I think Both sides of the argument have been supported Equally as well. Ive read almost everything in this thread, And it is impressive the passion that we have for the game. Just the fact that we still feel this way speaks volumes about where this game is headed. Designing pieces like Bastilla ,who was created with the purpose of making the OR playable, Both in Casual and Tourney play, was a priority! Who did not think there would be repurcussions?

When it first came out, I felt that way. Unfortunately the majority of players in our area either lost interest or felt the new pieces were overpowered.Especially Bastilla. Although designers such as Billiv and others made great arguments, and I tried to influence these guys, These casual players who took the game seriously didn't agree, and they stopped playing. I'm not crying or whatever, my point is that: A great piece should not only be Great for Tournament play, but also Casual play, After all, the original game was meant for both , not one.

Keep up the discussion, Respect each other for the passion they feel about the game, I personally love reading these threads.

Does anyone else have a playgroup culture where you get mocked if you run Bastila too often? I've run her once ever, in a competitive game, and I already get pigeon-holed as the guy who runs Bastila.

Running Swiss tournaments, the less-experienced, less-obsessed players end up playing each other most of the time. Sometimes I think this is a bad thing - they don't really get to see the interesting things that you can do with a good squad, like movement breakers - and they probably have a perception that the game is less interesting than it actually is, since they run weird things like EG-05 Jedi Hunter droids and the Sith Leviathan.

Hutts - don't worry about being branded a Bastilla player. That means they either haven't paid attention to your history or that they'll prepare for you to run Bastilla and you can work that to your advantage... unless they know that by saying you run Bastilla all the time that you'll not play her and then they will have prepared for that... or unless they know that you'll guess that they have guessed what you're guessing and then plan to run whatever they guess you haven't guessed they'll run...

Exactly. If the matchup is lancer vs Chandra fan Pickpocket swarm you go ahead and write down a 3 point win for the lancer and do something else. This is great time to discuss squad building or go watch another game going on at a tourney and learn other players tactics. Newer players need the experience of playing close games not blowouts. No one ever learned how to play basketball when they were 4 by having Shaq dunk on you for an hour. Same goes with minis. Learn the basics, learn what beats what, learn how to make every game close, then learn how to win those games.

Bastilla is a strong piece. She's no different then any other gatekeeper has been in the past. You've always had to think "if I go against X I'll have to alter my strategy to do this" now all that's changed is X is now bastilla and you have to build your squad knowing at some point your getting disrupted and you should build your squad with that in mind.

If your squad can't handle loading your ces you should alter it somewhat so it can. Republic deathshot squads can afford 33 points for Rex. If you lose your ces Rex is still good at shooting. That's how the meta has changed. Instead of taking weak characters and boosting them up you take the characters with solid SAs and use them instead.

I think that people when see Bastlilla are just scared thinking "Oh crap, there goes all my CE's";

I've played 10 games against her with and without using Palleon- i've won 8/10, and lost 2 only because of my own mistakes.

People still don't understand that this Force Ability can be stopped, so I gotta thank all of You for this topic, it helps A LOT.
Personally, I don't like her, but I guess neither do my local players like my Thrawn. See the resemblance? I don't think that she is overpowered, maybe a little undercosted - but hey! -like many other good characters (Cad Bane any1? just one of many examples). We gotta remember that basically she brought OR back to the game. She's an autoinclude character now? BIG DEAL- so is Thrawn in Imperials, just like R2-D2 AD in Republic or Captain Rex. We just have to deal with it.
We shouldn't forget, that this game has developed many (and I can only guess that more are on their way) autodamage tricks that don't need CE's. I'm sure, that in future we will witness new kinds of game breakers as well. For me bigger problem that Bastilla is GOWK- now in his former glory and Zannah. But theese are just obstacles, and we gotta find new (creative or not) ways to deal with it.

I disagree. Your argument is highly flawed. You are using a method of higher number of squads being knocked out of competition, which is both inaccurate and a flawed methodology.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. There are not a "huge class of squads" that this kills.

I'm going to repost my question again. Please show me the squads that this supposedly knocks out of the top tier. Yes, Bastilla severely hurts a very small few heavily CE dependent squads. But there is basically 1 that is top tier competitive. The rest are tier 2 or lower. And those were already virtual auto-losses to the NR and Rebels which both almost always have disruptive. The only competitive squad is Imperial Handmaidens, which coincidentally, still do well against Bastilla. Still a tough match, but I've watched Urbanjedi beat ABM more than once with it.

Further, it doesn't actually create auto-losses. It creates up-hill battles, which all top tier squads currently have present in the meta. It creates 60-40 games. For some reason you all ignore that roughly 17% of your squad (typically more like 35-50% when you factor in using override and activations to really max out the danger) is committed to doing nothing but turning off CEs. Yes, you get a +10dmg too on your own guys, but that's not the end all be all of usage. You are playing what amounts to a game with only 150 or less points against your opponent's 200. All ABM does is level the playing field. But it doesn't win you the game. You still have to use your pieces the right way, attack your opponent's squad in the right way, etc. It's not like you are being granted swap or something.

So give me specific examples.

