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.

 warboss wrote:
Eh, just think of it this way... we have proof of life of the northern pdf now. It may come out long after most people stopped caring but at least they worked on 1 page of it which is an improvement over the last 5 months! Also, I'm impressed that the Mammoth didn't get stealth buffed again by Robert to be faster than all the fire support gears.

Based on this image and something else I heard today, I'm thinking more it's time to break out the chest waders while needing to also have a high gunwale'd boat rental standing by, because the flow of excrement from the Pod is going to get awfully deep awfully fast over the next month.

mrondeau wrote:
It's not just an issue. It's an aversion to doing it, and a complete lack of concern and respect for their customers. They literally do not care if they publish an unplayable mess.

_
_

...I have to ask...

Who the hell thought it was a good idea to put a HRG or a couple of HAACs on a Thammer?

If I'm doing the math correctly, you could have a Thunderhammer Lightning for a mere 275 TV and a veteran slot. For a 35 Armor, -1 Man, 3/5 Walking building you can't hide (because the big gun is direct fire only). Or you could, you know, get an aller for 195 TV and no Veteran slot. Well, the hammer has +1 FC I guess. Gee wiz, what should I do >_>

At least the double HAACd one goes for 125. Still don't know why the hell would I want one, though.

First northern book preview is out, and I can already throw away two of my favorite units. I can't wait for the rest, especially with the rumors I've heard.

As for Smilodon's comments on Robert, well, what can I say ? He's a control freak who's spent so much time and efforts surrounding himself with yes-men, that he can't even conceptualize the possibility of being wrong anymore. It's done wonder to DP9's market shares and reputation.

 Albertorius wrote:
...I have to ask...
Who the hell thought it was a good idea to put a HRG or a couple of HAACs on a Thammer?

Dev-type folks of course - when in doubt, copycat NuCoal/Paxton/South/[other Primary Faction].
I had forgotten that Flak (HAAC) and Storm (HGM) were legacy carry-overs of L&L swaps until I was checking something else out from that CG today, so as with (5) zooks allowed for the Northern Airborne squadron in that same book it must have seemed like a good idea at the time.

Odd though that the SMS got removed after all of the directives to put it on, and that someone apparently forgot the 'Hammer is too small to mount and reload the HRG (12+) without keeping the [Stabilizer] trait.
Although I see a lot of the as per usual small errors too.


And given that during one week in late November or early December the Mammoth build directives changed like ~3 times, I probably shouldn't be surprised that the L&L legacy variants & loadouts carried over got butchered so badly if not outright removed.
WTF use is a Brawler that still lacks it's MAAC (MAC) firepower from NVC 1.

I honestly have absolutely no clue why the idea of snubs being such a fearsome weapon is so persistent amongst the Pod leadership.

_
_

 Albertorius wrote:
At least the double HAACd one goes for 125. Still don't know why the hell would I want one, though.

Certain parts of the playtesting community - at least around the time of the NuCoal book - seemed to believe the HAAC was a 'god-weapon' for some reason. They wanted it priced on par with a ATM Hussar, because it was 'just crazy lethal'. The math says that the HAAC should - on average - function like a very long range LBZK, so that point of view has to be skewed by some really good roles. However, I would assume the Thunderhammer HAAC variant is probably a 'fluff' variant, that they think 'works' for AA or something like that.

 IceRaptor wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:
At least the double HAACd one goes for 125. Still don't know why the hell would I want one, though.

Certain parts of the playtesting community - at least around the time of the NuCoal book - seemed to believe the HAAC was a 'god-weapon' for some reason. They wanted it priced on par with a ATM Hussar, because it was 'just crazy lethal'. The math says that the HAAC should - on average - function like a very long range LBZK, so that point of view has to be skewed by some really good roles. However, I would assume the Thunderhammer HAAC variant is probably a 'fluff' variant, that they think 'works' for AA or something like that.

