You know, I really don't get the reluctance for using the term "power creep." The early uniques are much less powerful than the current releases, right? Can we all agree on that?

I get that some of the problem might be "over-costing" for the originals, and sure, that is a big part of it. If Vader were 10 points he would be used much more often.

But if we cannot justify taking one figure (or figures) because they are not worth their cost when compared to newer figures, that is what EVERYONE means by "power creep." No one is complaining about Bossk being completely unusable. Everyone is complaining about Vader and Han. It is not coincidence that the unusable uniques were released in earlier expansions, it's systemic. So the early stuff is not as useful as the newer stuff, and without a fix they will never be seen again. That's... like... the definition of power creep. (Is it just the fact that it only applies to the uniques????)

Power Creep by definition: Compare the current meta game to new releases. The new releases are better than the current meta => power creep. The new releases are not better than the current meta = > no power creep!

The majority of the older uniques NEVER have been part of the Meta. NEVER! The Meta was 9Act and Vader's Finest, then 4x4 (and some Sabs to conter 4x4), then Twins, variants of the Trooper spam and Bantha / Beast Machines. The only older unique I've seen win tournaments was Gideon.

Therefore, by definition, this is not power creep.

Actually, I think Han and Chewie were well designed cards, they just weren't designed point wise with Skirmish in mind.

Campaign either, as giving the Imperials 2 squads of Troopers will mean Han or Chewie gets brutally murdered in one round and the Imperials still have most of 2 squads of Troopers. So you could just say they weren't well designed period.

Power Creep by definition: Compare the current meta game to new releases. The new releases are better than the current meta => power creep. The new releases are not better than the current meta = > no power creep!

The majority of the older uniques NEVER have been part of the Meta. NEVER! The Meta was 9Act and Vader's Finest, then 4x4 (and some Sabs to conter 4x4), then Twins, variants of the Trooper spam and Bantha / Beast Machines. The only older unique I've seen win tournaments was Gideon.

Therefore, by definition, this is not power creep.

I think this is part of the problem. Competitive players apparently think that the competitive aspect of the game is all that matters. So no one ever used Han in the first place? Okay. Is Han a unique? Yes. Is DT a unique? Yes. Is DT more powerful/lowercost than Han? Yes. Is this a generalizable pattern for uniques from early boxes compared to newer boxes? Yes! That's power creep, at least in terms of uniques. Who cares if it affects the meta or not? The newer uniques are much better than the older ones.

So what we have is progressively better components which make the older UNIQUE components less effective or practical than they were. Call it whatever you want, but that is what most people are saying when they say power creep. I don't know why people have to argue about semantics rather than arguing the point, which is valid.

Power Creep by definition: Compare the current meta game to new releases. The new releases are better than the current meta => power creep. The new releases are not better than the current meta = > no power creep!

The majority of the older uniques NEVER have been part of the Meta. NEVER! The Meta was 9Act and Vader's Finest, then 4x4 (and some Sabs to conter 4x4), then Twins, variants of the Trooper spam and Bantha / Beast Machines. The only older unique I've seen win tournaments was Gideon.

Therefore, by definition, this is not power creep.

I think this is part of the problem. Competitive players apparently think that the competitive aspect of the game is all that matters. So no one ever used Han in the first place? Okay. Is Han a unique? Yes. Is DT a unique? Yes. Is DT more powerful/lowercost than Han? Yes. Is this a generalizable pattern for uniques from early boxes compared to newer boxes? Yes! That's power creep, at least in terms of uniques. Who cares if it affects the meta or not? The newer uniques are much better than the older ones.

So what we have is progressively better components which make the older UNIQUE components less effective or practical than they were. Call it whatever you want, but that is what most people are saying when they say power creep. I don't know why people have to argue about semantics rather than arguing the point, which is valid.

