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.

 DP9Dave wrote:

We know that it's no good creating these expectations and then not meeting them. But we also know that there's going to be problems. Problems happen. And we'll solve them. And what we learn from the process will make future crowd funding projects we do run smoother and better than this one. None of these models are something that we can't produce in metal or resin and even if disaster hits and the molds are destroyed by Godzilla there will be insurance and we'll be able to fix the problem by re-making the molds or in a pinch we can produce in metal or resin as a last resort. Unlike some companies who have no backup production we know that come hell or high water these models are getting made if we have to do them ourselves, again, as a last resort.

Cheers!
Dave

That would be a much more acceptable alternative in the case that you can't for some reason come through on a particular design in plastic. It is much better than forcing a player to switch to minis that they don't need nor want.

When I first saw that pic I almost found myself wondering where the CEF strider came from...

Cheers!
Dave

 DP9Dave wrote:

 Firebreak wrote:
If the plastics company tanks, say, then the backers get all their minis from the KS in metal or resin without any added cost? Hell, that sounds fair to me. I mean, I'd prefer even bad plastic to metal, but still, that's a decent disaster scenario plan.

It would suck Armadillo Beast to have to do that but yeah, in case of Act of God, we have a backup plan that we'd prefer never to use.
It's always better to have a plan and not need it, than it is to need a plan and not have it.

I always wonder how much earthquake insurance companies operating in China have to keep...

Cheers!
Dave

Thank you for answering. I hope it doesn't come to that, but it's good to know there's a plan, and it's even better to get the communication and interaction. I might sound like a broken parrot, but you're doing a lot more for Heavy Gear and Dream Pod 9 by answering these questions than a Kickstarter ever could.

 DP9Dave wrote:
the good news is that it means we might be able to shorten our schedule due to less models needing to be 3D sculpted and a shorter production run being required.

 DP9Dave wrote:
By listening to the guidance of our plastics producer, who we have a very close relationship to now. We know we're inexperienced, so we're getting the guys with the best expertise we can on our side.
They think that November 2015 for delivery of the rewards is ludicrous, they expect to be up and running much faster than that. They're used to much faster turnaround speeds than that and they are appalled at the length of time other kickstarters have taken to ship.

I would think it might be wise to seek out a few more second or third opinions from some other anonymous experts with ten years of experience not working for that unnamed company, but that's just me.

One facet of human behavior I find interesting as well as frustrating is how for quite a few folks perception can become unshakable belief.
In other words, your comments here and elsewhere could quite easily be perceived by a number of backers as a firm commitment on the part of Dream Pod 9 to deliver ahead of schedule (Before Nov 2015) whether or not that was your actual intent.

Let's not forget that a lot of companies oversell themselves to other companies in B2B dealings, often conveniently forgetting certain aspects of a project or getting an incomplete picture of the project due to the client not communicating the project completely/correctly. I see this often in IT land, projects regularly running late and significantly over budget.

Late I don't really have a problem with, I'll assume that I'll get the goodies eventually. Over budget isn't my problem, that's the KS organizer's problem, I still expect the product I ordered (at the price I ordered and the material I ordered).

Well, it is good to see DP9 so adamant on satisfying the goals reached, both in time and quantity.

When will the plastic manufacturer be revealed ? You'd think this would help sales if it's a big name...

Lets be realistic. It takes a minor miracle for absolutely nothing to go wrong in projects this big and we can only hope that we've been conservative enough in our estimates to meet the expectations of our backers.

That said it would kick ass to be able to go to Gencon next July and have the new plastics to show off. We could never sell starters there unless we'd already shipped out all the rewards to backers but just being able to hit that con in a big way would be sweet. (Really don't want to join the Gencon Kickstarter fiasco club with Palladium).

Cheers!
Dave

I am really not concerned with who the plastic manufacturer is. A big name isn't going to change much this late in the Kickstarter.

What happens from here on out, I leave it to the manufacturer and Dream Pod 9 and the rendering artists to do what they can. Ultimately, what will change the perceptions of folks will be the continued work of the company to fulfill the KS, as well as the Beta rules.

I look forward to seeing the new update, Dave.

We're down to the last day. I will not be making any predictions, since I am not the Almighty, but the number of Backers who have joined is pretty great to see.

And the last Stretch goal we are likely to get to...

The tiger, in $1500!


Cheers!
Dave

If this weren't so close to the holidays I'd probably do it, but glad to see it has worked out.

You can always back for $1 now and kick in later before the deadline for choosing rewards. It does not help us to break any stretch goals but it will get you a helping of the deals.

By the way guys, I'm committed to sticking around to answer rules questions after the kickstarter so you don't have any worries about holding back, not like you do! I like the raw reactions since it helps me to review my own thinking.

