Just to confirm they did look at efficiency as per interview on notorious scoundrels podcast

21 hours ago, Derrault said:

@Zrob314

1) It was quite clear the first time. They're planning to do points changes on the tournament scene every year. I'm not saying they revert per se, although that's technically true in that a new list of adjustments would be issued, which may or may not contain the current set.

I mean, if you want to spend your time naval gazing to reach the metaphysical answer, it's quite close to a ship of theseus problem. I tend towards the perspective that it's not the same, regardless of the configuration of the parts being the same.

And, no, I'm not ruling out that they'll re-issue the same set of points for tournament play.
Would it make it easier to digest if I used "yearly" instead of "temporary", even though it's tantamount to the same thing?

2) The point of my mantra was obvious to anyone who did the reading. It was a discussion about issuing new cards or not based on yearly changes. The obvious answer again is, no, because they'll be apt to change again soon.

The rationale behind the adjustments was plain, adjustments were made to increase frequency of use. Here, a direct quote saying literally that:
"It is our hope that this will allow players to field a much wider variety of units in a competitive setting and give them renewed interest in the lesser-used miniatures in their collections. The vast majority of our adjustments are aimed at improving under-utilized units so that they can compete at the same level as many of the army-building staples players reach for time and time again. Vehicles, particularly from early waves, are seldom taken in competitive lists, and this update delivers large discounts to both vehicles and some of their key upgrade cards. A plethora of other updates are targeted at things like increasing the diversity of commanders that see play, deepening the pool of useful upgrade cards, and steering players toward lists that don’t rely as heavily on a full compliment of Corps units. As a rule, these changes will impact players collections in a purely positive way, allowing for much more diversity in army creation." - Alex Davy

1) "Temporary" indicates that current point changes are ensured to be transient and will definitely go away next year. These changes are part of the "yearly points change" which indicates they have been changed this year, with no known expiration date. Some of these changes may very well be permanent as far as the competitive and competitive influenced casual scene (weekly game night at FLGS where tourny players practice lists with friends) are concerned (barring further changes in future yearly points updates).

2) Key points you seem to be glossing over and ignoring to suit your personal interpretation have been bolded above. The changes were to IMPROVE units that didn't see a lot of play, not just "make it more likely to be used," and make more upgrade cards USEFUL . Why doesn't the unit see a lot of play? Overcosted for what it can do, lacking important capabilities such as interacting with objectives, etc etc.

Additionally, you glossed over the entire first paragraph.

"When it comes to balance, every new competitive game has its unintended peaks and unanticipated valleys. After a little over a year of tournament play, we’ve taken stock of the state of the game. Over the course of this study, we identified a few major trends, analyzed what is and isn’t working, and formulated a plan for some careful course corrections." -Alex Davy

So these changes are in order to balance the game, not just "diversify lists." A lack of diversity in competitive lists is a symptom of unbalanced units, if Unit A is significantly more effective/efficient than Unit B, than most competitive lists will have Unit A and few if any will have Unit B.

6 hours ago, Caimheul1313 said:

1) "Temporary" indicates that current point changes are ensured to be transient and will definitely go away next year. These changes are part of the "yearly points change" which indicates they have been changed this year, with no known expiration date. Some of these changes may very well be permanent as far as the competitive and competitive influenced casual scene (weekly game night at FLGS where tourny players practice lists with friends) are concerned (barring further changes in future yearly points updates).

2) Key points you seem to be glossing over and ignoring to suit your personal interpretation have been bolded above. The changes were to IMPROVE units that didn't see a lot of play, not just "make it more likely to be used," and make more upgrade cards USEFUL . Why doesn't the unit see a lot of play? Overcosted for what it can do, lacking important capabilities such as interacting with objectives, etc etc.

Additionally, you glossed over the entire first paragraph.

"When it comes to balance, every new competitive game has its unintended peaks and unanticipated valleys. After a little over a year of tournament play, we’ve taken stock of the state of the game. Over the course of this study, we identified a few major trends, analyzed what is and isn’t working, and formulated a plan for some careful course corrections." -Alex Davy

So these changes are in order to balance the game, not just "diversify lists." A lack of diversity in competitive lists is a symptom of unbalanced units, if Unit A is significantly more effective/efficient than Unit B, than most competitive lists will have Unit A and few if any will have Unit B.

Temporary means lasting a limited time, not permanent. Not the stuff you mentally tacked on.

Where’s the quote substantiating your claims? Because the one you provided does not.

10 minutes ago, Derrault said:

Temporary means lasting a limited time, not permanent. Not the stuff you mentally tacked on.

The "stuff I tacked on" is what temporary means in this context.

Regardless, we have no guarantees these changes last a limited time, so it is still incorrect to call them "temporary," as we do not KNOW they aren't permanent changes, only that we may have further changes next year.

8 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

The "stuff I tacked on" is what temporary means in this context.