Well, yes, I guess it would be a nice AA strider. The question remains... why the hell a Strider AA variant? The North already has plenty of options for that kind of work (Cheetah Air Claw, Dfender Grizzly, Flak Jaguar, Bird Arrow, anything at all with laser cannons... hell even the White Cat EWH could do it in a pinch) that are a whole lot less conspicuous, smaller, cheaper (in both TV and moneys) and less prone to retaliation (via, you know, actually being able to hide).

 IceRaptor wrote:
Certain parts of the playtesting community - at least around the time of the NuCoal book - seemed to believe the HAAC was a 'god-weapon' for some reason. They wanted it priced on par with a ATM Hussar, because it was 'just crazy lethal'. The math says that the HAAC should - on average - function like a very long range LBZK, so that point of view has to be skewed by some really good roles. However, I would assume the Thunderhammer HAAC variant is probably a 'fluff' variant, that they think 'works' for AA or something like that.

 Albertorius wrote:
The question remains... why the hell a Strider AA variant? The North already has plenty of options for that kind of work (Cheetah Air Claw, Defender Grizzly, Flak Jaguar, Bird Arrow, anything at all with laser cannons... hell even the White Cat EWH could do it in a pinch) that are a whole lot less conspicuous, smaller, cheaper (in both TV and moneys) and less prone to retaliation (via, you know, actually being able to hide).

I think what mrondeau said before where test games should have not only a set force parameter but also a relatively fixed table set-up made a lot of sense.

While everybody seems to be playing a game called by the same name, I am more and more unconvinced that folks are playing the same game using the same actual ruleset.
I get the impression quite a few folks play only with what they understand, outright ignore what they don't like, and change what they can't figure out so their favored models & weapons actually work.
Or else their battles take place on a bare table at a foot or less of range.

Because almost every one of my games has involved a near infinite loop of the following situations, which doesn't seem to be at all what some other folks are having happen using the same rules;

"I can't see that."
"I can't detect that."
"I can't hit that."
"I can't damage that."
"I declare reaction fire. Oh, it didn't do anything."
"I didn't purchase any artillery strikes, I'm screwed."
"I'm in melee range, I can't do anything. Your activation."
"I can't out-action your EWAR & Sat Uplinks, I'm screwed."
"Ah, that model I couldn't hit with reaction fire OK'ed my model from just outside 3 inches."
"I hit that with stacked + & - mods, but didn't do any damage because the model tied my roll."
"I created a fire sack using full RoF spray from an entire combat group, and didn't kill your model(s)."
"Ah, that charging model I couldn't hit with reaction fire got a free melee strike for Top Speed and OK'ed my model."
"I can target a board location with direct RoF spray and not damage anything, or I can IF blindly and hope for a deviation without going OoA."

_
_

Although I haven't played that much admittedly for years, I have experienced the same thing (even when not playing you in vassal). Everyone of the things you mentioned has occurred in my limited set of FM games so you're not imagining them.

Has anyone who plays more regularly tried using the alpha rule of having your speed only count for your own activation but otherwise you default to combat speed? I might try that if I ever get in another game of blitz. It saves on table clutter without the speed dice and simplifies things a tiny bit for the deadlier (which is largely a good thing in blitz).

 Smilodon_UP wrote:

While everybody seems to be playing a game called by the same name, I am more and more unconvinced that folks are playing the same game using the same actual ruleset. I get the impression quite a few folks play only with what they understand, outright ignore what they don't like, and change what they can't figure out so their favored models & weapons actually work. Or else their battles take place on a bare table at a foot or less of range.

