity. To my knowledge, nobody has ever really broken down the fundamentals of the game to its core. I'm sure many people have vaguely thought about it, but I've never seen the core fundamentals all typed out. Which is kinda of amazing, considering between WotC and Sets, we are 30 sets in. With the release of set 14 - THE VSETS WILL HAVE SURPASSED THE NUMBER OF STAT SETS WIZARDS OF THE COAST RELEASED. I'm pretty excited about that. Many people (even those directly involved with the vsets from the beginning) never thought we'd make it past a couple of sets.

Lillian was the one who challenged us to really consider this. It was a core challenge that really was beneficial to the process for us to explore. I realized that even though I'v been heavily involved with this game since 2007, I'd still not gone down to the very core to define what a piece in our game truly is.

Whenever we make a piece in the game, there are in general things we try to avoid, knowing that most people don't like it. For example, no doubt virtually everyone agrees - we don't want a piece that simply "spins" and does nothing. Likewise we all don't want a piece that hides in the back. Of course you can still do this with any piece, but we want to give intrinsic incentive to want to use the function of the piece actively.

To have it activate, but to give the player a challenge as to when to do that. Having it do something on its turn is key. I think this is actually core to SWM. Virtually every piece in SWM does this.

In the other thread people simply started listing things they don't like. However, not liking something is very different than changing the fundamental core of the game. We were talking about equipment, and people started listing abilities. Of course abilities change the game. That is literally their purpose. Every single time we make a new ability, it changes the game - sometimes in very small ways, other times in larger ways.

However - this has always been the case, and IS core to our game. Without new abilities, the game would get stale very fast.

So what shouldn't change? What, if it were changed, would be fundamentally different than our game at it's core?


"Equipment" is something that would.


Placing a card beneath another card to "equip" a character seems like a good solution at first. We actually explored that in design for the Holocron, but then realized that is not what Star Wars Miniatures is.

It made us really consider, overall, "What defines a piece in Star Wars miniatures?" Beyond the obvious (related to Star Wars, etc).

Here's what I have personally boiled it down to:

1. They have a physical presence on the board (which is the definition of what a miniatures game is), and that presence has effect on its location to other minis (area effect, attack range, CE range, FP range, adjacency, etc)

2. They activate, and they do something "active" on their turn (movement, attack, Force power, etc).

3. They can be defeated directly by enemies.


The very very few that don't do these things were quite frankly mistakes in my opinion. Having 1 or 2 of these in our game is fine, mistakes happen. Luckily those pieces are not particularly competitive.

But we all want the Holocrons to be usable in competitive squads. Not broken, but a serious consideration.


It took lots of discussion on the matter with others, and much reflection to really get at what the heart of minis actually is.

What I don't want (and the overwhelming majority of people I've talked to agree) is SWM to devolve into having weapons and armor as pieces. I don't want our core game morphing into scenarios and campaigns. There is nothing wrong with those things in other formats, or casual play, etc. In fact I encourage and applaud those that enjoy those facets. Make them, post them on the boards, play with them, enjoy them. They are however, a not a part of our core game. We had the Ultimate Missions books, and they were fine. However nothing from those books have been a part of official skirmishes. Our job as designers is to make pieces that fit into our core game. Not to be confused with making everything competitive. Fun pieces are needed. They should still fit the basics of our game. Other items (armor, weapons, health packs, scenarios) can be created separately, and used in other formats. We have precious few slots in each set, and if a card is being officially printed as part of a set, it needs to be a Star Wars Miniature.

The Holocrons are close to that line, but the difference that valididates pursuing them as minis in our game (flavor-wise) is that they are alive in the force. They have an intelligent interactive interface, from a (usually former) living being. They are not entirely inanimate objects (which is my rationale for excepting the Bacta tank as well - Bacta are living organisms). In our design process (re: game mechanics), what will make the difference between an accessory (suitable for a separate release and used in other formats) and a Star Wars Miniatures piece, is the cores I laid out above.

Bryan (DarkDracul) laid it out even more beautifully in the other thread.


