I know that there have been a number iterations if this type of game, so forgive me if this one has been “played” already.
Here is the rule: By ONLY either adding or removing a single sentence or symbol from an existing card, how can you make a “Meh” card much better. No adjusting points, reworking the entire card, etc...

I’ll start:

Add on to Garm’s text “Your ships can be have the number of command tokens of any type equal your command value plus 1”.

This simple adjustment that gives Garm better value at 25 points.

Your turn:

Sensor Team:

Remove “spend 1 die.” You could actually flak a scatter ace. Or guarantee your desperately needed accuracy.

Well, since you beat me to Garm, I'll go with my other pet project, Tagge!

If it doesn't have to be full sentences and we can just remove a couple word then:

Quote

At the start of the third round and the fifth round, each friendly ship may recover its discarded defense tokens.

I mean, that might just be because I keep forgetting it's only one and burn through my tokens too quickly... But whose fault is that? Oh, mine.

Alternative for a full sentence change:

Quote

At the start of the third round and the fifth round, each friendly ship may recover 1 of its discarded defense tokens. When a friendly ship recovers a discarded defense token it may recover up to 2 shields in 1 hull zone.

A little extra resilience and encourages more of Tagge's attrition play. Get in there, start taking the hits and out-last them across the whole fleet.

I have thought of ways to improve Tagge as well, and it is NOT easy. Even keeping to the spirit of the ability, the best I came up with was put 2 objective tokens on him at the start of the game and remove one at the beginning of the round to “activate” his written ability. Not sure if that control makes him good enough, but it would be better.

really feel this should have the engineering activation symbol removed and replace point with value. You are playing 5 points and giving up a support spot. How broken is 5 engineering value?

Maybe it would be broken but...

At the start of each Status Phase, for each enemy ship at distance 1-5 of at least 2 friendly medium or large ships, you may increase or decrease that enemy ship's speed by 1.

9 minutes ago, Back Seat Admiral said:

really feel this should have the engineering activation symbol removed and replace point with value. You are playing 5 points and giving up a support spot. How broken is 5 engineering value?

If you are repairing you’re going to be using an engineering command no matter what. Increasing the value instead of giving a point could make it worse when using a token. For example, if the written engineering value is 3, you get 2 engineering points with a token. If the value increases to four you still get two with a token. If it’s an additional point you now get 3 points instead of two with a token. Also, by increasing the value you make boarding engineers more powerful, which could be beneficial, but flipping 5 face-down cards face up , oof.

37 minutes ago, Back Seat Admiral said:

I have thought of ways to improve Tagge as well, and it is NOT easy. Even keeping to the spirit of the ability, the best I came up with was put 2 objective tokens on him at the start of the game and remove one at the beginning of the round to “activate” his written ability. Not sure if that control makes him good enough, but it would be better.

Make him a reverse Palpatine. He gets one of each token, and at the beginning of each turn he can place one token on one ship or squad that discarded it the previous turn.

2 hours ago, bkcammack said:

Sensor Team:

Remove “spend 1 die.” You could actually flak a scatter ace. Or guarantee your desperately needed accuracy.

It seems fair, what with you using up your Weapons Team slot. Plus, Weapons Battery Techs does exactly that but for crits. Maybe specify blue dice only? That would reduce the overpowery of it.

Sato, before to whilst

Easy

remove “a ship” from the fourth line starting from below.

to be honest Spanish translators beat me on this one,

Remove "at close range" and then it's a much better card.

For real! I don’t even know why they had that in there. Even without it, it is an okay card, but not an auto include by any stretch.

8 hours ago, Back Seat Admiral said:

For real! I don’t even know why they had that in there. Even without it, it is an okay card, but not an auto include by any stretch.

It is a wave 1 card so you have to consider that every ship had blue die for flak, Dominator was relatively playable and there wasn't as many aces as there are these days.

This card increases 50% chance of hitting to 62,5% which is a fairly ok, and it does for every blue die (GSDII, Neb, Dominator, Mark). Today might not look scary and they could probably make that change but during the wave 1 squadrons already struggled, to increase the flak efficiency would have hurt them a lot.

But now with Ravager out, PDR would be too good without the restriction.

Two possibilities to make Cluster Bombs better:

" Before a squadron performs an attack against you, you may discard this card to roll 4 blue dice. That squadron suffers 1 damage for each hit or critical icon rolled."

or

"After a squadron performs an attack against you, even if you are destroyed, you may exhaust this card to roll 4 blue dice. That squadron suffers 1 damage for each hit or critical icon rolled."

On 6/11/2020 at 6:08 AM, Admiral Calkins said:

Two possibilities to make Cluster Bombs better:

" Before a squadron performs an attack against you, you may discard this card to roll 4 blue dice. That squadron suffers 1 damage for each hit or critical icon rolled."

or

"After a squadron performs an attack against you, even if you are destroyed, you may exhaust this card to roll 4 blue dice. That squadron suffers 1 damage for each hit or critical icon rolled."