Because almost every one of my games has involved a near infinite loop of the following situations, which doesn't seem to be at all what some other folks are having happen using the same rules;

"I can't see that."
"I can't detect that."
"I can't hit that."
"I can't damage that."
"I declare reaction fire. Oh, it didn't do anything."
"I didn't purchase any artillery strikes, I'm screwed."
"I'm in melee range, I can't do anything. Your activation."
"I can't out-action your EWAR & Sat Uplinks, I'm screwed."
"Ah, that model I couldn't hit with reaction fire OK'ed my model from just outside 3 inches."
"I hit that with stacked + & - mods, but didn't do any damage because the model tied my roll."
"I created a fire sack using full RoF spray from an entire combat group, and didn't kill your model(s)."
"Ah, that charging model I couldn't hit with reaction fire got a free melee strike for Top Speed and OK'ed my model."
"I can target a board location with direct RoF spray and not damage anything, or I can IF blindly and hope for a deviation without going OoA."
_
_

Hah, yup, a good deal of those things are issues we ran into repeatedly. Reaction fire was useless, most default weapon loadouts couldn't hurt anything without massive mod stacking (and then you could've done it with an upgraded weapon and just overkilled the target), melee with default weapons was also anemic. Detect wasn't a huge issue on our boards, as we didn't use enough area terrain. Oh and EW was pointless, as spotters don't require any EW, massed infantry on ATVs could overcome any amount of EW with ease, and FM changes meant stopping CP usage was impossible, and that was probably the only other valid reason to use EW. (Though many of the EW models came with good Detect, so there is that)

Its one of the reasons why I'm kind of surprised people are at all clamoring for the North book, as the standard rules are a craptastic mess.

(The HAC/HAAC is decent, but not sure why people consider it amazing, AGMs and ATMs are definitely more dangerous.)

EDIT: Oh wait, situationally, reaction fire was mildly useful if you had a godlike open shot. Ie, you were from above, stationary, stealthed, with firecontrol and a laser shooting at someone in the open. Granted, unless that guy running around in the open was doing something really good, it was almost always better to wait and stack a couple more mods on like crossfire and coordinated target.

ferrous wrote:

Its one of the reasons why I'm kind of surprised people are at all clamoring for the North book, as the standard rules are a craptastic mess.

Beyond the fact that I helped out a little bit, I'm interested in the Northern PDF getting out instead of languishing as it is the final piece of the Silhouette puzzle. For better or worse, it is the last chapter in that saga and even if the story took some very wrong turns midway through the novel it doesn't mean that I don't want to read the final chapter. YMMV.

ferrous wrote:
Its one of the reasons why I'm kind of surprised people are at all clamoring for the North book, as the standard rules are a craptastic mess.

I'm still hoping to get paid in full, so I will admit to bias, but I think for many it may have to do with seeing what comes out that might get applied into the v5 ruleset, or even just the novelty of the final HGB! product.

Although, given how Dave has been acting over the sub-faction lists and the kind of things Robert keeps dreaming up that he considers "acceptable" to the game and setting, I'm not sure how much if anything might get ported over.
After all, they have had the material for four entire months now so it's obviously not a priority with either of them.

ferrous wrote:
The HAC/HAAC is decent, but not sure why people consider it amazing, AGMs and ATMs are definitely more dangerous.

Not a clue.
As with the dread fascination some folks have for the snub cannon, and their essentially unshakable belief in it's efficacy, all I can figure is what I pointed out earlier about people using only interpretations of the rules that allow them to create situations where those weapons work like how they think they should work.

Because otherwise how are they beating the average, what the math says the results should be, to have that kind of perception in the first place?

_
_

Yeesh, sorry Smilodon, I hope you get paid.

Well, there was/is a fairly large and vocal contingent over there who, I quote, "Don't believe in math", and unfortunately those guys had more enthusiasm and positive attitude than the rest of us. I think that got them heard over others. Otherwise I think some simple math shouldn't shown that triple linked MRPs are crazy overpowered. (And that triple link in general is a bad idea.)

The snub is definitely one of those things, that, if it hits a model juuuust right, it does a ton, and I think that colors perceptions on it. Or maybe folks are still counting it as AP, that certainly would make it amazing.

