FFG has announced that they are going to be releasing a 2.0 game. They are releasing conversion kits that allow players to use their existing collection with the cards for 2.0. The new game looks to be streamlined and fixed up, correcting many of the issues with 1.0.

That being said, what would you want from a 2.0? Assuming a reboot that keeps the spirit of the game, what mechanical changes could improve or streamline the game?

My personal preference would be:

-Cleanup/reworking of Targeting rules: This would include options to maybe target unoccupied squares for hitting characters out of LOS, but around corners. I never cared much for how stealth works, and feel a reworking of rules could

-Pricing update to characters.

-Cleaning up of special abilities- giving character with lightsaber block and deflect light saber defense instead, etc.

-expanding on vehicle rules. make larges more of a threat, which making them more playable.

Need link

I'll start by saying I'm pretty happy with the game as is, and with our community as small as it is and no money to be made, it doesn't really make sense to create a brand new game. As long as we only release a few characters each year and try to keep them from becoming to complex that would work for me.

Now for thought experiment sake what I would be more open too is something like different Formats. So for example we have Legacy format which has access to everything and whatever is added to future sets. And then what would be cool is a Heroes Format (call it whatever you want) and this could be one of two things:

-specifically rotated pieces, pick something like an arbitrary number like 3-12 Unique specific characters, and 3-12 specific non-uniques (personally I'm cool with 3 of each per faction), things that thematically work together and maybe even more specifically you could say only WOTC +2 VSET pieces or something like that. And keep this rotation for an entire year, have small tournaments for it, and at the end of the year November time vote/decide on a new "Legal list" for the following year which begins Jan 1st. Obviously it would have to be balanced enough that each faction could compete. This would be a great introductionary format and we could really open up some new squad designs when you eliminate the usual power 11 pieces of the faction.


Alternatively a 2.0 would be trickier to pull off and could fracture players if handled incorrectly, but treated like a different format like the above listed one but instead it's creating a new set that is legal for the year, say 3 pieces per faction and each year only three pieces (one unique and two non-unique per faction) similar to the last sep/republic set where they work together on their own but also fit into the larger legacy game.

What I would like for this 2.0 is cheaper, simpler characters in 100 point squads. Take me back to the Rebel Storm days and let's get back to the basics. Core rules is that larger based characters always displace smaller characters with maybe a save for 10 damage. And all force users can use force points for move faster, reroll dice or avoid/reduce damage received. These simpler characters would fit into our overall larger game due to being much lower cost in comparison. Example a 20-30 point Vader with just triple attack and one force power.

Oh - US doing 2.0

No.




Just no.

Yes. "IF" we did a 2.0 (like FFG's X-Wing "IS" doing), how would a reboot look? What doesn't work with the game, or could be done to make the game run more smoothly, while not taking away tactical choices.

Edit: just realized I omitted the word X-Wing from my original post. I'm an idiot. FFG is releasing a 2.0 Xwing, not SWM. However, they do have legion 1.0 that was just released, which does appear to be on scale with SMW (though it is mechanically a different game). Sorry for the confusion!

I like these . . .


In my 2.0 version of SWM. . .
I'd have non-unique characters play in Units with character limits depending on rarity.
Units that as a group act like Unique characters in skirmish games while also allowing for quick and fun mass battles.

Yes, this is a hypothetical thought experiment, and I think it can make for a good discussion. Hypothetically, I would change a few things:

- Only have a single Evade/Soresu/Shien ability, and only a single Parry/Makashi/whatever ability. One works vs non-adjacent attacks, while the other works vs ALL attacks from adjacent enemies (whether with blasters or melee weapons). Attacks with a Lightsaber are melee attacks...whether or not the character has the Melee Attack ability.
- NO damage stacking. Add a simple rule: Characters can only benefit from a single damage boost at any given point; if a character has access to several damage boosts, it must choose which one to use before making the attack. No Cunning 20 and Advantageous 10 and Momentum 10 and Prideful 10 silliness.
- Completely remove Twin Attack. There's no good reason for it, other than to amplify the damage output of the pieces that have it. Way back when the Bounty Hunters set introduced the ability, I remember commenting that the game has now fundamentally changed (for the worse). Up until then, damage-scaling wasn't off the charts...but ever since then, damage scaling has been a big issue.
- Add the ability to Pass. Or SOMETHING. Maybe Passing isn't the answer, and that's fine; but something to prevent the massive NPE that is out-activate-and-smash. I like the idea of using Deployment Groups of non-Unique figures, and that they activate as a group. Imperial Assault does this and it works really well...IA also has the Pass rule too, FWIW.
- Add some sort of displacement rule to the Diminutive ability. And yes, definitely include Diminutive from the start. It's really annoying that a wookiee can't get adjacent to Cad Bane because a Mouse Droid is in the way.
- Include NO Cost on character cards! Instead, have all the costs for all characters listed on an app/website. X-Wing 2.0 is doing this, and I think it's brilliant. Now they can hot-fix ships/cards that end up being too powerful, and easily balance the meta if something ends up being broken or overpowered. This allows designers to create a card as it should be, and not worry so much about the cost...playtesting determines the cost...and if adjustments need to be made because something is too strong or too weak, it's an easy fix. Changes are obviously carefully considered and announced in plenty of time before major tournaments. I honestly think that ANY competitive skirmish game would be foolish not to use this approach from this point onward.

Those are just core rules that I'd change. Obviously there are pieces that we'd all like to change too, but I'd suggest that the problem pieces are more symptomatic of flaws that are deeper in the game system itself.

However, with all that being said, I still think that SWM is a superb game. Until I started playing Imperial Assault, it was hands-down the BEST game I'd ever played!


Oh yeah, I'd change one more thing: Tell WotC to never stop producing the game! lol

If we did anything I would restart from ground zero.
I would make only Canon pieces at this point.
I would make it so that sets can rotate.

While wiping the slate clean and starting with a new batch of V-sets isn't unheard of (It happened with both the Star Wars and Star Trek CCGs by Decipher), I think we've gotten a little too far past the point where we can easily turn back.

What I can see is releasing 2.0 versions of individual V-Set expansions, which would keep the bulk of the figures the same, but changing up/removing/replacing the problem characters or tweaking the ones that just fell flat.

This