Regardless, we have no guarantees these changes last a limited time, so it is still incorrect to call them "temporary," as we do not KNOW they aren't permanent changes, only that we may have further changes next year.

I mean the additional imputation of an expiration date. It doesn’t have to have someone put a specific date on it to make it temporary.

7 minutes ago, Derrault said:

I mean the additional imputation of an expiration date. It doesn’t have to have someone put a specific date on it to make it temporary.

In order for a thing to be temporary there must exist an expiration date. If it never expires, then it is not temporary by definition.

Edit: The specific inclusion of the expiration being next year is addressing the current context, wherein you (and others) seem to be implying that because there will/may be another points change next year, the current changes are "temporary" (that they will expire next year when the new points changes are released). You implied there was no difference between calling these point changes "temporary" and "yearly," when there is. Temporary indicates there is an expiration date (implying the current changes go away, not that the overall list may change). As well, the article states "approximately once a year," implying that some years we may have more than one batch of changes, other years we may have no changes, therefore it isn't even accurate to refer to them as "yearly points changes."

How FFG came to the conclusion that the FD laser needed range 5 but the E-web only lost Plodding.

2 hours ago, Darth evil said:

How FFG came to the conclusion that the FD laser needed range 5 but the E-web only lost Plodding.

One is a permanent structure meant to destroy vehicles and the other is a portable heavy weapon?

The FD can be played round too easily at range 4 especially on deployments like long march

11 hours ago, Darth evil said:

How FFG came to the conclusion that the FD laser needed range 5 but the E-web only lost Plodding.

I tend to agree with you. The FD needed the upgrade, but the E-Web should have gotten range 4. Loosing plodding as well would have been nice, but hardly what I would have complained about.

8 hours ago, TalkPolite said:

One is a permanent structure meant to destroy vehicles and the other is a portable heavy weapon?

And this portable heavy weapon has no more range than an E-11? I mean, when the DLT, fired from the hip, out ranges a tripod mounted heavy repeating blaster cannon (aka, Star Wars talk for a heavy machine gun) there's a problem. I'm fine with the FD out ranging the space maxim, but the DLT-19, DC-15, etc, shouldn't.

Considering it’s stats, that was likely a balance call.

Especially with things like Tauntauns and T-47s showing up more, the E-web is a solid anchor for a gunline. Removing Plodding to give it better turn 1 mobility is a decent quality of life change, but it really didn't need a huge buff.

On 9/14/2019 at 1:39 PM, Alpha17 said:

I tend to agree with you. The FD needed the upgrade, but the E-Web should have gotten range 4. Loosing plodding as well would have been nice, but hardly what I would have complained about.

And this portable heavy weapon has no more range than an E-11? I mean, when the DLT, fired from the hip, out ranges a tripod mounted heavy repeating blaster cannon (aka, Star Wars talk for a heavy machine gun) there's a problem. I'm fine with the FD out ranging the space maxim, but the DLT-19, DC-15, etc, shouldn't.

Actually sniper type weapons should outrange a heavy machine gun.

2 hours ago, syrath said:

Actually sniper type weapons should outrange a heavy machine gun.

The DLT is an LMG, though, not a sniper rifle.

9 hours ago, Squark said:

The DLT is an LMG, though, not a sniper rifle.

With a barrel that is much longer than an e-web and still doesn't fire as long as a sniper weapon

3 hours ago, syrath said:

With a barrel that is much longer than an e-web and still doesn't fire as long as a sniper weapon

True. Just nitpicking, I guess

4 hours ago, syrath said:

With a barrel that is much longer than an e-web and still doesn't fire as long as a sniper weapon

The length of the barrel has no correlation to range with either modern weapons or blasters.

6 minutes ago, arnoldrew said:

The length of the barrel has no correlation to range with either modern weapons or blasters.

In the real world it does have some correlation (longer barrel = longer time for gasses to propel the bullet), but there are diminishing returns after a certain point.

Star Wars is a whole different kettle of fish, since it's science fantasy with its own physics. There often the reason for a given barrel length is either it looks cool, or that's the barrel length of the firearm used as a base for the prop.

3 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

In the real world it does have some correlation (longer barrel = longer time for gasses to propel the bullet), but there are diminishing returns after a certain point.

Star Wars is a whole different kettle of fish, since it's science fantasy with its own physics. There often the reason for a given barrel length is either it looks cool, or that's the barrel length of the firearm used as a base for the prop.

You're right, higher velocity does give you a flatter trajectory, which can make long distance shooting easier. Longer barrels can come with their own accuracy issues, though. I guess I hsould have been more accurate and said "very little correlation."

5 hours ago, syrath said:

With a barrel that is much longer than an e-web and still doesn't fire as long as a sniper weapon

Uh, no, no it does not. The E-Web's barrel is longer, even assuming its chamber/where ever the barrel starts is where the power cable connects. If it starts back in the receiver, it is considerably longer than the barrel on the DLT.