Theory of Three Concludes that it’s on par with every Retrofit that isn’t ECM/EWS.

Argument there to be made is that you make as minimal changes to a set to balance it, so it’s better to Nerf ECM/EWS than to boost AP/Clusters/Redundant/RBD to match.

akrhough if you do clusters, you gotta do the rest too 😁

1 hour ago, Drasnighta said:

Theory of Three Concludes that it’s on par with every Retrofit that isn’t ECM/EWS.

Argument there to be made is that you make as minimal changes to a set to balance it, so it’s better to Nerf ECM/EWS than to boost AP/Clusters/Redundant/RBD to match.

akrhough if you do clusters, you gotta do the rest too 😁

IMO, I don't think it is on par with every other defensive retrofit (that isn't ECM/EWS) though because of where those three are going. Just as an example, Reinforce Blast Doors, which is the same cost as Cluster Bombs and follows the theory of three, is used to keep a ship alive a little longer or for it to get away without being destroyed. If you are using RBD with the latter tactic, you are essentially using it to try to save a 59-point ship (Imperials; Arquitens Light Cruiser w/ RBD) or a 44-point ship (Rebels; CR90B w/ RBD) in lieu of choosing Cluster Bombs, rolling four hits, and destroying a 20-point squadron (Imperials; Dengar or Whisper) or a 22-point squadron (Rebels; Ketsu Onyo). Just my thoughts on it.

25 minutes ago, Admiral Calkins said:

IMO, I don't think it is on par with every other defensive retrofit (that isn't ECM/EWS) though because of where those three are going. Just as an example, Reinforce Blast Doors, which is the same cost as Cluster Bombs and follows the theory of three, is used to keep a ship alive a little longer or for it to get away without being destroyed. If you are using RBD with the latter tactic, you are essentially using it to try to save a 59-point ship (Imperials; Arquitens Light Cruiser w/ RBD) or a 44-point ship (Rebels; CR90B w/ RBD) in lieu of choosing Cluster Bombs, rolling four hits, and destroying a 20-point squadron (Imperials; Dengar or Whisper) or a 22-point squadron (Rebels; Ketsu Onyo). Just my thoughts on it.

That compari isn't fair. Your comparing what you have with RBD against what you kill with CB. Dras point is that CB preven the same amount of damage to the ship. Roughly speaking by killing a bomber three rounds in advance it is preventing three damage onto your ship. That why it is on pair with RBD. Once you've done that you may check if thosebthree dmg were enough to keep your ship safe. If yes, RBD saved you the point cost of the ship they are on; CB did the same plus the extra of the killing. If no, RBD saved nothing, just as CB, but at least CB gave you 10 extra points. You can't compare a situation where the ship with RBD survived and the ship with CB didn't. That way of course RBD looks better, as CB would do the other way around.

That said I'm not sure I would agree with the CB being on par, however I agree there may be some kind of perception bias as with RBD you see the damage it is saving, while with CB you don't. That also happen with obstruction effects which really prevent a lot of damage.

2 hours ago, Drasnighta said:

akrhough if you do clusters, you gotta do the rest too 😁

Here we go!

RBD: remove "facedown"

Redundant Shields: remove "Status"

Advanced Projectors: remove xi7 XD

Honestly AP is a hard one with the OP rules. It's already a great defensive retrofit. It's problem mostly comes from xi7 effect.

39 minutes ago, Admiral Calkins said:

IMO, I don't think it is on par with every other defensive retrofit (that isn't ECM/EWS) though because of where those three are going. Just as an example, Reinforce Blast Doors, which is the same cost as Cluster Bombs and follows the theory of three, is used to keep a ship alive a little longer or for it to get away without being destroyed. If you are using RBD with the latter tactic, you are essentially using it to try to save a 59-point ship (Imperials; Arquitens Light Cruiser w/ RBD) or a 44-point ship (Rebels; CR90B w/ RBD) in lieu of choosing Cluster Bombs, rolling four hits, and destroying a 20-point squadron (Imperials; Dengar or Whisper) or a 22-point squadron (Rebels; Ketsu Onyo). Just my thoughts on it.

I mean, I did the math as part of my justification 😁

5 minutes ago, ovinomanc3r said:

Redundant Shields: remove "Status"

That’s... 4 shields per turn? At least?

Command/Ship/Squad/Status?

1 hour ago, Drasnighta said:

That’s... 4 shields per turn? At least?

Command/Ship/Squad/Status?

I think so 😍

50 minutes ago, ovinomanc3r said:

I think so 😍

Make it a discard at the beginning of the turn and then it's a really fun card. You have heaps of shields coming, but not all at once - can you get your shields up fast enough to keep the ship alive before it gets killed?

"Blue : You may exhaust this card to discard 1 of the defender's tokens."