Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Yeah, point costs will need fiddling, but given the point framework they are using that is actually fairly easy once you get down to it.

And I will give these rules one thing. It used to take me 5-10 minutes to wind through the byzantine options and create a single squad with some diversity to it. I've been building a few 50 point test lists and they have all gone together incredibly fast. Just plug in the units I want, take the variants and at the end, any left-overs can be tweaked with generic options.

It felt really fast and clean but still felt like it was giving me interesting choices. And hurray for being able to have small games again. This just drove the start up cost waaaaaaaaaay down. No more futzing about with priority and minimum limits on slots, etc. And removing the mandatory TV tax on Commanding Officers has helped a lot (how many CEF players spent hours juggling points only to reach the end and realize they didn't save enough for the damn CO...).

Now you can actually just grab a squad box and use it in a game without having to hack the army creation rules.

This is, so far, probably the best change they could have made. Now, just need to make sure 50TV games actually result in some fun and we're cooking with jet fuel.

Oh and I still hate the PRDF power armor. Why do they have equal stats compared to FLAIL infantry? And at like 3 points less, and they come with better weapons by default. (Oh the FLAILs get one more action, so there is that)

The army building is indeed much simpler and improved but it's also very prone to abuse when you have such (at least from my preliminary scan) differences between same value units that are so one sided (as opposed to comparing a FS gear to a light tank which are quite different).

 warboss wrote:
The army building is indeed much simpler and improved but it's also very prone to abuse when you have such (at least from my preliminary scan) differences between same value units that are so one sided (as opposed to comparing a FS gear to a light tank which are quite different).

Yeah, it's a double edged sword. Because it's so loosey goosey, one can pile on the unbalanced units. On the other hand, it's so loose and low points that it's pretty easy to see where things are not balanced. Hopefully that means that the playtesters will all find things like the Jager with a MAC costing the same as a Sidewinder.

Oh, definitely, point values need cleaning up. But HGB has previously been just as unbalanced despite having the most headache inducing army creation system ever. So as I see it, they've improved ease of actually getting in to the game. Point values can and will (hopefully) change a lot over the course of testing. But getting such a streamlined structure down for list creation means that getting a test game in wont make me want to cause harm to myself.

It also has the added bonus of not obfuscating a unit's actual cost behind a wall stepped upgrades. So there will be less instances of people not noticing a daft cost because it had a serpentine upgrade path.

Streamlined structure makes for streamlined testing makes for better testing. I think the army creation system and general presentation just makes actually playing the game to test it so much easier. This is the kind of system the game has been looking for for a while. The traps and point inconsistencies existed before, but now they are incredibly easy to spot once you get dozens of pairs of eyes on 'em (and even harder to dispute due to the point values being used - I doubt anyone would defend the Hunter/Jäger Gunner cost when comparing it to other 8-pointers).

If this playtest actually takes internal and external feedback seriously, there is no reason we can't get a good enough balance going now. It definitely isn't there yet and will need way more testing before it is ready to even stamp Beta on its name, but if the designers are willing to listen to the community this time around, I think we have the right structure in place to make fixes and changes as painless as possible. At the very least, 2015 is still a while off and I think this is a pretty good showing for an early draft. Now they just need to keep at it and keep fixing things that don't work and using the things that do as examples for the rest.

One could also implement some sort of rarity system, to prevent some insane spams. Just a simple limit on number of models per force, which can be adjusted by sub-factions (IE, NorLight forces can get many more cheetahs, reduced number of something else, like Arrow Jaguars)
So, like for every some-number of TV, you can only have up to X Mambas, Y Iguanas, Z Cobras...

The values can be fairly high. If you have 10 gears, you likely don't need 8 of them to be a very specific model of Cobra.

It also does grant some degree of value to 'utterly redundant' units like say, the Dingo. Instead of just being worse than a Koala for the same cost, it now replaces Koala #4 and 5, if you are only allowed 3x Koalas.

I believe the rules even talk about availability limits being a thing. My guess is that they just aren't in this early draft yet (well it might be, haven't looked at every list yet).

Well, looking at the dp9 public alpha test forums, Blazing Mambas were an accidental omission. While I'm disheartened that they somehow forgot one of the more popular Mambas (Do they have no South playtesters?), I am however, happy to see Dave engaging and reacting.