Because, the reverse is also true. ABM does positive things. It not only brings 3-4 top tier OR squads to the meta, but also because of the threat, causes some players to play more generally competitive squads, rather than relying on one overstacked gimmick. Which actually improves the meta. ABM is one of the key reasons that 9/10 factions, and multiple squads per faction are now top tier competitive.

So not only are you flat out wrong that there is a huge class of squads being made uncompetitive, but you also ignored that this brings a bunch of things up to competitive levels.

As with any competitive argument, it's not about numbers of people. You can clearly see that those who play competitive tournaments are generally supportive of her as is. Everyone has their tweaks that they would prefer, that's entirely normal. But the push back is coming from casual players, who should not be using Bastilla against their friends fun squads anyways. As I said before. If I'm playing a casual game, I won't play anything top tier. I'm not going to bring Yoda on Kybuck in my maxed out Gencon squad. I won't bring double lancers with Sideous, and I won't bring a maxed out Bastilla squad.

Final statement from me. The assumption that she will always have ABM on is highly flawed. It isn't accurate. If you think this is the case, this is a personal issue with your skill as a player. You need to work on your strategies and tactics. As with any top tier gimmick, learning how not to be completely beat by it is something you have to work and practice at. Complaining isn't going to get you far, about all that does is make you feel better.

This is specifically at FlyingArrow - you need to worry less about theory-crafting and more about in game tactics. As I suspect a great many of the naysayers probably do as well. The challenges to my Exar FS comment bear that out clearly. I'm really sorry some of you don't see it, I really am. But what exactly are you expecting us to do about it? Do you really think we are going to issue an errata for casual play??? If we believe she helps the competitive top tier meta, and does not hurt it (net effect), which most of us do, then what are you expecting?

I could be all eloquent and make a huge case regarding Bastila with a full bibliography and four part harmony.
However, this time I will not. I’m hungry, it’d take too long and I can sum it up nicely:
Bastila is a witch. She’s naughty and wrecks some gigs from rounds 2-5. So what am I going to do? Get a new gig. She’s beatable and it doesn’t take but a few hours of good hard paradigm shifting to do it. Remember that guys can bring Bastila to the table, but they've got to play their squad right and roll the dice, just like I do. I think the designers have done a good job of putting out pieces that stir up the SWM pot into a fresh, hot vat of discussion.
This all might be a bit terse, but there it is. Besides, Bastila makes a mean spinach artichoke dip and she watches football. What's not to like?

While this quote may show why you are taking issue with anything I say while ignoring others saying the exact same thing; sadly, it is also far from reality. I wanted, (and when you asked, even designed) a weaker (just more diverse and character accurate) piece. I fought against how powerful she is now, as she is everything but an anti-faction beatstick with a Rakghoul Disease variant - while she was strong with a saber, she never actually struck down a thing outside a couple weak beasts early on and instead relied on force abilities about as much as anyone I have seen in such a short arc. That is the base of what I did, and always will, take issue with. And its strange you would misconstrue that topic so much when it’s so easy to just read it again.

That quote also shows you are rather oblivious to what I have actually said here as well though, and seem to be going pure strawman on me – but maybe that too goes back to why you are focusing mainly on me in the first place.



Honestly, sadly, your replies seem to indicate exactly the opposite. You are dismissing and going after gamers for having an opinion on what is clearly an issue on multiple aspects with a lot of people, while treating people who pose their concern as if they have no right to say anything, just aren’t smart enough to get whatever it is you think they should, or as if they must be coming after you somehow.

Like it or not, we are the customers and consumers - treating us as if we are the problem if we question anything, we are inferior and should just succumb to whatever you tell us is the way, or that we should ignore the obvious because you personally don't want to hear it, is the perfectly wrong way to go about your task.

You make good points. Most of which I agree with. And I just want to make clear that never once did I feel I was any better then them . I went out of my way to not play Bastilla squads knowing it just ticked them off. I think though that the game is pretty balanced, and will continue to get even better as the designers work on different pieces that give us more options.. Good points though Neifi.

I'm so sorry, qvos, that was actually more of a continuation of the post above it and wasn't specifically directed at you. I don't think that of you one single bit, I promise!

You have my sincerest apologies for the confusion, as I should have been much clearer with some kind of indication.


@Sithborg, thanks, and I apologize as clearly I am one it was for. I hope you realize it was not my intent.

And yeah, I have kind of witnessed a tiny bit of the existing divide you are mentioning, although luckily haven't seen it that bad. Painful, ya know, as neither side of an internal war can possibly be better in the long run. Such is life... Anyway though, I guess I just fear it possibly getting worse - and its why I don't envy those in the position of making the V-Sets. Fun it may be, but what a delicate line to walk as well. (I'll stick to my customs and my limited group can all just laugh at me when I get something wrong!)

Lastly, I agree on Mace. Powerful, yes; but with weaknesses and at a cost that is at least a bit self restrictive. One can also fairly quickly explain ways he is vulnerable if the person you are talking to is open-minded. (and definitely not a piece which needs to be cut from 200pt games - now 500 might make him more difficult though; not sure) I personally like it as he is a surmountable challenge without absolutely perfect play or such specific setups needed to win.