 Smilodon_UP wrote:

Because almost every one of my games has involved a near infinite loop of the following situations, which doesn't seem to be at all what some other folks are having happen using the same rules;
(...)

There's a trend with Heavy Gear blitz that might have been discussed in other threads. The enthusiasm of a player is usually inversely proportional to their experience with the game. You read the book, do a couple of demos, it's awesome. Then you start playing actual games...

 HudsonD wrote:

 Smilodon_UP wrote:

Because almost every one of my games has involved a near infinite loop of the following situations, which doesn't seem to be at all what some other folks are having happen using the same rules;
(...)

There's a trend with Heavy Gear blitz that might have been discussed in other threads. The enthusiasm of a player is usually inversely proportional to their experience with the game. You read the book, do a couple of demos, it's awesome. Then you start playing actual games...

Wait... people find opponents to play games? That stopped me for years! I need to move to this mythical place of unicorns, rainbows, and enthusiastic HGB players.

ferrous wrote: Well, there was/is a fairly large and vocal contingent over there who, I quote, "Don't believe in math", and unfortunately those guys had more enthusiasm and positive attitude than the rest of us.

Enthusiasm is a far more valued at DP9 than competence, and that's a polite understatement.

Smilodon_UP wrote:I'm still hoping to get paid in full, so I will admit to bias

...AHAHAHAHAHAH !


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 warboss wrote:

Wait... people find opponents to play games? That stopped me for years! I need to move to this mythical place of unicorns, rainbows, and enthusiastic HGB players.

Well, finding opponents lets you play games. Playing games lets you realize the issues plaguing the game, and usually leads to not playing the game anymore. Therefore you should consider yourself lucky to never have been able to find opponents !

ferrous wrote:
And that triple link in general is a bad idea.

Yeah, the Pod devs are really bad IMHO about seeing something broken and trying to quash it, only to then turn right around and add in their own ideas that do the exact same thing because somebody else got away with it before.
Or else, hey, it's "cool."

And once something hits Robert's arbitrary executive decision making or gets otherwise brought to his attention, he'll do the same thing while removing actual legitimate inclusions intended to fix some problem, even if only for the sake of one potential sale.

ferrous wrote:
[..] and unfortunately those guys had more enthusiasm and positive attitude than the rest of us. I think that got them heard over others.

 HudsonD wrote:
Enthusiasm is a far more valued at DP9 than competence, and that's a polite understatement.

 warboss wrote:
I need to move to this mythical place of unicorns, rainbows, and enthusiastic HGB players.

For the current incarnation of HGB!, my opinion would be that land is called Vegas.

_
_

ferrous wrote:


Well, there was/is a fairly large and vocal contingent over there who, I quote, "Don't believe in math"...

First, they don't just don't believe in math, they believe that those that understand math are downright lying liar that lie.
Second, as far as I can see, the contingent that don't believe in math includes everyone, with the exceptions of Hudson, Ice and Smilodon, with the authority to decide anything since Blitz. Especially Robert.

 Smilodon_UP wrote:
For the current incarnation of HGB!, my opinion would be that land is called Vegas.

Last I had heard, the Alpha had basically killed their enthusiasm for the game. Were I going to Gencon, I expected AL13N to have some not so nice things to say... but who knows. C'est la vie.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Smilodon_UP wrote:
Because otherwise how are they beating the average, what the math says the results should be, to have that kind of perception in the first place?

One thing I've always found with HGB is that it's *extremely* sensitive to the local 'meta'. If your playgroup runs lots of -1 or -2 DEF models, then the SC will probably end up giving you a pretty solid hit most of the time. If your meta runs mostly +1 DEF models, it's going to be next to useless - unless you pickup some of the upgrades. Similarly, a IF heavy force can be shut down with table conditions or similar, making it less viable. It completely depends on how you play.