In their defence (which is rare coming from me), the playtesting to date (when it was being done prior to LAST gencon after which the official mailing list was largely abandoned by dp9) was mainly about getting the basic mechanics to work and not unit vs unit or model testing.

Yeah, with a ruleset in this current state, unit v unit is not the point quite yet.

Just worry about the core mechanics, their flow, and fundamental game balance in terms of overall mechanics. (Ie, is 'Stealth' good or bad or OP,)

I haven't yet finished the files, but if any of you were wondering if DP9 is going to value balancing more, here's the answer :

Yes, not all upgrades are equal between factions. This is a reality that will be emphasized by the play test. You might notice that Peace river has cheap upgrades and some really bonkers guns. Might have something to do with who they are as a faction.

http://dp9forum.com/index.php?showtopic=15888&p=279713

So, the rules might have improved, and we know who to thank for that, but the DP9 attitude remains...

 HudsonD wrote:
I haven't yet finished the files, but if any of you were wondering if DP9 is going to value balancing more, here's the answer :

Yes, not all upgrades are equal between factions. This is a reality that will be emphasized by the play test. You might notice that Peace river has cheap upgrades and some really bonkers guns. Might have something to do with who they are as a faction.

http://dp9forum.com/index.php?showtopic=15888&p=279713

So, the rules might have improved, and we know who to thank for that, but the DP9 attitude remains...

I'd be okay with that if for example, PRDF base models were more expensive or they had some other form of disadvantage that made up for the fact that they can get weapon upgrades for cheaper. But, looking at the list, it currently doesn't appear that way. Granted, so far, the main problem that stands out glaringly is that 2TV MAC upgrade for Polar trooper gears.

EDIT: Also, PRDF is getting a crap ton of new models, and dammit all, why is it every damned new faction is getting a walker with Hover?

ferrous wrote:

 HudsonD wrote:
I haven't yet finished the files, but if any of you were wondering if DP9 is going to value balancing more, here's the answer :

Yes, not all upgrades are equal between factions. This is a reality that will be emphasized by the play test. You might notice that Peace river has cheap upgrades and some really bonkers guns. Might have something to do with who they are as a faction.

http://dp9forum.com/index.php?showtopic=15888&p=279713

So, the rules might have improved, and we know who to thank for that, but the DP9 attitude remains...

I'd be okay with that if for example, PRDF base models were more expensive or they had some other form of disadvantage that made up for the fact that they can get weapon upgrades for cheaper. But, looking at the list, it currently doesn't appear that way. Granted, so far, the main problem that stands out glaringly is that 2TV MAC upgrade for Polar trooper gears.

Agreed. If they are exactly the same, they should not cost differently because you say so.

EDIT: Also, PRDF is getting a crap ton of new models, and dammit all, why is it every damned new faction is getting a walker with Hover?

To that question, and to a lot of others, like:

Why the "special" costs to PRDF?
Why all the 0TV upgrades?
Why Gearstriders?
Why "MECHA"?

the answer seems to be along the lines of "because **ck you, that's why", so... <shrug>

EDIT: The good thing, though, is that I don't really care about the army lists at all. If they work, great, but if they don't... meh, with a workable enough core, I'll redo them myself. It's not like I'm ever going to play an official tournament, so I really could not care less.

Albertorius wrote:

ferrous wrote:

 HudsonD wrote:
I haven't yet finished the files, but if any of you were wondering if DP9 is going to value balancing more, here's the answer :

Yes, not all upgrades are equal between factions. This is a reality that will be emphasized by the play test. You might notice that Peace river has cheap upgrades and some really bonkers guns. Might have something to do with who they are as a faction.

http://dp9forum.com/index.php?showtopic=15888&p=279713

So, the rules might have improved, and we know who to thank for that, but the DP9 attitude remains...

I'd be okay with that if for example, PRDF base models were more expensive or they had some other form of disadvantage that made up for the fact that they can get weapon upgrades for cheaper. But, looking at the list, it currently doesn't appear that way. Granted, so far, the main problem that stands out glaringly is that 2TV MAC upgrade for Polar trooper gears.

Agreed. If they are exactly the same, they should not cost differently because you say so.

EDIT: Also, PRDF is getting a crap ton of new models, and dammit all, why is it every damned new faction is getting a walker with Hover?

