I actually agree with all of those but the Talon one. Talon is one of my Favorite pieces, and the fact that you have to play all fringe to get that Ysalamiri makes it better to me.

So right now I think we are all on the same page. legacy is a great alternative and is doing its job well. Standard is pushing for an open meta and to further ensure the prevention of NPE's, they understand some rules are silly but also understand that it is hard to manage everything.

I tend to agree with Jen'ari in the idea that if its complex or difficult, just drop it. The WotC core rules and pieces can't be touched is probably the biggest difference we have.

I think I agree with Bronson and Darth Jim that right now is a very good time to play the game. Lots of fun combos and pieces and difference variations to a great game.

I bet in the future there will be some kind of cross-over but that will be in the future ;)

I am out of the loop of most standard players and appreciate that they have kept the game going and think about things a lot (even if i disagree), the work is hard to do and should be respected for that.

I'd rather see Pellaeon lose Ysalamiri than Talon, but agree that 3 anti-Force factions are enough that it's hard to see Force powers as a serious threat in the meta. And having the Force sidelined is just un-Star Wars.

It was needed at the time but not sure its good for the game now.

Ysalmari is a great counter to Bastilla'a ridiculous meditation though. The feral Voxyn is a great counter to it. But maybe something else along those lines.

Agreed that she provides a balancing act to balance out the crazy CEs. But she also made it harder for people to bring CE dependent teams and as such took a bit away from some underplayed team builds for the risk of just having a bunch of useless grunts. Especially being able to run we ability for a guarenteed 3 rounds in a game. But she made the Old Republic into a threat for the first time. Bastilla, Revan, Yammosk and Kelborn/Mandalore really made the lesser factions into something imposing to compete with the original big 4. I really like the current meta and think the only weak builds are reserves and huges (though Republic Reserves are finally tourny playable, just hoping for Seps one day to match)

Fixed.

Enter the Legacy format

See to me the issue comes from the fact that no one has the Same NPE's. Mine may be Bastilla but The Next persons Could be mas. I realize this is a committee, but the issue comes from THe outcry that will happen when a players favorite piece is banned.

Personally i don't want to ban anything. That is part of the reason i joined this game, and i know that i am not alone. I played other games in the past that required you to cycle to the newest sets in order to play and i could not stand that. I have always been of the mindset that you should be able to play older pieces without being restricted. If a piece truly needs an errata then i am ok with something like that, but the purpose should never be to make a piece unplayable.

@countrydude82487,
That's an insightful perspective - the subjective/relativistic approach to what is "broken"
this is great stuff that might come up in local meta/pedagogy when familiarising new players with the game.


@jenari
well said
especially the reflection on TheHutts' comparative analysis on power levels - the VSets appear to be as internally consistent as the later WotC sets were, and are on average no more than 1 standard deviation more powerful than a randomly selected WotC piece.
The Legacy format is a pedagogical approach to introducing new players to the game in a 'level playing field' - theres an attempt to have sub-levels and sub tiers to prevent unintentional asymmetrical mismatches in squads that new players might make.
(to me, some of those mismatches are part of the fun, and teach good sportspersonship/conduct in the face of seemingly certain defeat, a kobayashimaru scenario if you will... )
I find that Dynamic Duos, with 50, 100, 150pts caps, a 2 piece squad, is a great way to introduce the game to people,
and I'll definitely be taking onboard all the ideas from the discussion here from Legacy and other formats.
We start out with a variety of 2 piece squads, and then we slowly add more pieces; this encourages the upto 2 activations per turn thinking, and gets players thinking about different plays that might come up - they view squads as 'squads within squads' and start to break down the opponent squads, while combining the 'Chess mentality' of thinking a few turns ahead.

Why are people reluctant to make a "WotC Remastered Set"?
cue tricorn hat/munchausen trilemma song; it would no longer be the original piece if people were to practice histrionics/revisionism,
though that's the beauty of 'personal cannon' and "the author is dead".

@all
Some questions that've arisen locally, from reflection on this thread (people locally reading it etc),
is reflection on the time limits for a game: is an hour too short for Regular 200? is an hour too long for Dynamic Duos? do people play with a clock as with Chess or Checkers (this question is increasingly being asked by Asianic persons when playing the game)?
I just think that more than 5mins per move is 'gaming the time limit', but a couple of minutes to think here or there is okay... this goes more to good sportspersonship and proper conduct.

and what to do in the event of a draw/'stalemate'? (ie, draw of victory points, draw of gambit points)?
- I've never had a situation where that many ties happen in a game. DCI used to have guidelines, that, and as a Chess Arbiter, there are methods to resolve ties (best 3 from 5 scissors paper rock, or 3 from 5 coin toss, or best 2 from 3 (calling odd or even) of D20 rolls). People can also forfeit/resign, or abstain from the tie breaking process.