It was a real shock to see the boards that the Vegas folks like to play one - they are fairly open, basically Warmachine boards. They expected elite Gears like Jaguars to be able to stand in the open and take fire (like LACs/MACs) without being damaged. Whereas we locally were basically playing on Infinity boards, which if you're not familiar with that game, are extremely dense. Trying to figure out what to orchestrate the game to represent the best was very challenging.

 IceRaptor wrote:
Last I had heard, the Alpha had basically killed their enthusiasm for the game. Were I going to Gencon, I expected AL13N to have some not so nice things to say... but who knows. C'est la vie.

Given the comments some of those folks left on the last test group's message list about the ruleset change I would expect them to stay with current Blitz! in their locale rather than embrace whatever the v5 Alpha turns into, if they even keep playing.
Which if I recall from the GU interview with AL13N to be something like half a dozen or so steady players to almost sixty casual players. Based on that it's probably the only large HG community left.

I was honestly a little shocked some of them even had negative things to say about the Pod at all when it was apparently revealed early last Fall that Badlands Rally was a "semi-test" version of where the company wanted to take the rules.


Although a few of them seem pretty happy about the model reveals tied to the Alpha over on the Pod's FB page, so who knows.

_
_

I don't expect their group to stay with Blitz honestly. Even when there was private condemnation, the public face of the response was praise shortly after. In any case, those opinions are many months old and there has been alot of room for change. I guess someone could simply ask what they plan to do but I suspect we'll just find out in time.

 Smilodon_UP wrote:
As with the dread fascination some folks have for the snub cannon, and their essentially unshakable belief in it's efficacy

That was one of the things that puzzled me during my brief time with the game. It seemed fairly popular on the forum, but I couldn't see why anyone would want to use the thing. And to make matters worse, the way that it was bundled with gear squads almost forced you to use it.

 warboss wrote:
I guess someone could simply ask what they plan to do but I suspect we'll just find out in time.

True enough, and I'm extremely dubious that the Pod is going to make up losing those numbers with the v5 ruleset and all the "new money" it will supposedly bring into their coffers.

 IceRaptor wrote:
One thing I've always found with HGB is that it's *extremely* sensitive to the local 'meta'. If your playgroup runs lots of -1 or -2 DEF models, then the SC will probably end up giving you a pretty solid hit most of the time. If your meta runs mostly +1 DEF models, it's going to be next to useless - unless you pickup some of the upgrades.

Eumerin wrote:
That was one of the things that puzzled me during my brief time with the game. It seemed fairly popular on the forum, but I couldn't see why anyone would want to use the thing. And to make matters worse, the way that it was bundled with gear squads almost forced you to use it.

Exactly - players are forced to use it because the company president, and whomever he plays with, believe it to be good.
And something else I've heard from a few folks that have played Robert and some other Pod leaders at conventions is that their grasp on the rules left a lot to be desired, so that has to be figured in as well; they play their game(s) in a manner that lets things like the Snub work how they imagine.

Recall as well that these are the folks primarily behind turning HG into a setting that clones whichever mecha ideas they opine as workable and acceptable.

With the last book it was tried to cut down in the generic Gear combat groups where the Snub was available, to better differentiate what each squadron "did" in-game.
And that removal, from just a single (1) combat group already overfilled with swap options, lasted only three months.
Robert was adamant that because Snubs came in the box it had to still be in that squad, even though the testers, dev, and writer agreed virtually no players ever used it there because of other, more effective, available options on those models.

His excuse was that it would "affect sales," and as proof he forwarded an email from (1) not as yet a customer person who wanted to know how he could make the squad pictured on the box.
Along with that Robert assumed that the test group and writer had not adequately ensured that the contents of the existing Northern miniatures boxes were represented.
He also missed the sarcasm when I told him that of course we hadn't, so that I could get his attention to maybe include bits for new variants from the field guide that should be in the boxes for the changes being made.
To cover as much as possible the sub-types in each Gear combat group.

