I strongly believe that the RT needs to make sweeping changes to the SA book, half of those changes can be in cost of models and options, but they would be large adjustments.
I don't think adjustments should ever by made in a "large" manner, because you will simply create a new problem. I see balance as analogous to driving a boat. When you crank on the steering wheel to avoid an object, the boat is sluggish to respond (much unlike a car), so you crank harder, over-correcting and putting yourself in a worse position than before.
The game is still in beta, we should expect imbalance, and this imbalance should be delt with oh-so incrementally. Lets not all pretend like we know what units should have what point values, point values are all relative. If a unit needs a big nerf, lets see that happen over several iterations of tiny nerfs (ie add 3pt/model, or 0.5pt/model). Even 3x3 spear backs with AP2 will eventually become balanced if the point cost is right.
Honestly I think the idea of how Swedish works is great for balance. IE, the bigger your unit gets, the more expensive it becomes per model. Yes this is more complicated for list building but lets be honest, we are complicated people who play a complicated game. Besides, we have software to do all this work for us.
Why is there such an early push for a finished product in April? It has been less than a year and we are already expecting to put out a polished product? Competitive games take years of tweaking and adjusting to get things balanced, and the balance never stops. T9A should be no exception, we must give time to let the win/loss statistics speak for themselves. The game is already fully playable, there are no rules (or lack thereof) that break down the fabric of how the game mechanics work, so in this respect the project is doing very well.
As to the topic, no idea why the plan is negative creep. It seems like a reaction to a made up deadline from which nobody profits.