I hope that these core fundamentals are considered with all vset pieces in the future. We've had a couple times we nearly fell off the road when designers have started to create something that belongs in a different game. Pieces that are essentially equipment, pieces that create alternate win conditions, pieces that force the players out of a skirmish and into a scenario. Luckily for the most part the design team has rallied to steer those missteps into a direction that is back in line with the core game.


It can be a challenge when designing to stay inside those bounds while still having creative flavorful pieces. Then balancing those pieces is a whole additional challenge.

This however, is the place to start. The core of Star Wars Miniatures.



Obviously not everyone agrees with all of this, but luckily the majority does, and thus why we fight to keep it as such.

Here's what I have personally boiled it down to:

1. They have a physical presence on the board (which is the definition of what a miniatures game is), and that presence has effect on its location to other minis (area effect, attack range, CE range, FP range, adjacency, etc)

2. They activate, and they do something "active" on their turn (movement, attack, Force power, etc).

3. They can be defeated directly by enemies.


I almost agree with this. But are you saying that all pieces have to meet all 3 criteria to be SWM? Because if so, we are FAR AWAY FROM THIS. To me, the best one, and really only one, is point number 1. B/c Yes, having Mini's is the point of a Mini's game. But with no more production of Mini's for the game, and more and more pieces being cut up for Customs, wouldn't having a piece that didn't require a Mini actually help the game?

Number 2, while I agree with it, it is FAR FROM BEING A CORE. Yamsok War Cordinator. What does he do when he activates? Nothing. His job is to occupy space, and make SA rangeless. He does absolutely nothing ACTIVE on his turn. General Dodonna, non V-set. He does absolutely nothing ACTIVE on his turn. (Yes I know he can shoot, but 99.9% of the time, he spins in the back) Admiral Daala is another piece. yes he CAN move and attack. But what Player is going to charge in with Daala in round 1? How about round 2? Round 3?... Round 4? See where I am going with this? While he fits your definition of activate and do something, his actual FUNCTION is to spin in the back, give characters +4/+10 (Non disruptable and boardwide) and not engage. There are PLENTY more examples, but I think you get my point of why this should not be considered in Your Core Mechanics.

Number 3. I get what your saying, that if you Equip a character, there is no actual way to destroy the Equipment, "Directly". Unless you stated if this character is hit with a crit then the Equipment is defeated? How is that any different than a FS. A FS can not DIRECTLY be defeated by ANY non Force User. You have to KILL the person he is haunting in order to KILL the FS. Unless you are a Force User, in which case you can spend a FP to DIRECTLY KILL it, on a failed save of 11. So taking that precedent, how would it be ANY DIFFERENT if an equipment could be DIRECTLY DESTROYED by a critical? Atleast then EVERY character could have a chance to destroy it, not just CERTAIN kinds.


I am not saying we need to release 100 Equipments, and make EVERY faction have them, but I am saying dismissing them for no reason, and not actively trying to find a way is ridiculous. Here is an attempt by me without proper wording, just getting to the point.

Equip. At the start of the skirmish, choose an Ally, that character gains the ability of this Equipment (Cunning, Stealth, Opp, Intuition, Dam Red 10, FAA) When that character activates, it counts as activating 2 characters that phase. This equipment is destroyed when the chosen ally is defeated, or the chosen ally is hit by a natural 20. Only 1 Equipment may be Equipped to any character.


So to me, this Would fit 2 of the 3 criteria.

He does not fit number 1, because he does not occupy a space. ( unless you want to say he occupies the space the equipped character is in)

He fits number 2, because he forces the Equipped character to be the only one to activate this phase ( Thats more active that the Yamosk) And he gives the character an active ability.

He fits number 3, because you can directly kill the equipped character, or if you roll a 20, the equipment is gone.

To me, I would rather have a 15 point equipment attached to a character who is going to go into the fight, that way I can claim the gambit. Rather than a 29 point piece like Daala, who just sits in the back and does not engage.

This is false. You limit who the equipment can go to. Don't make complicated equipment, and don't give out Uber abilities with them, unless they are EXTREMELY limited.

Example

X equipment can only be used by Unique Ghost Crew with a Lightsaber ( thats 3 characters)

Or X Equipment can only be used by Darth Krayt. ( Thats 2 characters)

Yes it takes some actual thought process to make it, and it does take some play testing. But what pieces don't take that?

