This is the excuse every. Single. Time. You hit the nail on the head with, "It's what happens going forward that is more important," and as I have said multiple times now, changing core rules is not something that can't be reverted.

2,3,4, or 5 pt. MSD is not the problem.
COST IS NOT THE ISSUE

imagine Luke on he way to attack the Death Star.
He is almost there.......almost there.....
When suddenly a MSD is placed in front of the Death Star.
Luke, lacking AS, must attack the MSD
He hit it, but as he circles for another attack, Vader blasts him from space...no more whining, no more bluemilk,no more Jedis, no more goodness........
The Empire wins, Yavin is destroyed, and Lucas makes no more movies.
All because of that mother f*cking 'lil MSD

Do you really think something like removing Booming Voice would lead to the systematic collapse of the entire game?
Let me also remind you of how many existing players have been lost in the first place. Our whole community in the Moline area stopped playing as a result of V-Set powercreep. My friends and I only play casual because of the NPE and ensuing neglect from the WI regionals we attended before. Y'all didn't seem to have a problem shedding existing players in the first place.

While changing the base rules provided by the original game designers seems like an appealing, perhaps even necessary approach to resolving the issue at hand, I believe that a more moderate approach is advisable. Some modifications (or additions) to the rules will naturally generate more favor than others; banning Gha seems more harsh than, say, preventing a piece from dropping beneath 2 points (as has been mentioned elsewhere on this page).

Some inadvisable additions to the character roster have (at least in part, if not entirely) formed the present meta, as in the case of the Double Swap provided by the Imperial Governor. Nevertheless, such additions are relatively minor errors that are easily resolved, such as modifying or even banning the piece in question. If developed carefully enough, additional pieces can be introduced as a countermeasure of sorts (though I must remark that this sometimes creates new issues). In most cases, a moderate problem warrants an equally moderate solution (though again, I admit, such solutions must be very, very carefully implemented).

However, there are much broader issues that can't be addressed by simply modifying a handful of pieces (the shooter vs. melee dilemma comes to mind). Previous conversations have mentioned improving the mobility or defensiveness of melee pieces in general, which would entail either modifying the rules directly or retrofitting previous pieces to become more offensive. This could, however, be accomplished by creating pieces (preferably unique to each faction) that would grant specific bonuses to allies with melee attack. Cin Dralig in the Republic faction, for example, could benefit allies with Melee Attack and a Force Rating by granting them Speed 8, or Lightsaber Defense (Obi-Kin certainly accomplishes this for the Republic by granting Soresu Style and Ranged Defense Expert).



TheHutts has a fair point; measures can be (and, to some extent, have been) taken to amend what mistakes have already been made while simultaneously preventing potentially harmful pieces from entering the game. Of course, the validity of this assertion is dependent upon the success of:
1. the extent of the improvements made to playtesting in set 10, as compared to set 9
2. the balance team and their ability to both assess and alter/manage unbalanced pieces
3. future pieces in improving the meta

Any one of these underlying premises can be refuted by evidence, if desired (for example, asserting that Obi-Kin fails to shift the meta in any meaningful way or simply creates a new problem). I don't possess enough knowledge of the game to make such a case, let alone evaluate one, but I would be interested in hearing it. Moreover, this addresses a more fundamental question: how significantly will v-set 10 affect our new meta? My guess is "Better, but far from perfect."

In any case, I can see merits in both sides of the debate. I would like to see how v-set 10 affects the meta, at least in regard to the shooter/melee issue, which may, admittedly, be rather underwhelming. Or perhaps pleasantly surprising.

As a final thought, I've always assumed that the optimal meta would support a variety of squad types and factions with specialized skills and abilities. However, factoring in all possible variables in order to ultimately produce an optimal meta is difficult to accomplish (alas, if only we had access to a SWM supercomputer!).

Two things:
1) When I suggest we change the rules, I don't expect us to do something like, remove the attack value of pieces from the game. It isn't something that dramatic. When I suggest we change the rules, I suggest something like, "No more than X mouse droids can be played per team. No more than X (non-unique) can be played per team." Does it limit swarm teams? Absolutely. But eliminating such a thoughtless team is sure to bring in fresh teams into GenCon. Throwing your hands up and saying, "Welp, I guess there's nothing we can do about high act. temo control teams at GenCon," is ridiculous. We have the power to change this, which leads me to
2) Anything we do change, can always be reverted. Everyone who responds seems to be ignoring this. What is the harm in trying when V-Set meta has already driven away all but the most dedicated players? It is continually mentioned that you would prefer existing players to new ones -- except it's been made clear over the years that if existing players have a problem with the meta/V-Set, then they should stick to vanilla or devise homerules.

Again, when we're talking about simple fixes that directly tackle the issue of NPE, I don't understand all this beating around the bush. Sometimes I do wonder if it has to do with the fact that the people in charge of addressing these issues are also the people who are exploiting them. And save your time denying that; the last regional I went to was chalked full of V-Set designers, and they were the ones playing the NPE teams.

But we've shown that we're willing to talk in circles. I get it, you'd rather be stuck in your ways rather than address the problem. I've made my opinions known, and you've made yours known. Thank you for the discussion and answering my questions.

talk talk talk.
Talk is great, I am glad we are talking. doing is better.
I looked at Vset 10, I think it helped a tad tiny bit.

Anyway, I thin the Balance team is awesome and I think the people on it can do a great job. I think the balance team already in place should be in charge of floor rule changes and changing things that just make no sense at all (before pieces come out would be better) EVEN IF IT ALREADY EXISTED

For instance, Lightsaber needs a change in wording.

Why are their pieces that have BLASTER barrage and can use it at the same time as using a Lightsaber?

Things like Mouse Droids providing cover and possibly even a cap on number of mouse droids aloud.

The thing is that creating pieces that are meant to stop mouse droid spam does not have a 100% accuracy rate (measures in place did little to nothing so far), creating a rule change will, without a doubt, fix the problem. 100% success.

I say the talk talk talk is wonderful but many many people are saying the same things, its time to just give it over to a group of people in charge

"/>

This quote is a thing of beauty.

"We can't change the rules otherwise people would leave! Remember that time all those people left because of the V-Set? See, they've moved on."

WAT

+1. We've been told for years that these issues will be addressed. Let's get it done now.