Cheers!
Dave


Automatically Appended Next Post:


Here is the image of the King Cobra!

As much as I'd like to get in on this, my finances suck right now. I picked up HG way back in first edition (the books at least) and always loved the story and rich world DP9 built.

I have a Southern force in boxes, never got around to putting them together. Maybe some day soon, so I can try out the new edition.

Good luck to you all.

Sure man, download the free beta rules to see what we're doing now! So much easier to use!

http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product/133719/Heavy-Gear-Blitz-Tabletop-Wargaming--Beta-Rules?term=Heavy+Gear+Beta+rules

Dave, when we get the Full color rule book, we need more arts like the one from the King Cobra!

Now less than 2 hours to go and it look slike we're going to get the King Cobra too!

Cheers!
Dave


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Riker - Hell yeah!

Come on, 160k..

 Siygess wrote:
Come on, 160k..

With 23 minutes I don't see that as realistically happening. (*crosses fingers* Come on, Kodiak!)

 DP9Dave wrote:
You can always back for $1 now and kick in later before the deadline for choosing rewards. It does not help us to break any stretch goals but it will get you a helping of the deals.

OK, fair enough. I threw a buck in the jar to keep the option open. Hope mine counted toward the $150k goal...

If the rules clean up as you say they will, and the projection goes more-or-less according to plan, then I'll bump it to the full $115 CAD.

If not, it's only a buck, and not the worst buck I'll ever have spent.
____

BTW, you really need to get rid of the opposed roll for targeting. In lieu of shooting, allow a 2d6 Piloting test to increase difficulty of enemy Gunnery by the number of successes.

Funded with $150,000. Thanks to all the backers! We made it all the way to the King Cobra!

Time to go sleep.

Cheers!
Dave

Thank you everyone for making our first Kickstarter an amazing success. We raised over $150,000 CAD in Pledges from over 1000 Backers to get molds made for new plastic miniatures.

We will be doing an update on the Kickstarter page at least once a week for our Backers, from now on. Early next week we'll make the Pledge Manager active and import the Backer information supplied by Kickstarter. Once that's done we'll send out a few test invites to make sure everything works right and then you will get an email invite to setup your account. The Pledge Manager is where you will decide on the composition of your rewards and pledge for additional add-ons.

We will announce plans for the still locked Kickstarter models in a future update.

Thanks Again!

Robert Dubois (President Dream Pod 9)
Dave McLeod (Line Developer and Game Designer)

I'm going to be starting HG up soon, just because I want a mech game. Some first impressions of the beta rules(can't speak for balance yet)

1) Too damn many abbreviations. Seriously guys, don't use abbreviations in the ruleset. Or at least give both so we can have it indoctrinated into our brain as we read. IE: instead of just saying "MOS", say "Margin of Success(MOS)"

2) Very very detailed. This is both good and bad. Good in that I love options and depth. Bad in that the game seems to want to be a battle game, but the minute details could easily drag it down. This could be solved by giving a handy dandy 1 page reference.

3) Model stat blocks and lists are information overload. There could be a lot of condensing done. IE: Have one entry for each type of model, and have optional upgrades for point costs attached to it. Don't give me separate lines for the basic model, the anti-infantry, the anti-tank, the long range, and the command version when the only difference is weapon loadout.

IMO, even after raising a pretty decent $150k, DP9 still has a lot of work ahead of it to convert the $1 pledges into $115 pledges, and the $115 pledges into $200+ pledges...

 Grey Templar wrote:
I'm going to be starting HG up soon, just because I want a mech game. Some first impressions of the beta rules(can't speak for balance yet)

1) Too damn many abbreviations. Seriously guys, don't use abbreviations in the ruleset. Or at least give both so we can have it indoctrinated into our brain as we read. IE: instead of just saying "MOS", say "Margin of Success(MOS)"

2) Very very detailed. This is both good and bad. Good in that I love options and depth. Bad in that the game seems to want to be a battle game, but the minute details could easily drag it down. This could be solved by giving a handy dandy 1 page reference.

3) Model stat blocks and lists are information overload. There could be a lot of condensing done. IE: Have one entry for each type of model, and have optional upgrades for point costs attached to it. Don't give me separate lines for the basic model, the anti-infantry, the anti-tank, the long range, and the command version when the only difference is weapon loadout.

Thanks for giving Heavy Gear a go! I've matched my answers here for you:
Thanks for the feedback!
1) The Abbreviations were placed there originally to give it a very military feel but it went overboard in the previous editions. The feedback from non-military background players agrees with your assessment. There is a major update due by Dec 12th, and a lot of the abbreviations are spelled out as you suggest. There is a list of standard abbreviations available in the back so that players can write concisely and using standard jargon when they converse on the forums.