The only possible way you could think the E-Web's barrel is shorter is if you take it to be only what is in front of the cone, in which case, I'd ask why? That'd be like assuming a real world MG's barrel is only the bit sticking out of the water jacket. It not only doesn't make sense if you understand weapon design, it also would mean that the barrels of other SW weapons are extremely short as well, as they often have similar design quirks.

And barrel length in this case is far from the most important factor. If both are being fired, the E-Web should have a distinct advantage in accuracy, stability, and range as it is being fired from a tripod, while the DLT-19, at best, is being fired from the bipod (which is a bit of a stretch). Even if we want to compare the real world weapons that they are based on, the MG-34 for the DLT-19, and a heavy machine gun (be it a water cooled Maxim or a Browning M2), the heavy machine guns have a longer max effective range due not to barrel length, but to how the weapon is mounted, which is why, ideally, weapons like the MG-34 would be used off a bipod when mobile, but would be put in a tripod when they established a defensive position.

As a side note, compared to a sniper rifle, there is no reason why an MG wouldn't have the same effective range, if not better, than a rifle caliber sniper rifle like the DLT-19x. Heavy machine guns have been used to suppress or combat snipers for over a century now. Real world machine guns like the M2 mentioned above have in fact been used as sniper rifles due to the advantages they have over rifle caliber sniper rifles.

Now, to continue this likely pointless rant (as I doubt anyone will bother to read it), I can understand that from a game point of view, the E-Web being able to throw as many dice as it has at range 4 could be problematic. A reduced die pool, to simulate the effect of a wider beaten zone, but less accurate fire, would make sense. It's too bad that hasn't been done, either through an additional keyword, or a generator upgrade that extends the range of the unit, but reduces the die by half.

4 hours ago, Alpha17 said:

Uh, no, no it does not. The E-Web's barrel is longer, even assuming its chamber/where ever the barrel starts is where the power cable connects. If it starts back in the receiver, it is considerably longer than the barrel on the DLT.

The only possible way you could think the E-Web's barrel is shorter is if you take it to be only what is in front of the cone, in which case, I'd ask why? That'd be like assuming a real world MG's barrel is only the bit sticking out of the water jacket. It not only doesn't make sense if you understand weapon design, it also would mean that the barrels of other SW weapons are extremely short as well, as they often have similar design quirks.

And barrel length in this case is far from the most important factor. If both are being fired, the E-Web should have a distinct advantage in accuracy, stability, and range as it is being fired from a tripod, while the DLT-19, at best, is being fired from the bipod (which is a bit of a stretch). Even if we want to compare the real world weapons that they are based on, the MG-34 for the DLT-19, and a heavy machine gun (be it a water cooled Maxim or a Browning M2), the heavy machine guns have a longer max effective range due not to barrel length, but to how the weapon is mounted, which is why, ideally, weapons like the MG-34 would be used off a bipod when mobile, but would be put in a tripod when they established a defensive position.

As a side note, compared to a sniper rifle, there is no reason why an MG wouldn't have the same effective range, if not better, than a rifle caliber sniper rifle like the DLT-19x. Heavy machine guns have been used to suppress or combat snipers for over a century now. Real world machine guns like the M2 mentioned above have in fact been used as sniper rifles due to the advantages they have over rifle caliber sniper rifles.

Now, to continue this likely pointless rant (as I doubt anyone will bother to read it), I can understand that from a game point of view, the E-Web being able to throw as many dice as it has at range 4 could be problematic. A reduced die pool, to simulate the effect of a wider beaten zone, but less accurate fire, would make sense. It's too bad that hasn't been done, either through an additional keyword, or a generator upgrade that extends the range of the unit, but reduces the die by half.

Yeah my bad, but still they might not be very good for the game at range 4 because you could then argue the same For the mk2 medium blaster.

19 hours ago, syrath said:

Yeah my bad, but still they might not be very good for the game at range 4 because you could then argue the same For the mk2 medium blaster.

And you certainly could, though the smaller size, and general "lighter" feel of the weapon would make a little more sense than it does for the massive E-Web cannon. I still think the best solution at this point is a generator upgrade that extends range by one. Can't be used on the Mk. II, but helps out the E-Web considerably.

3 hours ago, Alpha17 said:

And you certainly could, though the smaller size, and general "lighter" feel of the weapon would make a little more sense than it does for the massive E-Web cannon. I still think the best solution at this point is a generator upgrade that extends range by one. Can't be used on the Mk. II, but helps out the E-Web considerably.

Could see that but I definitely don't think the e-web at this time is a bad choice as is.

I thought it would be nice if the HMG equivalents we have had 2 attack options. The e web could have a separate fire option that shoots, say, 4 white dice but had suppressive. Alternatively a r4 option with fewer dice to simulate an aimed burst. I think these types of options would make the game much more interesting if we had them on weapons.