I guess this is the part I strongly disagree with: the "Now". The MTB shuts down almost all of these squads more completely than Unkar and the floor rules do, and the MTB has always been there. These squads have always had an auto-loss to virtually any squad with Lobot. If you were willing to risk those auto-losses before, Unkar by himself doesn't make the situation any worse because a Lobot player coming up against those squads should take MTB with 4 activations over Unkar anyway. So if the issue were just Unkar (without the new floor rule), why not continue to play them?

As far as the floor rule - Jason's squad breaks things. We need either the new floor rule or a ban of Pong Krell*. Between the new floor rule and ban of Pong Krell, I'm not sure which I prefer. Jason's squad is so broken that I'm not sure you couldn't pull off something similar without Pong. Not *as* broken, of course, but maybe still be broken. His genius move wasn't pairing Kazdan and Pong - plenty of people thought of that. It was using his own MTB to make it playable... and then directly from playable to broken. We haven't really seen anyone try that same technique in a non-Pong Krell context, so hopefully no other broken combos, but that was so bad that who knows?

On the other hand, if we went the other way (i.e. drop the new floor rule and ban Pong Krell), seems like that would make for a happier community. At least initially. Unless it turns out another broken Reserves combo (doubling up) is waiting out there.


*(Please - no errata for Pong. As much as possible, no more errata. Too many cards have errata already - if something is a problem just ban it. Bring it back later if enough counters for it come out.)

I'll differ with you on these two. Glossary updates are fine. The glossary often (even in WotC days) has been used to clarify a card, sometimes with an extra condition - something like Lightsaber Assault needing to be adjacent. If an errata can be issued that is just a glossary update (without requiring any change to the card), that's an ideal solution. Similarly, floor rules are like an addition to the rulebook and only for tournaments, so they don't imply a contradiction to a card. Most floor rules don't reference a card anyway, and if a floor rule does reference a card, the physical card *shouldn't* be changed anyway because (a) the floor rule could easily revert in the next season, and (b) outside of a tournament you shouldn't use the floor rule (even though most all of us do anyway).

It's the card errata that bothers me... I actually don't have any issue with any of the individual decisions. Balance committee has done a good job, I think, with making changes that are good ideas and make each card (on its own) better. It's that there are too many of them when taken all together. Almost every card designed could in retrospect be improved, but very few should actually be changed. We should be able to look at the cards and know what's going on - with the glossary to clarify things when necessary.

I agree that some glossary changes are ok, but others I feel are just hidden errata. Same with floor rules changes. I’ve never bought into the whole “well it only applies to tournaments” line because the vast majority of games are played with the tournament floor rules. For example, I think Mouse Droids getting Diminuitive might as well be errata. I don’t think there is a material difference between that and, say, the Klat Assassin increased cost.

Either way, point is, the cards should do what they say and say what they do as often as possible.

GG,

Looking at those squads, I think some of them are still as playable now (versus Unkar and the floor rule change) as they were before. But I guess there's still the question of how you define "playable".

This seems like an open shut case. Why are people still trying to argue against us? Because its your decision and you want to keep it that way? I agree with GG.

Ban Pong, Ban Unkar