And all of this happened even though the Pod freely sells or makes available individual bits, not to mention that here recently Dave commented on something about how removing unused bits from boxes or blisters was a good economical move for the company.


The amusing, or sickening, part here is that I would be hard pressed to make up stories about these kind of interactions.

_
_

Heh, I actually understand Robert a little bit on that one, invalidating stuff that comes in those boxes is probably problematic. That said, those boxes needed a major revamp anyway, as who the heck wants five Jagers or five Hunters? And how hard is it to put a new picture on the box? I'm guessing that the fact that people on wargame forums have memories like elephants and hold grudges for life also factor into his stance. I still see people complain about the move from RAFM scale when Heavy Gear is brought up.

My opinion would be to fix it so that the thing is useful, or at least better as a dedicated tank hunter than any other weapon even close to the same points. Instead of being more expensive (with the DTHI upgrade) and less useful than a MBZK. (Which they also let entire squads get one of, way to go whoever came up with that stupid 'fix')

But, ugh, Blitz had so many issues with weapons and weapon loadouts and especially default weapons, it was like a massive trap for anyone who didn't spend a good deal of time playing with proxies or other people's armies first. And ugh, when they're lead playtest guy made that "Lacking in LACs" article, it made me laugh, as it was such a bury the head in the sand kind of move and stubbornly refuse to admit that ACs were terrible.

ferrous wrote:
Heh, I actually understand Robert a little bit on that one, invalidating stuff that comes in those boxes is probably problematic. That said, those boxes needed a major revamp anyway, as who the heck wants five Jägers or five Hunters? And how hard is it to put a new picture on the box?.

Ah, I caused a bit of miscommunication there.

The box wasn't invalidated.

It could and can still be used to make another combat group that already had the legacy option to take Snubs but doesn't have it's own dedicated squad box.
We only removed that weapon availability from the combat group type that had much better options, where virtually no player ever took the Snub.
Which however was the squadron he made me put it back into, no matter that nothing was grossly changed.

Any explanation, reasonable or not, always falls on deaf ears with him once he "decides" something, which is a euphemism for "automatic executive fiat" because his understanding of the game and market is better.

One issue with the field guide format is that there can only be (8) eight each of [General] and [Veteran] options depending on if any information boxes have to be formatted to fit on the page as well.
So losing unused options opens up space to add something that is likely to be used in that combat group, or to better cover needed legacy.

But even when I had that conversation he had already decided the boxes were not going to be revamped, even before the book was completed, and even though the v5 rules were not yet released as Alpha material.


Change can't happen if the person running the company isn't open to reasoned change.
Illustrative of that fact is this example. This is an acceptable change, and will be added to the appropriate miniature boxes, because he thought it up.

In that same vein, the Northern PDF is not done because he also has "ideas" of where it needs to change from the marginally tested but reasonably coherent version to accommodate something else he recently thought up.
More of those acceptable to himself ideas that would gut both multiple factions and combat groups so as to require rewriting most of the book.

He then fully intends to release without any critical commentary allowed, without any hesitation over the work/time put into the original version, or any acknowledgement that his ideas might come off as more examples of money-grubbing yet largely ineffective inclusions in an as per usual grossly delayed product in the midst of an entire rules revamp of his company's sole remaining gaming title.

ferrous wrote:
And ugh, when they're lead playtest guy made that "Lacking in LACs" article, it made me laugh, as it was such a bury the head in the sand kind of move and stubbornly refuse to admit that ACs were terrible.

For the most part, he sold his soul to Robert to be allowed to do as he pleased with his Paxton faction and remain a dev, while simultaneously washing his hands of the last project other than to relay directives from on high and veto much anything that changed his ideas in the source material.

But yeah, the upper Pod folks think nothing of adding exception after exception to the Locked & Loaded or Field Manual weapon tables with each publication and at the same time are completely unwilling to make global changes where they need to be made. It's just utterly frustrating, and an attitude that drives folks away in droves.

