SWMGAMERS.com Forums
http://swmgamers.com/forums/

Minis Representing Cards
http://swmgamers.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=183&t=8579
Page 1 of 2

Author:  AdmiralMotti89 [ Thu Feb 18, 2010 1:09 pm ]
Post subject:  Minis Representing Cards

Well, while we have lots to do before the first V-set is released, there has been something that has become of interest to me. I see around the various sites talk about there being a suggested mini to use for the new card. I think I've seen some of that here, but I can't remember where. I'm wondering what that might mean. For example, lets say the new card is for a Luke Skywalker, Jedi Restorer (names aren't my forte), and Luke JK is suggested for use with the card.

Obviously, people can do whatever they want at home, but in sanctioned events, how might it work?

Does "suggested" mean that you have to use that suggested Luke in the event to use the card, or does it mean you can use any Luke? Does "suggested" mean you can use any mini at all?

That last question is one way to interpret the statement that we will have suggested minis, and that question is one that concerns me.

If the mini is merely suggested, and we can use any mini we want, such as an Arcona Smuggler for for Luke Jedi Restorer, I'm not so sure that is a good idea. That would seem excessively confusing; to take it to an extreme (which I doubt this acutally would happen) someone could play a set of all V-characters using all Jawas.

I suppose one benefit of having any mini be usable is that all you need is one miniature to play any V-card you want. But, is that really a benefit? I'm not sure if it's a good idea to have a bunch of random fringe commons being Rebel heroes. Now. a new Revan need not have only FU Revan be usable, but I think there needs to be some sort of balance between players actually having figures to use for the V-Cards and this game still being a Star wars game (beyond a random assortment of commons and uncommons)

Author:  billiv15 [ Thu Feb 18, 2010 1:40 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Minis Representing Cards

Well, it's a little early to worry about this particular detail, because we haven't ironed out all the details surrounding what DCI play (or future Gamers rating - whatever we call it) will need to require until we get closer to that time.

But generally, a new Revan, would require Revan to use in tournament play. A new Luke, would usually require a Luke (melee or non-melee depending on the new card would restrict which). A squad of Jawas would never be appropriate.

There are a couple of needs that have to be met.
1) Respect for the long time collectors, and increasing interest in collecting. This is why DCI had to ban the cutting of mouse droids to make more mouse droids. If you want more, you need to purchase more, not go around the collectible aspect of the game.
2) Care for the secondary market. Without these people, our mini supplies run dry. We need to respect their business and help foster it's growth with our game, if they are continuing to support it. Creating a market for say a Ki-Adi-Mundi is a good thing for the health of the game in the long run.
3) Recognition for the opponent. A group of Jawas is not appropriate because it's confusing (and likely intentionally so). That has always been against the rules. Look at the current custom rules in DCI play. My expectation is that we keep this consistent with the principles laid out there. No matter how lax the "suggested" ends up being, a team of Jawas will never work.
4) The feel of being as real as possible. Using a random Arcona Smuggler to represent some new Luke Skywalker doesn't maintain the Star Wars feel and realism of the game. We are not interested in doing that.

Obviously there will be some limitations, especially when we create completely new characters, but these concerns will be addressed in some way. I would suspect, that in the end the "suggested" mini is likely to be more of a "required' in some sense, but until we get there, it would be improper to tell you or anyone else exactly what some unwritten rule would look like at this time.

Author:  LoboStele [ Thu Feb 18, 2010 2:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Minis Representing Cards

I'd agree with everything Bill said, but also add:

5. Realize that there's still a fair amount of WOTC product at primary market, and encourage people to continue to buy that. Doing so will increase the longevity of the secondary market, and increase the chances of WOTC or other company picking the game back up at some point as well.


There's no reason to allow someone to play an entire squad of Jawas if it would only cost them $5 to pick up a Luke somewhere instead. We all paid money to play this game, and it's only fair that new people joining the game have to input some form of commitment to play as well. Honestly, I don't think that will be a problem for many people.

At the same time, I think we should be open to the idea of allowing customized minis to some degree. There are a LOT of great customizers out there, and I don't mind seeing a custom Revan Redeemed across from me, rather than the TFU mini. On that note though, I might suggest something akin to the current rules that are in there, that you must be able to produce the 'original' mini (suggested/required mini) if requested, but as long as your opponent doesn't mind, then you can use whatever custom piece you desire. By requiring the 'original' mini to be presented upon request, you eliminate the possibility of people just building a custom from scratch, and not bothering to pay the $20+ for a Boba Fett, for instance.

by extension, this also sort of acts as a CYA for Vassal games as well. And while it would be cost prohibitive for the Vassal TO to require anyone to physically show they have the mini they're trying to play with (would require postage and several days turn-around, lol), it would still be possible, if necessary.

Author:  AdmiralMotti89 [ Thu Feb 18, 2010 2:16 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Minis Representing Cards

@ Bill

That's pretty much exactly what I was hoping to hear.

