Regarding characters- this quote is relevant too;



This is true- no squad's are unbeatable.

A good example is General Obi-Wan Kenobi, before he was banned from tournament play during the WoTC era, and then eventually errataed. Back then, the competitive game had devolved into GOWK squads and GOWK counter squads. GOWK was not unbeatable, but he created a state of competitive play that only 2 types of squads had a competitive chance- unless you and your opponent had a bout of extremely statistically unlikely good and bad luck. It was no fun and made the majority of the pieces in the game competitively unviable. It also made one of the primary rules (rolling attacks) an uncompetitive strategy. While I hated seeing him banned, it was necessary to have a healthy and fun competitive scene. Having GOWK banned/modified was not less fun than winning or losing solely based on luck , and shelving 99% of my collection because the pieces weren't worth the plastic and cardboard they were printed on.

Banning maps and pieces is also nothing new in the world of gaming and competitive scenes, and generally supports making a game more about the best tactical decision, understanding of rules, ability to pivot plans, and building a squad with versatility. Luck should play a part, but should not be the only strategy.

We also have the excellent benefit of removing bans or expanding them when the state of the game changes. The V-set created more solutions to deal with GOWK and SSM, and so the ban/changes to that piece were eventually lifted. Daala created a health issue for the game, and was removed. Now we have the 16 activation max limit, and it's caused the game to evolve again- we are discussing whether her ban should be lifted. These are good things, and keep the game interesting.

I can understand the frustration some experience. It sucks if your favorite squad gets nerfed. Luckily, something like 1% of SWM characters get this ruling treatment and the outcome is significantly more options to select from after.