To that question, and to a lot of others, like:

Why the "special" costs to PRDF?
Why all the 0TV upgrades?
Why Gearstriders?
Why "MECHA"?

the answer seems to be along the lines of "because **ck you, that's why", so... <shrug>

EDIT: The good thing, though, is that I don't really care about the army lists at all. If they work, great, but if they don't... meh, with a workable enough core, I'll redo them myself. It's not like I'm ever going to play an official tournament, so I really could not care less.

So far I didn't see an answer to my follow up question of "If they get upgrades cheaper and gonzo choices as a faction strength, what are their faction weaknesses?". When I asked something similar after the release of the Paxton PDF in relation to the relative crapping on the South got, the offical playtesting channel answer I got was variety and choice. Yes, why paxton only gets free skill boosts, common gear stat boosts, lower cost weapon upgrades, and multiple free special rules... it's ok because the South's special ability is the option for you to buy more models that may have different options. Ughh... If and when the north PDF comes out, I'll be able to elaborate on the discussion on fairness between factions a bit more. Out of curiosity, does anyone know what faction Robert Dubois plays or used to play/favor?

I only cherry picked a few examples (the warrior is my pet peeve from the recent paxton release and a prime example of favoritism for certain factions whereas the cheetah is a glaring change that I brought up unsuccessfully on the playtesting lists amongst other things) but I'll go over them a bit more in the coming week as the focus previously was not on the models/factions but core rules.

 warboss wrote:

So far I didn't see an answer to my follow up question of "If they get upgrades cheaper and gonzo choices as a faction strength, what are their faction weaknesses?". When I asked something similar after the release of the Paxton PDF in relation to the relative crapping on the South got, the offical playtesting channel answer I got was variety and choice. Yes, why paxton only gets free skill boosts, common gear stat boosts, lower cost weapon upgrades, and multiple free special rules... it's ok because the South's special ability is the option for you to buy more models that may have different options. Ughh...

If and when the north PDF comes out, I'll be able to elaborate on the discussion on fairness between factions a bit more.

Don't jinx it !

 warboss wrote:

Out of curiosity, does anyone know what faction Robert Dubois plays or used to play/favor?

As far as I know, none.

 warboss wrote:
Out of curiosity, does anyone know what faction Robert Dubois plays or used to play/favor?

Last time I saw him play a game at Gen Con ti was a Southern tank/strider-heavy army, I believe. That was probably 3-4 years ago, though.

Thanks. I was curious if there was more than one source of Paxton favoritism over at DP9.

In any case, the more I look at the gears (especially the aforementioned cheetah and warrior), the more disappointed I am that history will repeat itself just with an incompatible ruleset invalidating all bought books. Since I was a playtester, most of the mechanics aren't new to me but I'll be giving the files a better look over this weekend. The core rules do have alot of promise as do the more open army building rules but that openness just exacerbates inequities between model builds.

 warboss wrote:
Thanks. I was curious if there was more than one source of Paxton favoritism over at DP9.

In any case, the more I look at the gears (especially the aforementioned cheetah and warrior), the more disappointed I am that history will repeat itself just with an incompatible ruleset invalidating all bought books. Since I was a playtester, most of the mechanics aren't new to me but I'll be giving the files a better look over this weekend. The core rules do have alot of promise as do the more open army building rules but that openness just exacerbates inequities between model builds.

That's actually a good thing, as I can certainly do some lists to show it. And hammer it down as many times as it's needed.

Just as a quick note, thanks for people like Albertorious (and others) who went back to the dp9forums to give their views on the HGBAlpha.

I have no special input into development, but I will do my best to not block, delete comment, or otherwise impede reasoned discussion on the dp9 forums.

(Check out my posts... I have a number of issues as well, albeit more with presentation and canon at this point.)

I appreciate it. I've never had an issue with the moderation on the forums.

So far I didn't see an answer to my follow up question of "If they get upgrades cheaper and gonzo choices as a faction strength, what are their faction weaknesses?". When I asked something similar after the release of the Paxton PDF in relation to the relative crapping on the South got, the offical playtesting channel answer I got was variety and choice. Yes, why paxton only gets free skill boosts, common gear stat boosts, lower cost weapon upgrades, and multiple free special rules... it's ok because the South's special ability is the option for you to buy more models that may have different options. Ughh... If and when the north PDF comes out, I'll be able to elaborate on the discussion on fairness between factions a bit more. Out of curiosity, does anyone know what faction Robert Dubois plays or used to play/favor?