@ Lobo

I too like the idea of allowing customized minis if it's obvious what they represent. However, what I'm not so keen on is an official Customizing Guide to come out with a V-Card. I don't think we should be promoting what will likely result in a relevant reduction in supply.

Author:  LoboStele [ Thu Feb 18, 2010 3:07 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Minis Representing Cards

Well, I think we would mostly just stick with something along the lines of "must be obvious which piece it represents", but allow people to customize as they want to.

We really can't concern ourselves too much about the dwindling supply of minis. I think the simple fact is that we are likely to lose more players/collectors over the coming months than we'll gain new ones. I really don't think the 'supply' of minis will be a problem for a very long time.

And if it gets to a point where people can't find certain pieces, then typically they only have to ask around online. Most of us have tons of extra Rares just laying around. ;)

Author:  wannabemexican [ Thu Feb 18, 2010 3:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Minis Representing Cards

The only point I would like to make here is if we are planning on making a unique character out of a common. I hope this makes sense. If we create a character that is totally badass out of say, a Jedi Watchman, then many people will perhaps start using it and it could potentially screw up the meta. SO I suppose my point is, when creating a unique out of a common/uncommon mini, we need to make sure it is not broken in any way, and doesn't then take over the meta.

Make sense? I hope so.

Author:  LoboStele [ Thu Feb 18, 2010 3:33 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Minis Representing Cards

Uh...I don't think that has anything to do with the topic of the thread. The intent would be to not create ANY pieces that are broken/dominating, but to create things that are balanced. What does that have to do with whether we assign specific 'suggested use' minis or not?

Author:  wannabemexican [ Thu Feb 18, 2010 3:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Minis Representing Cards

LoboStele wrote:
Uh...I don't think that has anything to do with the topic of the thread. The intent would be to not create ANY pieces that are broken/dominating, but to create things that are balanced. What does that have to do with whether we assign specific 'suggested use' minis or not?


I mean if the assigned mini is a common, it means most people will have it. So I guess extra extra care should be taken to ensure it is a balanced character. YOu know, to ensure it doesn't turn into a yobuck, or IG lancer-esque situation, but with a figure that everyone has, increasing the chances of them playing it.

Now I know care will be taken to make sure no broken characters are made, but I just wanted to make sure it has been said. I dunno, so I can sleep at night.

Example. If a new Darth Revan is made, and he is cheaper and more playable and very competitive then that is great. BUT I have seen him sell for over $26. There is no way I am going to be buying him any time soon. But if a new character is made from a common, chances are I have it, and so do lots of people, so everyone will start using it and it could just make things a bit boring I guess. I hope this is making sense.

Maybe it belings in another thread, but this one seemed most appropriate to me...

Author:  LoboStele [ Thu Feb 18, 2010 4:10 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Minis Representing Cards

Oh OK, I understand your point now. That does belong here, sorry, just didn't follow your logic the first time around.

I don't really know if the price of a piece is a good reason of whether to make it into a new R/VR/Unique or not anyways. If we make a new Revan, people will complain that the old one is too expensive, and they don't want to spend the money to get it. So, it'll be a "darned if you do, darned if you don't" sort of scenario anyways.

The easiest solution is to make sure that no broken minis are made. And if it's deemed to be too powerful, then we assign some other 'suggested mini' for it instead.

One thing that would be good to do with Uniques, would be if we create some new Unique OR Jedi, then make the 'suggested mini' a piece from some other faction instead. If you made The Exile the 'suggested mini', but the new card isn't a new version of the Exile, then that could confuse people who want to play both the Exile and X new piece.

For instance, we create a 'Lord Hoth' card. The miniature for Lucien Draay might make sense as a 'suggested mini', but then you wouldn't be able to play Lucien and Hoth together, as it would be confusing (let alone require two copies of the same piece). So, perhaps make the 'suggested mini' for Lord Hoth be something like Luke COTF or some Republic Jedi or something.

Author:  wannabemexican [ Thu Feb 18, 2010 4:31 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Minis Representing Cards

I wasn't saying to make the virtual minis based on monetary cost. I was just using Revan as an extreme example of an expensive($) mini, and thus as he is expensive, perhaps less people will have him.

Actually having a more playable version of him could then increase demand and help sales (on a semi-unrelated note)

I like the idea of opening up the figures to all factions. Because, as long as you have the new stat card it really doesn't matter what faction the figure originally was meant to be, as you can't really tell from just looking at the figure (obviously apart from rebel troopers, stormies and the like...).

Author:  Sithborg [ Thu Feb 18, 2010 4:49 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Minis Representing Cards

My SWCCG days has sort of indoctrinated me to a V card is for one specific card/mini. Even the new ones, which have new names/images require a specific card. Granted, I think that may be Decipher's input, but hey.

I think the 181st/Elite AT-AT is a good way to go. 2 cards for a specific mini, that you only have to mark if you use both. Required customizations is a huge turn off for me.