I think all pieces should, but as I said there have been a few mistakes along the way. I don't understand how you think we are far away from these three points. Virtually every figure in the game abides by these tenets.


Number 2, while I agree with it, it is FAR FROM BEING A CORE. Yamsok War Cordinator. What does he do when he activates? Nothing. His job is to occupy space, and make SA rangeless. He does absolutely nothing ACTIVE on his turn.

Ahem . . . SHE


Look - I think the main point is being missed here. I never said that every piece should be a combatant.

They still have a physical presence on the board, they can attack (regardless of if they do or not), they can move, they can open doors, etc.



What you are going into is strategy. Just because you wouldn't normally do something with a piece, doesn't mean you CAN'T.


What I am saying is that every piece should have the ability to do something active, even if you choose not to.

Every piece should be able to be destroyed directly somehow. Yes, non-force users cannot directly kill force ghosts. But there is a mechanic WITHIN THE GAME to kill them directly. C-3PO for example literally has no way of killing anything, yet he is a legitimate piece in SWM (whether you like him or not). Some pieces literally have no way to destroy other pieces, but that is FAR different than a piece that cannot be destroyed directly.


One of the original ideas for the Holocrons was to have them only be defeated when every other allied force user was destroyed. I for one am really glad we didn't go that direction. Now you have to protect the Holocron to preserve it's powers. This is accurate in-universe and good for gameplay too. They would be very bad as indestructible shields.

We have it so any character can defeat the holocron, but Force users have a big advantage in doing it.

Yes, I am going into the strategy of the game... This is a strategic game, where you strategically try to outplay your opponent. And when the object of the game, is to collect gambit to win, Commanders with CE that allow them to hide in the back, make winning harder, because there is Gambit left in the back.

Lets take the Roger Stone of SWM squad, 2nd place in Ohio. Daala, Ozzel, Needa, Piet, and the character that Pops whoever he needs to pop to give it another shot.

That is strategy to build a squad that leaves 40-60 points of gambit in the back while 5 point, and 12 point pieces run around doing insane damage.

Yes, those characters CAN run and attack and CAN do this and that. But why would you? What incentive is there to run Piett out in the open? Or Daala? Or Needa? Zero.

So we have established characters don't have to meet all 3 requirements to be in SWM. Because we both agree there are some pieces who don't. So were no longer breaking the mold, by creating characters who don't follow them.

And the example of Equipment I gave you, gives all characters a chance to kill it. So whats different about that?
Other than the equipment not activating, which, in my definition of Equipment, it would "act" like an activation, as it states only the Equipped character can be activate in the phrase.

And if pieces continue to get made that break your Core rules ( 3PO) then whats the difference in trying new things? It seems its mrore of a " I don't wan to" instead if it is impossible. Again. Break down my definition of Equipment, and tell me what is wrong with it.

Equip. At the start of the skirmish, choose an Ally, that character gains the ability of this Equipment (Cunning, Stealth, Opp, Intuition, Dam Red 10, FAA) When that character activates, it counts as activating 2 characters that phase. This equipment is destroyed when the chosen ally is defeated, or the chosen ally is hit by a natural 20. Only 1 Equipment may be Equipped to any character.

I agree with that! lol. But still, can you explain why my definition of equipment is bad? And how it would ruin anything about SWM

Equip. At the start of the skirmish, choose an Ally, that character gains the ability of this Equipment (Cunning, Stealth, Opp, Intuition, Dam Red 10, FAA) When that character activates, it counts as activating 2 characters that phase. This equipment is destroyed when the chosen ally is defeated, or the chosen ally is hit by a natural 20. Only 1 Equipment may be Equipped to any character.

*Face Palm

that being said... I am against equipment being added to the game for so many of the reason I have complained against other pieces:


1. playtesting
2. wordiness
3. costing would be incredibly hard
4. the effect on future pieces would always have to be considered
5. what is the counter to a SA gained by equipment--- checks and balances- checks and balances.
6. ehh--- I just think its more work then what it is worth personally.

until it sinks in that you can't use an argument that already has exceptions to it.... lol

I'm done with this discussion.