I updated my page 1 with your and TJ's joint list - it's a really good summation of what I'm trying to categorise pieces as.

because there is no authoritative figure to make it the norm. i am sure a lot of designers will adopt this practice, but others have different opinions on how to design and how to approach power levels so they most likely will not agree to such a rigid structure.

Lol, always the optimist you are... Why wouldn't this be something designers would want to get behind? It seams like it would potentially prevent some past issues we have had. On top of helping spread the love out to the factions that are in need of it.

i reiterate there is no central power to force the change, so it won't happen, at least not every set. i still strongly believe there needs to be 3-5 people that are in charge of the game, and those 3-5 could decide on things such as this.
for instance,
Bill, Deri, Tim, Daniel, Kezza/Daman(New Zealander) with Bill as "Chairman" to be the deciding vote if there is a tie. this could be the same for the change to mouse droids being talked about, or anything else.

not enough to warrant any response.... other then I just know it was formed, no idea what it actually means for the game.

Just to add to that, all of the currently banned pieces will receive a look this fall, with errata considered to bring them back with a new card printed in a future set. We will do that twice a year, as well as dealing with any new problem figures that arise. So NCO will get a good look, and just a guess, since it seems errata would be relatively simple there, I think the probability of it happening will be high. But I won't speak for the other committee members.

As for Tim/Deri's idea of design for power, I think it's one of those things that is helpful to some, and intuitive to others who work in different ways. I for one never needed it, because I intuitively view things in their entirety on a general level. Probably why I've made a pretty good historian out of myself :).

Other types of thinkers probably need something like that. So it can be a good idea. Or it can be a waste. Just depends on the person. For me personally, I design most figures to be in the tier 1.5 to 2 area, because I don't really like making tier 1 pieces, nor do I think it's necessary. I like roles for figures in a squad, that's what I usually focus on.

For example, one of my favorite designs was Momaw Nadan. I actually designed him from premise of a role (war throat) backwards. I had the general idea of what I wanted the game to have (a 10hp killing machine for Lobot) that was cheap enough to do his thing and then be killed. I had no power level in mind exactly, other than I wanted him as nothing more than what I just said. Worked out great. But that's how I design. More based on flavor to begin with, finding things in game that make sense, limited new abilities, (KISS principle), and role in a squad.

So in short, I'd pretty much ignore a design template myself.

Check out the latest post in TheHutts mini of the day thread. It graphs the power levels for both WotC and Vset pieces. Wizards is a horrible spread, but the vsets have a pretty beautiful bell curve.

Point being that largely we are doing what we should be doing (imo). Overall the vsets have hit the mark. A few duds, and a few extra 11s than we need, but that is inevitable. I'd even argue that a few of those 11s were necessary to make a faction compete at all (Bastila). In a perfect world a few of those 8s could have been 7s, but that's a minor point.

So clearly by in large most v-sets have more or less done the 5-10 bell curve. Using that curve as a guideline will help keep us on track.

I think they are doing a pretty good job of getting new designers for the sets. Laura and TJ are the first ones that come to mind and they have both done brilliantly thus far. I believe the plan is to continue to have 1 new designer on each set from here on.

For those that are interested, continue to help out the designers and you could definitely get your shot.
Personally, I do not think that everyone can or should be allowed to design though. Not saying I could, but the past has taught us that much.

This is awesome! Glad to see the balance team is looking at even the minor mishaps. Not just the "meta warping" pieces. +1


i know you were mainly referring to the application of the design template on individual pieces, but it could also be used to assist each set in attempting to balance the factions. Deciding that certain factions probably do not need any 9's or 10's, but that factions like the Sith or OR could really use an extra push that a couple of the high powered pieces would bring.


I wish more people felt that way. i do think that you can have some 9's spring up from the way that you personally design bill, and that is not always a bad thing. Atton "Jaq" Rand is definitely one of your best pieces, but arguably overpowered. If he wasn't in a bottom feeding faction then I do not think that case would be very hard to make.

If we are going to get to a point where every faction can compete then something in the design structure/process is going to have to change. As is, we are almost 10 sets in and only 3 factions have tier 1 options, IMO. (seps, Imps and Rep)

Not sure I agree (or disagree) with him, but if you're looking for a way to nerf a MTB, Reserves on a 1 is usually a pretty hard counter.