I only cherry picked a few examples (the warrior is my pet peeve from the recent paxton release and a prime example of favoritism for certain factions whereas the cheetah is a glaring change that I brought up unsuccessfully on the playtesting lists amongst other things) but I'll go over them a bit more in the coming week as the focus previously was not on the models/factions but core rules.

Don't forget you were also told the Leadership upgrade was because all the Southern factions have generally poor leadership, while it's a big part of the PRDF.

I am still trying to get a good answer on the Black Box Iggy, his answer that the Blazing Mamba got omitted was weird, then the stats posted for it had it equipped with a MRP. I know issues about the Blazing Mamba's cost have always been off, but stating the Water Dragon is not a support strider is also weird.

Balance wrote:Just as a quick note, thanks for people like Albertorious (and others) who went back to the dp9forums to give their views on the HGBAlpha.

I have no special input into development, but I will do my best to not block, delete comment, or otherwise impede reasoned discussion on the dp9 forums.

(Check out my posts... I have a number of issues as well, albeit more with presentation and canon at this point.)

Thank you, Balance. I've seen your issues, and in general seem quite sensible to me.

warboss wrote:I appreciate it. I've never had an issue with the moderation on the forums.

I've had issues once. And a conversation with Balance promptly solved them.

UN Test Pilot wrote:Don't forget you were also told the Leadership upgrade was because all the Southern factions have generally poor leadership, while it's a big part of the PRDF.

I am still trying to get a good answer on the Black Box Iggy, his answer that the Blazing Mamba got omitted was weird, then the stats posted for it had it equipped with a MRP. I know issues about the Blazing Mamba's cost have always been off, but stating the Water Dragon is not a support strider is also weird.

I'm hoping (maybe [possibly]) against hope that they'll listen to the people's issues instead of forging on with their own true vision regardless of the player's opinions, common sense or sanity.

Albertorius wrote:
I'm hoping (maybe [possibly]) against hope that they'll listen to the people's issues instead of forging on with their own true vision regardless of the player's opinions, common sense or sanity.

As do I. I considered posting something about the need to be willing to take criticism and, when necessary, throw elements of the game under the metaphorical bus. Dave has done this some, but I think there's still lost opportunities, at the moment, to improve things. One simple suggestion I haven't seen a response on is to throw out the PRDF power armor that was just added, doesn't have a model, and doesn't really fit into the setting.

My primary concern, to be honest, is the army building. I've proposed an alternate method to encourage a workflow similar to what FoW uses, but with a more formal 'structure' and some expectations. Initial release would probably be somewhat boring and bland 'generic' lists, but with immediate (and monthly) plans to do web-released focused lists based of the canon units and such. Adopt a formal structure (so it's easy to say if a write-up of a specific unit is early beta, late beta, 'Official', etc. for tournament-style play) and (importantly) keep producing and revising stuff. I might even be willing to say "Army lists? Go online for the basic ones. No printing them in the book so you're not paying for soon-to-be-obsolete paper" with the idea that the current lists should be weighted towards 'uninspiring' to encourage adoption of the more fun lists that need to start being developed now and release monthly (in beta form) as soon as the rules are done. I don't think this plan is going to be adopted, not in any meaningful way, but i hold out hope.

I'm in a weird position. Dave is the 3rd 'big cheese' as far as game development for DP9 I've seen in my time doing stuff for the company. He's a good guy, but I worry he's repeating a few mistakes of his predecessors as well as making a few new ones. I try to make suggestions (that are more back-end than the current discussion) and have reached the point where I've had to step away for a week or two here and there.

 HudsonD wrote:


Miniature cost is very much a part of the problem. A single Drake costs 50 $US, which is more than a GW SM dreadnought, for only a fraction of the size. A vanilla GP squad costs the same price as a tactical squad, for half the minis. A single Visigoth costs 30$, 3/4 of a Razorback, despite the fact it would look more at home in Epic than 40K. The army books are 60$, which is the price for a full hardcover 400 pages book in most other lines. I could go on and on, you get the point. DP9's prices are very high, on par with GWs. If you can't see how this is a problem, I guess it's a lost cause.

