I don't think dropping YVW fixes anything... stops double from the Yuuzhan Vong Subaltern?
CE's for Warrior Caste Subcommander, Domain Shai Subaltern, and Domain Lah Subaltern are "name contains warrior"...
So dropping YVW doesn't prevent Domain Lah Warrior from getting Blast Bug or Charging or whatever...

@Jim, I forgot about your GC mouse dump. maybe because I only saw you do it once.
wasn't thinking of you at all when referring to mouse dumpers

ps-how's the hip?

Jack, you are a member of the playtest committee. You are part of the group responsible for that very playtesting. While I don't condemn any individual who isn't actively playtesting (though I have done an ample number in the past - I have been dormant for the last few sets) - I do question someone who is ON THE PLAYTEST COMMITTEE, not submitting regular playtests, and the complaining about the lack of playtesting.

Side note - I certainly applaud the very few people who are doing regular playlists (seriously - you guys rock!)

Jack - beyond the playtesting issues, your statement seems to imply that the designers (boys club as you refer to it) are all of one mind. This is far from true. You should know this - as you can see it firsthand as a PT Committee member. I don't think anyone who has seen the process can argue that there are many strong personalities in the group that have very different concepts of design. There have been quite a few behind-the-scenes fights over design process along the way. That is only speaking of what goes on during the design process. There are an even greater number of pieces that seem fine for a long time, because the abusive combos don't come to the surface for a long time.

We have only fairly recently started the balance committee, and we don't want to be in the habit of changing tons of pieces all the time. It takes a lot of people, continuously talking about and proving in game that something is an issue to really be considered to be changed.

Most all of the design team are competitive players. It SHOULD be the competitive players that bring these issues up. It was the competitive players that prompted the formation of the balance team, and the competitive players that urged them to make the changes that have been made.

So of COURSE it will be designers (at least in part) leading the charge to change pieces. Wouldn't it be worse if it were the other way around? If all the designers refused to change over powered pieces but continue to use them? I think using the pieces to PROVE they are broken is actually the best thing that any competitive player can do.

I used an Imp Governor double swap squad to make the top 8 last year while actively advocating changing the governor. A few years before that I used the crap outta the lancer, and then actively designed counters because I felt that it was too good, and was also an NPE for the community. In general when I design - I take the Robin Hood approach. What is good? Let's hurt it. What needs help? Let's boost it. But to be frank other designers don't do that. They take an approach more akin to -I like playing this type of squad. I'm gonna make pieces that are really good for that.- Not everyone designs the same way - and ultimately that's probably a good thing.

Many pieces we are still having problems with were made before the number of pieces per set were dropped. Then Dropped again. They were also during a tumultuous era where playtester/designer relations were tense and there was less collaboration.


Long story short - the process is far from perfect. Do we need more play testing? Yes, always. Even with 100x more play testing, not every mistake will be caught. The combos expand exponentially with every piece created, so really the task gets harder all the time. We do the best we can. We try and deal with things when we find a real problem. How do we know it's a real problem? By the number of voices adding support to it and the number of live game results. That's about all we have. It's easy to sit back and criticize. It's much more productive to contribute to the conversation in a meaningful way that might encourage positive change.

I'd love to play more, testing or otherwise.
however, I doubt if a game played by myself would produce decent results.
I need an opponent, and Vassell ain't gonna happen.

I can't think of anything else and no one has been talking about anything else.
Vong are the biggest "outliner" not yet addressed by the balance committee.

While I do think re-costing characters would be appropriate, another option would be to change the Warrior Caste Subcommander's CE.

Change WCS CE from "name contains" to "named" Yuuzhan Vong Warrior.
Then only the 8pt Yuuzhan Vong Warriors gain Blast Bug, Razorbug and Mobile Attack.

Then it would be more of a meta call to build them into your squad or bring them as reinforcements.

No, if the CE said "named" Yuuzhan Vong Warrior. Then only the 8pt YVW from Wizards UH and LOTF would be eligible for BB ect...

Another suggestion I've heard would be to change the CE to Unique YV allies whose names contain Warrior... so
Khalee Lah, Warrior Progeny Minos, Yuuzhan Vong Warrior Tsavong Lah, Warrior Elite...

Designers have been putting a lot of work into trying to make Vong Uniques playable so perhaps that would help... idk.
Anyways those are just suggestions for changes without re-costing characters.

The rules for Named/ Name Contains have been well established since Champions of the Force.
Prior to Champions of the Force there wasn't such a rules convention and there was confusion. For instance, on RS Mara's card "Hand of the Emperor" just says spend Emperor Palpatine's Force. So when Emperor Palpatine Sith Lord came out in ROTS there was debate on if it should be legal to use Hand of the Emperor since his name was different. The rules were clarified and anything after Champions of the Force follows the Named/ Name Contains convention.

The sets before Champions of the Force that do not use the Named/ Name contains convention and you treat them as "Name Contains."
For Instance, the Yuuzhan Vong Subaltern's commander effect says Allied Yuuzhan Vong Warriors. However, if you read the CE in bloomilk or Hand of the Emperor you will notice it says name contains, because the friendly guys at Bloo corrected it for you.

Named- means the character's must have that printed name exactly.
Name contains- means the character must have the named special ability or exactly that printed name within it's name.

It's in the Rule book and FAQ.


The issue with Aggressive Negotiations could be resolved if you to lose Diplomat when you cause Damage to an enemy.

I would say lose Diplomat when use a Replace Attacks ability but that would screw the Negotiation SA.

I was under the impression the SA was only adding onto the name not replacing it.

Ok, that makes sense then.. So you'd have to remove the YVW SA and change the Domain Lah Warrior's name for them to not be eligible for BB. Dang.