I see what you're saying, but I think almost everyone here agrees that Wave 1 (and some of 2) had poorly priced unique. Some people think that this is indicative of power creep. Others simply see it as a rough beginning to a game that has since then stayed relatively consistent and balanced.

Let's all circle up, join hands, and sing Pat Benatar's 1984 classic "We Belong Together", now.

Well aren't we dealing with different developers from stage to stage? I don't think the same people who were in charge of the game at the start are still making the decisions? If so that would definitely have some type of influence on the way things progress, doesn't matter what formula you use different users will net different results.

people are saying when they say power creep. I don't know why people have to argue about semantics rather than arguing the point, which is valid.

Because someone is wrong in the internet!

Say what you mean, don't try to get easy by borrowing a term that does not really describe what you mean.

Maybe you want to say that the figures no-one uses competitively anyway have even less probability to be used by people who don't play competitively when new figures that are priced more correctly are introduced. Is that it?

Pricing new figures incorrectly will not make the older figures any better or more used, so I rather have them priced correctly. And it is not power creep.

So what we have is progressively better components which make the older UNIQUE components less effective or practical than they were.

One one hand: The older Uniques always have been ZERO effective. It's just not possible to make them any less effective than that.

On the other Hand: You can still build a list from the core box and win a regional tournament with it. I did so last year.

I don't know why people have to argue about semantics rather than arguing the point, which is valid.

Errrr ... no, it isn't. And semantics is essential for any arguing, dicourse, debate, etc.

I think this is part of the problem. Competitive players apparently think that the competitive aspect of the game is all that matters. So no one ever used Han in the first place? Okay. Is Han a unique? Yes. Is DT a unique? Yes. Is DT more powerful/lowercost than Han? Yes. Is this a generalizable pattern for uniques from early boxes compared to newer boxes? Yes! That's power creep, at least in terms of uniques. Who cares if it affects the meta or not? The newer uniques are much better than the older ones.

So what we have is progressively better components which make the older UNIQUE components less effective or practical than they were. Call it whatever you want, but that is what most people are saying when they say power creep. I don't know why people have to argue about semantics rather than arguing the point, which is valid.

It's more than semantics when we are trying to hash out actual definitions of words - specifically "power creep".

"Call it whatever you want" doesn't work, as evidenced by this thread and many others, because everyone is putting forth their interpretation of what power creep "should mean to me" or else they're truly using a more or less accurate definition of the word. "What it means when I use the word" and "the definition of the word" aren't the same thing.

Watching this video really helped me get a better grasp on this issue - and they do a really good job of making the video entertaining

In the end, we're all getting a much better game with each release because nothing that has actually been viable is no longer viable. And some day, some of the stuff that's never been viable will likely become viable - whether through a direct errata/reprint/remake or indirect buffs. I wrote a lot about the history of why the core/wave 1/2 stuff was poorly designed in a post on this thread one page back for anyone that hasn't seen it.

In the end, we're all getting a much better game with each release because nothing that has actually been viable is no longer viable. And some day, some of the stuff that's never been viable will likely become viable - whether through a direct errata/reprint/remake or indirect buffs. I wrote a lot about the history of why the core/wave 1/2 stuff was poorly designed in a post on this thread one page back for anyone that hasn't seen it.

If that were the case, then people would still be winning competitions with the Twins, or the 4x4, or Vader's finest. That is not the case. So, yes, viable options have been replaced by other options. Some call this a "shifting meta", some call it other things. I like getting new stuff, and I agree that the old uniques are primarily over-costed. I would love to see them replaced with new cards with appropriate costs. But here is another site that discusses power creep : http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PowerCreep

You are all focusing on the fact that "the old uniques were never viable to begin with." That's a complete distortion of the truth. They could be placed in squads. That made them viable options . Did you win with them? Probably not, unless the OTHER player used similar troops. The fact that they were not part of the initial meta for competition means nothing. And the fact that the meta continuously changes to favor NEW products is exactly what power creep means. Are stormies still viable? Sure. Are trandoshans? Nope. But at one time they were. So even what you consider to be previously viable options have been replaced. So how is that not power creep?