I'd like to throw my .02 in here. I don't feel it's a fair comparison.. you are trying to equate size to dollars. That isn't really fair, given that they're inherently different scales and the model counts between the games is drastically different. That vanilla GP squad of metal mini's is the same price as a squad of *plastic* marines. If I'm going to start comparing the absurdity that mini wargaming companies charge - then suddenly my 18$ Kodiak looks rather cheap compared to the 17$ single battle sister w/ heavy bolter. It's all very expensive no matter how you slice it, and through just sheer troop count, I think all my 40K stuff ends up being more than my HG stuff. The printed books are pricy, and the ebooks are very nice but still a tad overpriced for electronics (of course...after recently having to buy the SoB e-codex, suddenly it looks normal).

Getting cheaper mini's isn't going to happen for us unfortunately (I'd love for it to happen...but not crossing fingers). And if I'm honest, I can forgive a smaller company charging a bit more to stay alive vs. a massive IP hungry entity who's infrastructure allowed the churning of plastics for pennies on the dollar.

I like both games, and the fluff behind them. I've really enjoyed painting up my gears (pinning them? not so much...) so if nothing else, they've provided the timesink from that aspect.

o7

Meh.
I like what I've read, it's unfinished, but it's got potential.

If it wasn't DP9, I'd be actually hopeful. Unfortunately, they have a rare talent to turn gold into lead, so... Yeah.
Maybe I'll be surprised. Probably not, says my mind.

What do you guys think of the expanded EW rules? I rather like them (despite the typical ability of paxton to abuse/spam them for no cost). A squad of 5 vanguard warriors can now have one model generate cover for the whole squad with his ECM via SI (pg 64) for the low, low price of nothing. Geez, the more I read the rules, the more I find Paxton to be broken yet again. Sorry, I know I'm harping but the expanded roll of EW really makes a EW augment boost AND ECM trait (even at 0d6) on TOP of 50% greater sensors IN ADDITION to extra damage boxes just plain ridiculous for 0 TV. There is a good case for the warrior (haven't looked at the other more advanced models like Warrior IV yet) to start at 8tv with the huge versatility you get with EW. To stay at 7tv base, the EW augment needs to stay at 6 like the hunter/jaeger and the 50% greater sensor range needs to go if the extra damage box stays. Or, just simply drop it to a normal hunter/jaeger and add 0d6 ECM with NO other differences and charge the same cost. It'll still be better but not ridiculously so.

A squad of Warriors will out detect you (50% greater sensor range), can BLOCK you from seeing them even if you get within your own range, can generate cover for themselves out in the open, and take more incoming fire even if you somehow manage to get shots off despite all the above.

Pg. 65

"Forward Observation and Comm boosting are the only EW actions that any model with at least an EW rating of 6+ can participate in. This is intentional to emphasize that it is recon and command models that use there actions regularly, not rank and file Gears!"

Dave needs to add "Except for Paxton because they get to break the rules for 0TV."

Yeah, my biggest complaint in general with the new rules is the PRDF.

I'm actually happy to see that low ECM is handy to have on the Warrior, as opposed to being patched out of previous versions of Blitz because they couldn't figure out how to make it useful.

But the point costs and new toys that PRDF is getting is over the top. I'm not sure how much if it is, "New Designer plays PRDF only, so is totally biased", or just because they got a new update last in the old system, so are the current overpowered kids on the block. (Like Nucoal and the South were before them)

Yeah EW being relevant is awesome. Paxton getting tons of it for little apparent cost is silly.

The more I read, the more the Warrior needs to get bumped down in capability. Way to versatile at +1TV for the base model, and WAY to cheap when Vanguard models are compared to Gunners.

Dumping it down to 6TV with only +0d6 ECM and a 4/2 DC profile seems better. Not as sturdy as a Hunter/Jäger due to the extra EW gear, but has a bit more overall utility. And Gunner/Vanguard should be +1TV with the possibility of packaging a bit more with it since +1TV may still be too much for just a MAC.

But the Warrior almost certainly gets too much for the cost and shouldn't be too much more than a Hunter with an ECM package added.

 Balance wrote:

My primary concern, to be honest, is the army building.

You are not the only one. I do not like the way it is set up in FiF and the new PDRF at all.

wildger wrote:

 Balance wrote:

My primary concern, to be honest, is the army building.

You are not the only one. I do not like the way it is set up in FiF and the new PDRF at all.

I'm talking about the new Alpha rules, not FiF or the PRDF rules. Althoguh those do have issues, too, which I think this is an opportunity to fix without losing the 'good parts' which the current system does.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
(Good parts being purely in my opinion, of course.)