I appreciate the well though out and written response and I acknowledge that vsets upped reserves into having multiple reserves stack off the same number in higher probabilities. And that's why I again say the direction should be based on which specific pieces are causing the issue. No one thinks running Kazdan and 100 point Yoda is a good idea. And neither was Dooku/Wat or multiple Queens. It literally is just Krell. The percentages are close to each other and Seps/Vong even beat MTB, but yet they have never been competitive. So it stands to reason that it's not reserves, it's not multiple instances of reserves, it's not even multiple rolls, it's that Krell has it all and does it all for a low cost.

I don't get wiping out a playstyle over one piece. And in regards to Unkar, if he was actually meant to be specifically a way to counter Master Tactician and tactician, which is possible, than is it not safe to say he completely missed the mark, barely had an effect on those and instead had an unwanted insanely powerful effect and needs to be toned down?

Whether that really was the case or it was someone trying to quietly wipe out reserves, the situation we are left with is what we have. But why is no other options even on the table? Unkar wasn't even brought up? (We're still waiting to hear that answer) and instead we are being told to accept yet another hard nerf with under the paper-thin guise of your squad abusing a strong piece and doing well. We don't wipe out parts of the game based on people's NPEs, we should look at actual problems and fix pieces, not playstyles.

Just thinking out loud here, but what if instead of limiting the reserves ability to stack, but a limiter on the reserves units themselves?

For instance, have it where when a Reserves unit is placed on the board, it is already considered activated for that round, effectively forcing the reserves units to wait one round before contributing to the fight beyond doing much more than being a meatshield. Or would something like that be to nerfing?

Just spitballing ideas here, but what about letting them stack, but only if 1of the characters whose reserves would stack is in Gambit area. It would make it so that you could still get the double reserves but you would have to take the risk of putting one of your triggers in the line of fire to do so. In my opinion it creates a good risk/reward balance that I think could be a workable compromise.

This is a very reasonable idea, and I think its actually really cool

Whoa, sorry, I came on too strong there.

No, I would not side with the "nice" person over the correct one. However, I am more open to being convinced by respectful argumentation. Which I have seen a lot of from everyone (your good self included, sir) over the past couple of months.

In this case, I agree with the suggestion you made 100% - we won't have this problem in the future if we don't make any pieces with Reserves that trigger on the same number. (I suggested something similar in a previous post). It is the sarcasm that gets me - I don't like debating people who are being sarcastic, and am equally uncomfortable "siding with" people who are being sarcastic.

Your post has an excellent idea, wrapped in a biting insult. That is what I take issue with.

I apologize for derailing the thread for a moment, and for calling you out - even if I disagree with the delivery, you had a solid point, and it did no good to anyone for me to call you out. Please forgive me.

The Ballance Commitee is still talking about Unkar and the best path to take with Reserves. Nothing is off the table, but we wan't to do the best thing for the Reserves play style, players that enjoy reserves, the competitive game and everything in between. I am with my girl friend this weekend so I do not have as much time to talk about this as I would like to. I will try to free up my time on Monday in order to catch up with all of the conversations on here! :)

To be fair, I saw Frenchy say something to this effect much earlier in the thread - he at least mentioned that there was more to be said about Unkar. I think it got lost in discussion, but it should be middle of page 1

I have to admit I'm a bit confused at this point.

Reserves were never great for a long time. Jason found a way to make them not just good but broken.

Unkar and the floor rules change looked like they made Reserves unplayable. Looks like Jason found a way to make them playable but not great (despite Unkar and the floor rules). It seems to me that in terms of power-level we're right back where we started.

I had said to just ban Unkar, ban Pong since that seemed like the simplest solution and it seems to have popular support. But based on Jason's squads I'm not even sure that's needed. Kind of torn about what I'd do. Glad I'm not a decision maker on this one.


(As a side note, the floor rules only apply to tournaments. So if you're playing at home then by the official rules you would be able to get Reserves from both Kazdan and Pong on a roll of 20. It's not even a house rule... that's what the rule says. It just so happens that most of us posting in the forums choose to play tournament rules even at home. Just a technical point but I thought it was worth mentioning.)

Timmer, it seems B and C were both met here. Since apparently the design intent was not to destroy reserves but to go after master tactician, and a large portion of the community are upset by the unwarranted change.

And flying you're correct that we can play however we want outside of tournaments but most times we playing in large groups it's for tournaments. That's why I said as a real option is Canadian players may start no longer recognizing certain pieces/rules but at that point it's creating a schism. Something which does suck as I feel like we are all enough of a close-knit internet family that we should be able to respectfully hear each other and compromise. Plus if we go down that road then why continue to support and partake in VSET development if our concerns are not addressed and we're treated like second-class citizens because we aren't in the inner circle of design?

The issue here is that it's not being recognized and there is no compromise. It was more so, here's a problem piece, so this is our decision is to wipe out all of the playstyle instead of addressing the squad/piece, even though it was unpopular and in the minority and against actual data and results of tournaments (reserves have been hit harder than any other play archetype since the start of the game and it's actually performed second only to huges as the worst and least successful ways to play, it doesn't make sense).

And stapling NTMTO is a costly bandaid to try and salvage something but it's not a solution to the core of this issue which is personal feelings going against the majority of the community and affecting the competitive game when there is no actual reason or data to back up what was done on such a scale.

Be carefull GG, you keep speaking out and eventually, you'll be shunned regardless of how valid your opinions are


I have been echoing this for years, and slowly, the designers/inner circle are knocking play groups out one by one because they ignore something a play group likes. Is there really no one going to address this from the BC? Who is even on the BC right now? Do they exist? Or is it one person, on 7 different accounts!