In the end, we're all getting a much better game with each release because nothing that has actually been viable is no longer viable. And some day, some of the stuff that's never been viable will likely become viable - whether through a direct errata/reprint/remake or indirect buffs. I wrote a lot about the history of why the core/wave 1/2 stuff was poorly designed in a post on this thread one page back for anyone that hasn't seen it.

If that were the case, then people would still be winning competitions with the Twins, or the 4x4, or Vader's finest. That is not the case. So, yes, viable options have been replaced by other options. Some call this a "shifting meta", some call it other things. I like getting new stuff, and I agree that the old uniques are primarily over-costed. I would love to see them replaced with new cards with appropriate costs. But here is another site that discusses power creep : http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PowerCreep

You are all focusing on the fact that "the old uniques were never viable to begin with." That's a complete distortion of the truth. They could be placed in squads. That made them viable options . Did you win with them? Probably not, unless the OTHER player used similar troops. The fact that they were not part of the initial meta for competition means nothing. And the fact that the meta continuously changes to favor NEW products is exactly what power creep means. Are stormies still viable? Sure. Are trandoshans? Nope. But at one time they were. So even what you consider to be previously viable options have been replaced. So how is that not power creep?

You're just flat out stating lies and untruths. Han, Chewie etc. have NEVER been viable. The meta HASN'T "shifted to new units" as we just had the top two worlds with everything but 1 figure being from Hoth or before. And you know why the meta shifted from 4x4 and it had nothing to do with new units coming out, stop being dishonest.

So, someone above said Bossk is no longer viable? First, is this correct? Bossk was one of the new, supposed to be priced correctly figures. So if it is true that Bossk is not not viable, is it because he costs too much?

I've seen Han win Regionals and Store Champs before. Smuggler's Box is a decent list (at least before the latest Jabba wave), especially if you don't know how to play against it.

He might not be a "must take" unit, although I don't think anything apart from maybe Gideon/C3PO are must take units, but he's quite strong on certain maps and against certain lists.

I personally won a Regionals (17 players) with Twins back less than 2 months ago.

So, someone above said Bossk is no longer viable? First, is this correct? Bossk was one of the new, supposed to be priced correctly figures. So if it is true that Bossk is not not viable, is it because he costs too much?

Bossk is perfectly fine. No idea where that silly opinion comes from. Shyla is close to him in some ways and he might be a tad weaker now with only having 10 health, but he was borderline too strong before.

If anything, the recent points change has made all unique figures slightly better.

In the end, we're all getting a much better game with each release because nothing that has actually been viable is no longer viable. And some day, some of the stuff that's never been viable will likely become viable - whether through a direct errata/reprint/remake or indirect buffs. I wrote a lot about the history of why the core/wave 1/2 stuff was poorly designed in a post on this thread one page back for anyone that hasn't seen it.

If that were the case, then people would still be winning competitions with the Twins, or the 4x4, or Vader's finest. That is not the case. So, yes, viable options have been replaced by other options. Some call this a "shifting meta", some call it other things. I like getting new stuff, and I agree that the old uniques are primarily over-costed. I would love to see them replaced with new cards with appropriate costs. But here is another site that discusses power creep : http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PowerCreep

You are all focusing on the fact that "the old uniques were never viable to begin with." That's a complete distortion of the truth. They could be placed in squads. That made them viable options . Did you win with them? Probably not, unless the OTHER player used similar troops. The fact that they were not part of the initial meta for competition means nothing. And the fact that the meta continuously changes to favor NEW products is exactly what power creep means. Are stormies still viable? Sure. Are trandoshans? Nope. But at one time they were. So even what you consider to be previously viable options have been replaced. So how is that not power creep?

