Lets try and keep this as civil as possible, would love to hear discussion on SHNN on the subject. It's a topic that I would love to hear all current competitive players opinions, as to why it's either a good idea, or a bad idea.

Def an interesting topic, but how would one go about picking which pieces to ban? Since there doesn't seem to be any one squad or piece dominating the meta, I don't see the reason to ban a piece.

No anger at the Vsets, at least not on my part.

I think a less drastic approach to problem pieces is revising them rather than banning them.

+10

Errata/revising needs to be limited to typos and common sense stuff that everyone was already doing anyway.

Another regional ends and this topic reappears. Coincidence?

I think that the better option is to continue to develop pieces that help keep issues in check. For example, GAWK was originally banned from play. But, thanks to various autodamage effects, SSM was eventually reduced in usefulness to the point that he was allowed back in.

I think that this should be the goal of the v-sets, to continue to create balance in the force.

That being said, if a piece truly is broken, i'd say banning it is a better option then nerfing it, as it creates confusion... the cards really are what allow the game to be played, and modifying the text on these is a bad idea.

I have yet to find a single piece that even a majority claims is broken. Yes, gha n., mice, bastilla, poggle, and windu are all very powerful, but its not the majority who says they are broken. There will always be players who think a piece needs to be banned, or an ability errate'd. Every time a set was released by WOTC, there were those who claimed the sky was falling. But if you look at history; is Thrawn broken? Is Boba Bounty Hunter Broken? GGDAC? Lancers? Not by today's standards. They're good, but people aren't shaking their fists at the SWM heavens over them anymore. The game evolved, and i think the pieces people have problems with now will resolved with each additional set. That is the nature of any competitive game. People are going to find combos that are brutal, and then the game designers counter it so that life can go on.

I was on the fence about this issue for a long time. I've talked with a lot of gamers about this very issue. I have a lot of thoughts on the subject. I'll post a few of my personal thoughts, you don't have to agree, or whatever. This is just where I'm coming from.

I've been involved with Vsets for a long time, playtesting, playtesting committee. I talk with a large portion of the designers on a daily basis, so I know the ins and outs of the designing process. I know the brick wall they run into, by having to design around certain pieces. Such as Imps with Thrawn. You HAVE to design around him. 32 points, Master Tact, Boardwide swap when you Include Mas. Each faction has cornerstone pieces like this. How great would it be, to say, well he has had his run, lets ban him from competitive play. That opens up so many fresh and exciting possibilities. Which is something the game needs at this point. Now all of a sudden as a designer you are freed up to make a lot more for the Imperial Faction, a couple sets later you can even make a new Thrawn, (I'm a big fan of the character loved the Thrawn Trilogy) and as a player banning pieces stimulates new squad ideas.

I'm not bringing this up to get any one piece out of the game, or anything like that, or to complain at the Vset Designers, I think they have done a wonderful job. I'm a pro Vset guy. Don't believe me, ask any number of the designers, I do anything I can to make their job easier.

It's getting to the point in the game where 3 point wins are not so common anymore. As a designer they are faced with "Do we hand out more ways to ignore abilities like Parry/Makashi/Evade/Soresu/Stealth etc, via Overwhelming Power/Force, Brutal Strike, Supressive Fire, and hear people complain about us handing that out like candy, and continue this power creep in the game (I can't think of any one gamer who enjoys these abilities because everyone wants to be able to have a chance to protect their pieces), or do we start to let these power house pieces have their run in the game and then cycle them out. Tournament play is very much an aspect I think about and look at with this topic.

Anyways these are just some of my thoughts on the subject.

I can't see banning anything (for me and the people I play with at least). Pieces aren't really all that strong by themselves, the big part is squad synergy. Mace is strong, very strong even. But he isn't over the top awesome sauce unless he's getting a boost from GOWK or a Damage pump from General Skywalker. You can apply that to most things. Team synergy is what makes pieces appear better than they are. Once you start considering synergy some really good ways to shut them down are Disruptive to counter CE's, Ysalamiri to counter force powers, and silver bullets (Dr E > SSM).

And for your Thrawn argument I'll just say this

Imperials:Thrawn/Mas sometimes Pelleaon
Rebels:Dodonna
NR:Dodonna/Ganner
Vong:Yommask
Sith:Jaq
Old Republic: Bastilla
Republic: Doombot
Seps: GGDAC/Whorm
Fringe: Lobot

Wouldn't you almost always play those factions with those pieces? Sure you can get away with not doing it. But using those pieces makes every single team in those factions better.

SOME PIECES ARE JUST GOOD AND THAT'S OKAY.

Here's the thing, banning is only necessary if there is a problem. Banning is not a solution for design. If the power pieces are a detriment to a designer, then they are frankly an uncreative designer. Sadly, I think there is a bit of a lack of creativity in design, with too much focus on the top tier stuff. Less powerful, but more focused on the lesser tiers, are great options.