2) The December update is the first update that will actively cut some rules from the system and significantly simplify others. The complexity level is medium to high because we believe that the core model of the game, the Gear is a significant piece. We are watching the game experience closely to try to ensure that what players experience is a tactical challenge, and doe not bog down in rules exceptions. There are update previews on the forums listing some of these changes as they stand now.

3) The Quick Start rules that will be shipped with the Kickstarter rewards will only include the model attributes for the models in the core game. The game suffered from very complex army construction in the previous edition and the attributes shown are a working copy that is also being used to create a Force construction and reference website that will be a database for all the models. The various options for presenting the different models that are available are being examined from individual cards per variant to a variant that has multiple options on it. Multiple options is useful to an experienced player but can be confusing to a beginner, and due to the special formatting required they can be prone to transcription errors. Since the rules is still in beta the formatting will be a little rough and get better over time as we move closer to the locked living rule book.

Thanks for taking the time to make your comments.
Cheers!
Dave

Thanks for taking the time to answer personally.

How will I get the update when the rules get updated in December?

The fewer rules in the game, the fewer exceptions one needs to worry about.

Chess does just fine with roughly a dozen rules total.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
The fewer rules in the game, the fewer exceptions one needs to worry about.

Making it literally a coinflip is the simplest. Doesn't make it fun. Complexity for the sake of complexity isn't great, but as long as it doesn't bog down too much, and represents some level of differentiation, that's fine by me.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Chess does just fine with roughly a dozen rules total.

And that's fair enough. But simplicity itself doesn't equate to tactical complexity. Checkers has less rules than Chess. Chutes and Ladders even less so. Some people crave a more complex game. MtG, arguably the most popular CCG on the market, has a fairly complex string of mechanics and exceptions. And that's one of it's selling points. That while the basics are relatively simple, the interactions make the game.

You seem to be hung up on simplification to the point of mass crowd appeal. When there are already several entrants (and more than a few catastrophic failures) in that market, and an 800lb gorilla. For some, mechanics that are a little more complex than GW are not just different, they're a reason to try. And instead of DP9 attempting to go head to head with appealing to the GW crowd (which would likely get them crushed), carving out a substantial niche where they can still make a nifty profit isn't necessarily a bad thing. Battletech seems to have had it's ups and downs with what is definitely a more niche system, and while they've had their share of failures and poor decisions (often not related to the product itself), the game still manages to eke out a decent following most years.

That's not to say some things can't be improved. I just don't want to see all games developing towards lowest common denominator. I gave up on GW specifically BECAUSE I felt it was blanding itself into a miniatures showcase, where the rules were just an excuse to put models on the table. I'm not a conversion modeller, and I'm barely a painter, so those aspects of the hobby have no appeal for me. I want the games I play to be more than what GW offers. Else, I wouldn't play those, and I'd play GW, which already has an established playbase.

Just downloaded the beta rules and I'm liking what I've seen so far. It looks like a much more solid ruleset than the older books did, or at least it's easier to read!


Does DP9 usually do Black Friday deals?

Also, anyone in the D.C. area play and want to run through a game or two?

Morgan Vening wrote:
And that's fair enough. But simplicity itself doesn't equate to tactical complexity. Checkers has less rules than Chess. Chutes and Ladders even less so.

It goes both ways: go has quite a bit less rules than chess, and it is a lot more tactically complex.

As always, I'd follow greater minds, as Einstein's: "It can scarcely be denied that the supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience", or paraphrasing: "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler".

I'd say that right now Nublitz is a long way from as simple as possible.

 Albertorius wrote:

Morgan Vening wrote:
And that's fair enough. But simplicity itself doesn't equate to tactical complexity. Checkers has less rules than Chess. Chutes and Ladders even less so.

It goes both ways: go has quite a bit less rules than chess, and it is a lot more tactically complex.

As always, I'd follow greater minds, as Einstein's: "It can scarcely be denied that the supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience", or paraphrasing: "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler".

I'd say that right now Nublitz is a long way from as simple as possible.

Oh, agreed. My point was that simplification beyond a certain point starts to become sameness. One of the things I hated about the change to 40K was that cover was removed as a penalty to hit, and applied as a penalty to save. Meaning highly armored models didn't need to bother with it against weapons that could still potentially kill them. It's one thing to be immune to smallarms fire, but something that's still vulnerable, getting no benefit from cover from those weapons (yes, I know against Lascannons etc it still helps) seemed like a bad choice. Similarly, the change to ranges irked me. Granted, I've never liked "invisible shield" ranges, but worst case, I'm liking the "optimal range" that DP9 has, that acts as a mod.