We're using different terms and definitions for them. Yes I said viable, I'm sorry. A better term for what I meant to say is cost effective, or efficient, or competitive - as relates to skirmish (we can even argue some for campaign as Union said above). But this is a point in favor of we can't just "call it whatever we want." That's all I'm getting at. Half of these discussions end up shooting right past each other arguing about different points the other isn't arguing.

I read the article you linked, and it's good. In fact, it even links to the Extra Credits video I linked above (and two more that flesh out the concept even more). But I'm convinced it doesn't describe what is actually happening in IA. They aren't just putting out sequels for sequels' sake and just shoveling out stuff that no one would care about if it didn't have "super powers." We didn't even really have that much variety in the Scum faction to have decent choices until Jabba's Realm came out. This game is two years old and just hitting its stride.

The main reason I want to refrain from using the term "power creep," in this situation, aside from that I don't think it's actually power creep in IA as much as finally bringing balance to the force (based off of the current developers expressly stated baseline units - E Storms and E Probe Droids). The main reason, is that power creep has such a negative connotation of "the sky is falling" or "this game is jumping the shark". When that is not what's happening in IA if we look at it from beginning to where we are now. I mean we've had errata's to specifically bring the power down not creep up. That's all I'm getting at

And Inquisitorsz said it, but I'll echo it, Bossk is perfectly fine. He's not auto include, but nothing should be - that'd be power creep. But he is efficient and worth bringing into the right lists or building around.

On a lighter note. Have any of you old farts like me ever seen the movie Heartbeeps. BT-1 reminds me of Crimebuster.

And Inquisitorsz said it, but I'll echo it, Bossk is perfectly fine. He's not auto include, but nothing should be - that'd be power creep. But he is efficient and worth bringing into the right lists or building around.

That sums up my whole argument. Nothing should be an auto include. I'm not really worried about Gideon and C3P0, but I would like to see a little more variety in that department. I'm just forever concerned because of other game systems, that you have waves of figures coming out that replace the ones out there, so they become little more than cheap collectables. I'm keen to see an errata the wave 1 figures because i hate the idea of new Han Solo, and new Vader, and new Chewbacca. Luke's arc in the films necessitated a second figure, there's not doubt about that.

If that were the case, then people would still be winning competitions with the Twins, or the 4x4, or Vader's finest. That is not the case.

4x4 and Vader's Finest both are not good anymore, because the Royal Guards and the Officers got a nerf, because they were overpowered in the first place. This has nothing to do with power creep.

Twins are still good. They are not THE meta anymore, because there are so many other great lists, that are as good. This is the exact opposite of power creep.

There have never been more viable figures in the game than there are right now.

I was going to list all the core and wave 1 figures that still good, then I realized it's most of them except uniques and even a few if those. The first wave had a mix of units that were OP, and units that were under powered/overcosted, with most units being somewhere in between. Even things you don't see in skirmish, like the eweb, have their uses, they are just too niche to fit in skirmish were you need to be versatile.

If you want power creep, look at xwing. Almost nothing from the first two waves are anything more than chump bait (which is a shame I enjoyed the control game using y wings with ion turrets). In ia though I could field a decent list with just the core box. Not the best maybe, but a pretty decent one.

I do agree about X-wing, and since it is the same company I'm vigilantly on guard for it to happen here. My problem is I'm jaded from other games, and I feel like it is inevitable. I hope I'm wrong.

I'm hoping they officially stop new development before that happens. A tv series you like ending before it turns to trash

I'm hoping they officially stop new development before that happens. A tv series you like ending before it turns to trash

As a campaign fan, I'm pretty comfortable with getting expansions for as long as I'm interested. I can always tune out if I ever get bored of it, and a constant stream of minis isn't a bad thing- I can use the ones I like, and the rest can just come in when they're starting groups or reserved. Like, I'm already never really planning on using the Ugnaughts again as open groups or Greedo as a villain, but I'm still glad to have them.

Though I get how competitive skirmish might want to keep the status quo in its golden age.