I'll be TOing an Objectives Play tournament for my FLGS, and I'm giving consideration to a Banned and Modified cards list, and I'm looking for input.

Opinions are most valuable if you include an example of how the card you're nominating is particularly broken in Objectives Play. For example, the Trajectory Simulator and Minefield Mapper play exactly opposite the goals and intent of Objectives Play, by creating no-fly zones when Objectives Play is encouraging getting into the fight. TLT -- while arguably not a fun card -- doesn't give any particular advantage in Objectives Play.

So far I've got these, three of which are in the Objectives Play rules as banned (though I'm modifying one):

• Trajectory Simulator
• Han Solo pilot (TFA)
• Seismic Torpedoes - May not be used on obstacles that are also objectives; otherwise unrestricted
• Minefield Mapper - Bombs must be placed beyond Range 3 of objectives; otherwise unrestricted
• Captured TIE

Maybe Sabine crew? Could see her possibly granting a(n even) big(ger) advantage in Objectives Play

40 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

TLT -- while arguably not a fun card -- doesn't give any particular advantage in Objectives Play .

No, but that's because it provides great benefits in every possible game scenario. There is nothing particularly powerful about it that is unique to this game mode, but it is generally powerful.

OG jumpmaster wouldn't provide any special benefits to this game either, but that doesn't mean it would be balanced or fun.

Tobias Beckett.

If Huge ships are included:

Harpoon Missile, Cruise Missile (Huges pretty defenseless against them)

Fixed installations being attacked:

Cruise Missile (same, far too easy to set up as attack run)

6 hours ago, Jeff Wilder said:

• Trajectory Simulator
• Han Solo pilot (TFA)
• Seismic Torpedoes - May not be used on obstacles that are also objectives; otherwise unrestricted
• Minefield Mapper - Bombs must be placed beyond Range 3 of objectives; otherwise unrestricted
• Captured TIE

I think that list just about covers it. My FLGS ran an objectives tournament a while back with the same list (minus Seismics, which luckily the players also missed, and we just straight banned them all), and nothing else seemed to show up. Lt Dormitz letting ships deploy closer to the objectives than the opponent was attempted but didn't do particularly well; the two players who tried it went a combined 3-5. Nothing from Wave 14 leaps out to me as particularly problematic.

Has anyone tested objective play with TFA Han Solo? I mean, his ability is pretty awful in standard play... I just want a place for him. Would paying the value of original Hans ability to get a head start on positioning really just break everything?

im asking from a position of having never played objectives btw.

7 minutes ago, Kdubb said:

Has anyone tested objective play with TFA Han Solo? I mean, his ability is pretty awful in standard play... I just want a place for him. Would paying the value of original Hans ability to get a head start on positioning really just break everything?

im asking from a position of having never played objectives btw.

Same question applies for Lt. Dormitz.

Depends on which kind of objective is involved, I'd say. If there are certain distances to be covered within certain time limits, or certain points to be guarded, both are probably to be observed closely or banned.

15 minutes ago, Kdubb said:

Has anyone tested objective play with TFA Han Solo? I mean, his ability is pretty awful in standard play... I just want a place for him. Would paying the value of original Hans ability to get a head start on positioning really just break everything?

3 minutes ago, Managarmr said:

Same question applies for Lt. Dormitz.

Depends on which kind of objective is involved, I'd say. If there are certain distances to be covered within certain time limits, or certain points to be guarded, both are probably to be observed closely or banned.

Dormitz was used when my group last did objectives and wasn't that bad. He let the player get a head start, but they had to spend a bunch of points on an Upsilon that still suffered from its classic problems once the actual fight started, so the lead ended up not being decisive.

Han, meanwhile, isn't the dead weight that Dormitz is (as he's still a PS9 turret with all the toys) so his squad getting an early lead is quite a lot more game warping.

7 hours ago, Jeff Wilder said:

I'll be TOing an Objectives Play tournament for my FLGS, and I'm giving consideration to a Banned and Modified cards list, and I'm looking for input.

Opinions are most valuable if you include an example of how the card you're nominating is particularly broken in Objectives Play. For example, the Trajectory Simulator and Minefield Mapper play exactly opposite the goals and intent of Objectives Play, by creating no-fly zones when Objectives Play is encouraging getting into the fight. TLT -- while arguably not a fun card -- doesn't give any particular advantage in Objectives Play.

So far I've got these, three of which are in the Objectives Play rules as banned (though I'm modifying one):

• Trajectory Simulator
• Han Solo pilot (TFA)
• Seismic Torpedoes - May not be used on obstacles that are also objectives; otherwise unrestricted
• Minefield Mapper - Bombs must be placed beyond Range 3 of objectives; otherwise unrestricted
• Captured TIE

That list looks good, and is really the intent behind all of them. Captured TIE is a good addition - it would be added now, but waiting on second edition rules to just cleanly update everything.

Tobias beckett needs to be included as well, or things break in weird ways . But I don't think he has a first edition counterpart, right?

39 minutes ago, Brunas said:

Tobias beckett needs to be included as well, or things break in weird ways . But I don't think he has a first edition counterpart, right?

Right. It looks like the Scum Falcon isn't coming to 1.0 in any way whatsoever.

Which is probably for the best, as while I'm not sure if Timewalk Asajj and a Scum Falcon with Jabba crew would necessarily be broken given the overall state of the game, it would be all kinds of not fun to play against.

So are you keeping Objective in 1.0 territory or is this include 2.0 as well?

With 2.0 I think Objective play would fit extremely well with threat levels since it locks the upgrades with pilots. Sure minefield mapper (which isn't in 2.0 as far as I am aware of) could make objectives a pain but if it is attached to Deathrain that will make it so that you have to take Deathrain to get the upgrade and a lot of other players will have figured out a way to prepare for Deathrain and minefield mapping. In 1st edition you could put that on Nym which is something you would have taken and that would be lets call it Threat Level 7 broken.

13 hours ago, Jeff Wilder said:

So far I've got these, three of which are in the Objectives Play rules as banned (though I'm modifying one):

• Trajectory Simulator
• Han Solo pilot (TFA)
• Seismic Torpedoes - May not be used on obstacles that are also objectives; otherwise unrestricted
• Minefield Mapper - Bombs must be placed beyond Range 3 of objectives; otherwise unrestricted
• Captured TIE

The list looks good to me. Should get @Babaganoosh to take a look. He's better at finding broken combos for stuff.

6 hours ago, heychadwick said:

The list looks good to me. Should get @Babaganoosh to take a look. He's better at finding broken combos for stuff.

I think this list isn't missing anything

9 hours ago, Marinealver said:

So are you keeping Objective in 1.0 territory or is this include 2.0 as well?

With 2.0 I think Objective play would fit extremely well with threat levels since it locks the upgrades with pilots. Sure minefield mapper (which isn't in 2.0 as far as I am aware of) could make objectives a pain but if it is attached to Deathrain that will make it so that you have to take Deathrain to get the upgrade and a lot of other players will have figured out a way to prepare for Deathrain and minefield mapping. In 1st edition you could put that on Nym which is something you would have taken and that would be lets call it Threat Level 7 broken.

Talked to Farmer recently and I think we're both onboard to update it - but it will likely mean a complete rewrite of the rules, so might take a bit after we get the 2.0 rules. I'm hoping some of the consistency changes will make life much easier for us. And as far as I know, the ban list will only be Tobias Beckett, which probably means we can just make an unmovable property for objectives so he can't bamboozle. Though actually, he already has some pretty serious restrictions, so maybe it's fine? Will have to try to abuse it and see how it goes