JohnHwang (the person I replied to) has put up 40K as a game systems that DP9 should aspire towards. And I look at the games system and simplicity as a primary reason I don't play 40K. While I agree that it shouldn't be NEEDLESSLY complex, I still want more "oomph" to my gaming system. Granted, I prefer a smaller scale of game (20 models a side as a general upper limit). I don't need the system to scale up to 50-100+ (the other reason I don't play 40K). I want what an individual model does, to be important. And if you simplify it down too far, that can get lost.

Morgan Vening wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
The fewer rules in the game, the fewer exceptions one needs to worry about.

Making it literally a coinflip is the simplest. Complexity for the sake of complexity isn't great, but as long as it doesn't bog down too much, and represents some level of differentiation, that's fine by me.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Chess does just fine with roughly a dozen rules total.

And that's fair enough. But simplicity itself doesn't equate to tactical complexity.

MtG, arguably the most popular CCG on the market, has a fairly complex string of mechanics and exceptions. And that's one of it's selling points. That while the basics are relatively simple, the interactions make the game.

You seem to be hung up on simplification to the point of mass crowd appeal. For some, mechanics that are a little more complex than GW are not just different, they're a reason to try. And instead of DP9 attempting to go head to head with appealing to the GW crowd (which would likely get them crushed), carving out a substantial niche where they can still make a nifty profit isn't necessarily a bad thing.

That's not to say some things can't be improved. I just don't want to see all games developing towards lowest common denominator.

That Heavy Gear resolution is still pretty close to a coin flip, just a really complex and opaque one, with a large amount of randomness. It is very close to being the definition of "complexity for complexity's sake". It is different for the sake of being different, I'll grant them that, too.

Chess doesn't need extra complication to make for an engaging game. It's pure Igo-Ugo, with a dozen rules and only a handful of unit types per side, on an identical playing board each time. Yet, it has a lot of tactical complexity, such that stronger players nearly always win against weaker ones.

MtG was exceedingly complex, if you go back to the original timing chart, simplified greatly since then. Not a lot of rules were required, and easily teachable to a pre-teen.

In theory, DP9 is aiming toward more of a mass appeal. You need to sell a lot of plastic to recover your investment costs; otherwise, there is no need to push into plastic. None. As a lot of people have shared, there is / was considerable appeal for a robot battles game. But "a little more complex than GW" grossly understates things, unless you also believe that Star Fleet Battles is only "a little more complex" than X-wing. GW doesn't do pure robot battles, so HG isn't going head-to-head with them. HG goes head-to-head with Robotech, Battletech and CAV in the tabletop miniature robot battles.

I think a clean sheet game with mass appeal is possible without dropping to the "lowest common denominator", versus preaching to the choir.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Morgan Vening wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:
It goes both ways: go has quite a bit less rules than chess, and it is a lot more tactically complex.

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler".

I'd say that right now Nublitz is a long way from as simple as possible.

Oh, agreed. My point was that simplification beyond a certain point starts to become sameness. One of the things I hated about the change to 40K was that cover was removed as a penalty to hit, and applied as a penalty to save. Similarly, the change to ranges irked me. Granted, I've never liked "invisible shield" ranges, but worst case, I'm liking the "optimal range" that DP9 has, that acts as a mod.

JohnHwang (the person I replied to) has put up 40K as a game systems that DP9 should aspire towards. And I look at the games system and simplicity as a primary reason I don't play 40K. While I agree that it shouldn't be NEEDLESSLY complex, I still want more "oomph" to my gaming system. Granted, I prefer a smaller scale of game (20 models a side as a general upper limit). I don't need the system to scale up to 50-100+ (the other reason I don't play 40K). I want what an individual model does, to be important. And if you simplify it down too far, that can get lost.

I don't feel that 40k is too much "sameness". I was not bothered by folding of cover saves parallel to armor / invulnerable saves, as players still just take the best allowed. I'm pretty sure the HG maximum weapon ranges also result in an "invisible shield", and that Rapid-Fire is the same concept as "optimal range".

I have said that 40k has excellent workflow and is *the* model for learning "how to play a miniatures battle game", and proposed Flames of War as the game system that DP9 should aspire toward. I believe that the current version of 40k has become overly complex. There is nothing wrong with HG having rules that are simple enough to allow immediate play out of the box.

Considering how DP9 counts "models", and purports to be a combine arms game, it is strange that non-powered infantry are not part of this Kickstarter. If we're using DP9 model counting, and we have infantry, then 50-100 "models" per side might only be 20-35 bases - that's not too complex.