Author:  Bantha Rawk [ Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:35 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Minis Representing Cards

Sithborg wrote:
Required customizations is a huge turn off for me.


Same here, but I can see that that will not be a problem with what you guys are planning, or at least from what I have read. But I don't have a problem with the allowance of someone to use a custom mini... They put time and effort into it. Just not a mandatory custom mini needed.

About the "suggested" mini idea: I think that there should be one "suggested" mini per V-Character, otherwise it could get a little confusing. Like the Jedi Knight(RotS) for a Cin Drallig, or a Echani Handmaiden for a Brianna. I think it has to be a piece that resemebles the character.

But then you come to characters that have multiple pieces that look very similar: Vader, Luke, Yoda, etc. I think some of those could be inter-changable.

Don't know, but like Bill said, there is a lot of stuff for them to nail down before they get to this issue. But it doesn't hurt to discuss it now...

Author:  LoboStele [ Fri Feb 19, 2010 10:16 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Minis Representing Cards

There's really no need for anybody to worrying about this, guys. ;)

Bantha Rawk wrote:
Sithborg wrote:
Required customizations is a huge turn off for me.


Same here, but I can see that that will not be a problem with what you guys are planning, or at least from what I have read. But I don't have a problem with the allowance of someone to use a custom mini... They put time and effort into it. Just not a mandatory custom mini needed.

About the "suggested" mini idea: I think that there should be one "suggested" mini per V-Character, otherwise it could get a little confusing. Like the Jedi Knight(RotS) for a Cin Drallig, or a Echani Handmaiden for a Brianna. I think it has to be a piece that resemebles the character.


I'm 90% confident that this is exactly what we're planning. No 'required' customizations, but allowable per the current custom rules in the Floor Rules. 1 'suggested' mini per character.

I know that's what I'll push for, and that's what I've primarily heard from the rest of the Design Team as well.

Author:  Sithborg [ Fri Feb 19, 2010 2:17 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Minis Representing Cards

I know, I'm just getting my opininon out there.

Author:  Sergione [ Sat Feb 20, 2010 4:08 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Minis Representing Cards

What about adding extra design info when releasing the set, so it goes like... "this figure can be represented by a, b, c, d mini" or equally recognizable custom.

Author:  Cordova [ Sat Feb 20, 2010 4:45 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Minis Representing Cards

Talking about this with a friend, we both agreed that as long as there was a 'base' model, i.e. one that is recommended, it still keeps the collection side of the game going.

But, as there would be no official models, it would also be cool if customs were allowed - provided they were from SW minis, and obvious, as this is another way of keeping it fresh.

I mean I can think of a way to create a pretty nifty Revan now...

Author:  LoboStele [ Sat Feb 20, 2010 11:42 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Minis Representing Cards

Cordova wrote:
Talking about this with a friend, we both agreed that as long as there was a 'base' model, i.e. one that is recommended, it still keeps the collection side of the game going.

But, as there would be no official models, it would also be cool if customs were allowed - provided they were from SW minis, and obvious, as this is another way of keeping it fresh.

I mean I can think of a way to create a pretty nifty Revan now...

Sergione wrote:
What about adding extra design info when releasing the set, so it goes like... "this figure can be represented by a, b, c, d mini" or equally recognizable custom.

I swear, it's like nobody is reading my posts. Lol. Yes, the is exactly what we've been talking about. I don't think we will allow a, b, c, or d, for instance, but probably just one recommended piece to help preserve a little of the collectible aspect of things.

Author:  thereisnotry [ Sat Feb 20, 2010 1:33 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Minis Representing Cards

LoboStele wrote:
I swear, it's like nobody is reading my posts. Lol.

As a pastor, I can identify with what you're saying. lol

Seriously, Lobo, I agree with you and the rest of the Design Team on this: it's good to keep an aspect of the collectible game going, and so 1 suggested mini per V-card sounds like a great idea. I think many people are making Death Stars out of Training Remotes (to alter a common phrase about mountains and molehills).

Author:  Cordova [ Sat Feb 20, 2010 1:52 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Minis Representing Cards

I didn't mean to make it seem like I hadn't been reading, I was merely reiterating the main idea that was bandied about above me, in response to Sergione's a, b, c d idea...

I have faith in the Design Team :)

Author:  Sergione [ Sun Feb 21, 2010 4:34 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Minis Representing Cards

Yup, my bad here boys, I wasn´t reading into the thread that much (close to a new release here and final crunch is on us....). With all my respect, I would suggest that the Design Team crosses the bridge of "representing minis" once you are pretty clear on what the V-set line-up will be and once the work is well underway. I would even suggest to test the response of the community (poll) as a part of the Dev process - not everybody might have all minis, and you don´t want to just touch base with the Competitive arena, i.e. - be hard on character representation at sactioned play, but more laxed at casual events (hence provide "alternatives"...).

Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC - 6 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/