_
_

 Smilodon_UP wrote:
But yeah, the upper Pod folks think nothing of adding exception after exception to the Locked & Loaded or Field Manual weapon tables with each publication and at the same time are completely unwilling to make global changes where they need to be made. It's just utterly frustrating, and an attitude that drives folks away in droves.

Reminds me...

We never did get an answer about how salary caps were supposed to work in Arena. It was one of the most critical parts of running a campaign, and the rules were completely unuseable. Forum members suggested a kludge that sort of got it to work. But it was obvious (at least partly due to one of the scenarios) that the kludge wasn't the intended method. And DP9 itself never said one word about the issue (even when they eventually posted an FAQ for the game).

Eumerin wrote:

We never did get an answer about how salary caps were supposed to work in Arena. It was one of the most critical parts of running a campaign, and the rules were completely unuseable. Forum members suggested a kludge that sort of got it to work. But it was obvious (at least partly due to one of the scenarios) that the kludge wasn't the intended method. And DP9 itself never said one word about the issue (even when they eventually posted an FAQ for the game).

The Pod never answered that one for the same reason the "official" rules thread didn't last one month. They genuinely don't care.

ferrous wrote:
Heh, I actually understand Robert a little bit on that one, invalidating stuff that comes in those boxes is probably problematic. That said, those boxes needed a major revamp anyway, as who the heck wants five Jagers or five Hunters? And how hard is it to put a new picture on the box?

I'm guessing the issue isn't putting the new picture on the box but rather wasting the money on likely hundreds if not more box covers already spent with money being tight. Changing the contents without changing the outer box cover means they're not accurately describing the products. Not including the inaccurate covers means you wasted the money to print them (and they're likely printed in large numbers at once instead of on demand). That said... there is absolutely no problem with removing an option but keeping the bits. Hell, if snubs went away from strike squads, you'd still be able to field the exact same minis as a dragoon instead. The key is to not screw over player collections significantly but also not be repetitive and/or stagnant.

ferrous wrote:
I'm guessing that the fact that people on wargame forums have memories like elephants and hold grudges for life also factor into his stance. I still see people complain about the move from RAFM scale when Heavy Gear is brought up.

That is a fair statement with some truth. Things happen, and frequently they are neither anyone's fault nor within anyone's control. I think people are too used to instant gratification in every aspect of their lives anymore to be understanding of reality until they're the ones in a bind or getting the blame to cover somebody's backside.

At the same time there is also the consideration that there should be no such thing as another second chance. More so in the face of repeated instances of genuine intent on the part of a company to create an environment detrimental to their player-base as well as themselves.
Since all the fallout from Forged in Fire the only major difference between Heavy Gear and a largely unknown game title produced part-time in somebody's basement is that the Pod still has a small casting studio for the time being.

 warboss wrote:
Hell, if snubs went away from strike squads, you'd still be able to field the exact same minis as a dragoon instead.

You're going to get such a mighty pranging if you don't stop being so reasonable!

_
_

 HudsonD wrote:

Eumerin wrote:

We never did get an answer about how salary caps were supposed to work in Arena. It was one of the most critical parts of running a campaign, and the rules were completely unuseable. Forum members suggested a kludge that sort of got it to work. But it was obvious (at least partly due to one of the scenarios) that the kludge wasn't the intended method. And DP9 itself never said one word about the issue (even when they eventually posted an FAQ for the game).

The Pod never answered that one for the same reason the "official" rules thread didn't last one month. They genuinely don't care.

And given how critical salary caps are to being able to, you know, actually play Arena (hint - *extremely* so), it's telling.

 Smilodon_UP wrote:
At the same time there is also the consideration that there should be no such thing as another second chance. More so in the face of repeated instances of genuine intent on the part of a company to create an environment detrimental to their player-base as well as themselves.

To be fair, there really hasn't been. HGB's popularity and numbers have declined since L&L and show no signs of recovery. I think the question now is, how long can they hold on.