Rigged Detonators - remove “attacks and”
This covers some of Mira above I’m sure, but the SA is part of the issue.
It should only be for abilities, not attacks.
See this thread:
Mira - Rigged Detonators

That's a Map Commitee decision and I assure you that is being talked about

Yep, thanks Spry.

Gambit should not be scored for either player if both players have qualifying pieces in gambit.

http://www.bloomilk.com/Forums/default.aspx?g=posts&t=28681&p=4

The point of Gambit is to encourage engagement. Once both players have qualifying pieces in gambit, it has served it's purpose. The only thing continuing to score gambit in this scenario does is to end games prematurely. Games should be decided through engagement, not meaningless points stacking up.

Separating the "Balance Committee" into 2 distinct groups, since it is currently serving two separate roles.

http://www.bloomilk.com/Forums/default.aspx?g=posts&t=31455

Group 1 - The Design Balance Committee.
This would cover the Balance Committee's original purpose. They would be there to make sure character designs are "balanced" within the game. Or rather, making sure no piece puts the game out of balance. This is very important and necessary, and deserves its own focus. From the first post; *CotG 27 Admiral Daala , *ATTA 20 Jabba Desilijic Tiure, *LTA 32 Bib Fortuna, Majordomo, *SHA 35 Mira of Nar Shaddaa, and *CotG 60 Warrior Caste Subcommander would all be topics for their docket. I think there could be one or two others, but the list was fairly complete.

Group 2 - The Gameplay Balance Committee.
Very important decisions related to this matter have been handled by the balance committee, but the community would be better served having a committee with it's focus solely on those matters. Anything outside of specific character design balance issues related to gameplay would fall under their purview. From the initial post; *Limited reinforcement pool
*Stacking of Save modifiers , and *General Tournament Play and would all be topics for their docket. This list is of course woefully short, several topics that have have major discussion completely missing from this list. Whether by intent or not, this proves that these topics are not being given the weight and consideration they deserve. "General tournament play" is a overly generic catch-all that needs to be delineated out. Many more topics that need to be addressed are already listed in this thread and others. Changing to 5-3-1 Scoring, Gambit not scored for either player if both players have qualifying pieces in gambit, stacking of damage boosts, Games not ending before time when there are pieces left that can do damage for both players, are all very important topics that were not listed, proving that fair weight is not being given to them. There were 4 page, 5 page, and 6 page threads devoted to these topics, and they aren't even listed in the initial post here? This alone speaks to the need of a separate and independent Gameplay Balance Committee.



Separating into 2 distinct groups serves 2 purposes.
1. It gives more specific focus to each unique category.
2. It "Balances" the power into 2 groups, so that one group does not make all decisions alone for our community.


To be clear, I don't think anyone on the balance committee is trying to be the all-powerful arbiters of our game. That doesn't mean that it's still not best for the game to have 2 separate groups.

I think the best course of action would be to split the current members of the Balance Committee in half, the members themselves voting for who they think would be best in each group. In other words, instead of volunteering, their peers should be the ones to say where their strength lies. Then each group can add a few members through the same voting method we've had in the past.

I would actually make this more engaging by stating. Gambit is scored to the player with the Highest qualifying piece.

If I have my 51 pt main attacker, you shouldn't be able to shut it off with your squib trader. If you want to engage, then engage. Sticking a qualifying piece in gambit to shut off scoring so someone can take 3 rds to get into position isn't engaging. It's stalling and the person initiating Gambit with the higher qualifying piece should be rewarded.

The problem I could see with that is what if your opponent doesn’t have a 51 point piece? For example there are plenty of squads with the main attackers around the 30-40 point range, not to mention trooper type squads with their higher cost characters being more commanders then attackers. Just because someone throws out their 85 point Obi-kin, or 67 point Mando, doesn’t necessarily mean that their opponents with a 40 point Luke or 50 Yoda aren’t engaging.

This thread is not for discussion or debate over these topics or the Balance Committee itself.
If you are wanting to have a conversation go to a related thread or create a new one.
Thanks

Edited to "Changing Gambit"

I would recommend removing the errata on Director Orson Krennic and banning him.
I would recommend removing the errata on Togorian Black Sun Vigo and then banning him.
I would recommend removing the errata on Yun Ne'Shel Priest and then banning him.
I would recommend removing the errata on on Unkar Plutt and then banning him (floor rules fixed the Reserves issue).
I would recommend removing the errata on The Father (ban him if there's a combo worth banning).
I would recommend removing the errata on Suppressive Fire and then banning Morrigan Corde.

I would recommend removing the errata on Rigged Detonators.
I would recommend removing the errata on Eighth Cortex Shaper.
I would recommend removing the errata on Jango Fett, Mandalore.

All of the other changes either have a printed errata card, are just a cost change, or are just a glossary/floor rules change.