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.

I've had these for quite a while now, but I've been ironically inspired by the [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread to dig these out and post them.

Firstly, the old 2nd edition artwork (from 2001) that inspired my colour schemes:


And the models themselves. Firstly, a Utopia Moab Combat Mount:


Next, a selection of 2nd edition Battle Frames:
Type 6-16


Type 55


Type 2-07


The following two had stats in the 2nd edition, but no official models:

Type 81-12 (alpine version of Type 6-16 with grapnel and climbing claws instead of the hover Secondary Movement System (SMS):


Type 99 (spacegoing version of Type 6-16, with grapnel, chainsword, spike gun and Space SMS):


This one never got painted because I couldn't find a colour version of the artwork. The image at the beginning of this thread is taken from pages of the Art Of Heavy Gear PDFs.

HT-68 hover tank:


HT-70 hover tank:


HPC-64 hover APC:


GREL infantry:


On the left is a base of two Mordred infantry GRELs and a Jan leader. On the right is a stand of three Morgana commando GRELs.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
That first post is the models released for the 2nd edition of the game in the early 2000s. In 2006, the 4th edition of the miniatures rules, Heavy Gear Blitz! was released. Some models (the Type 2-07 and 55 Battle Frames) were deleted entirely, some carried on, and new models were introduced. The hover tanks were resculpted (and made larger), and the original versions became light tanks.

New Battle Frame models:

Type 6-16 with command upgrade:


Type 2-21:


Type 2-19:


The new hover tank models:
HT-68:


HT-70:


HPC-64 with command upgrade:


FLAILS heavy infantry:


GREL on jetbike:


I spent more time than is healthy magnetising those battle frames; each forearm and the engine backpack can take different equipment, and all three Frames have a shoulder-mounted missile pod (with the Type 2-19 mounting an additional one in the torso). Each of those can take one of three different warheads, so a fully-equipped Type 2-19 Battle Frame has six pairs of magnets holding it together!

Lovely models

Thanks for sharing!

And at actual size, they don't look anywhere near as awful as they do in those EXTREEEEEEEME CLOSEUPS!

Nice work on some awful models! Really, I never liked this kind of design.

I don't mind the basic shape of the 6-16 Battle Frame (originally just the "CEF Battle Frame", retconned in the Earth Book 1 when they invented more), but the smooth surfaces are a problem. It's good contrast with the lower-tech Terranovan machines, but it's very boring to paint. The Type 55 and Type 2-07 had more textures to work with, but are horrible designs.

The more recent resin HT-68 hover tank, on the other hand, is a thing of loveliness. I wish I had some more (and also the courage to convert one into the HRT-68 self-propelled artillery vehicle).

Very nice!

Nice models. I agree, the HT-68 is a thing of beauty, I love the newer HT-68 myself. (The old one got renamed the LHT-67)

And I actually like the look of the Frames, sorry their boring to paint though =)

Nice hover tanks!
The frames just don't have the detail to read as the scale they are meant to be...and the Grels haven't aged well. Some pretty amazing infantry available in that scale now!
My NuCoal stuff just moved up 2 spots to the 27th project to get to on my hobby list thanks to you....puts completion at around 2046.

Those are very nice! I'm tempted to dig my CEF army out for a photoshoot now as well. I like how you managed to get some depth on them despite the flat surfaces.

But now I'm sad they never updated the 2-07 model. I would have loved to get a Phil update of that one!

I'll echo the above about you doing a good job with sculpts that haven't really aged well (and weren't all that great when released). It's been a while since I looked at the RPG art for the frames and I do like those pics, especially the 2-07 probably because it is the most "gear"ish.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
And at actual size, they don't look anywhere near as awful as they do in those EXTREEEEEEEME CLOSEUPS!

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
I don't mind the basic shape of the 6-16 Battle Frame (originally just the "CEF Battle Frame", retconned in the Earth Book 1 when they invented more), but the smooth surfaces are a problem. It's good contrast with the lower-tech Terranovan machines, but it's very boring to paint. The Type 55 and Type 2-07 had more textures to work with, but are horrible designs.

 warboss wrote:
I'll echo the above about you doing a good job with sculpts that haven't really aged well (and weren't all that great when released). It's been a while since I looked at the RPG art for the frames and I do like those pics, especially the 2-07 probably because it is the most "gear"ish.

Nifty; I imagine the Type 99 would probably be a Dark grey or blue but likewise don't recall any color examples ever being shown.
How do they compare on ''in the flesh'' detailing to either Tactical- or HGB!- era sculpts of Gears from any TN faction?

While I wasn't always keen on how the Frames were developed in setting and in game, the idea was interesting, and the bolder colors at least eye catching.
In a lot of ways they remind me of the HGA designs, lacking as they do any skirt armor or the like, along with definitely being a tad bland in most cases.



Does anyone have any thoughts on potential faction-appropriate fixes to spruce up the look and feel of the current/previous Frame models?

_
_

Why is it that I love all the CEF Frames, while only liking certain gears and striders?

About the type 81-12 and the type 99- why have climbers when you have hover/flight frames? Yeah, probably cheaper and lighter then a "typical" Frame with built in "flying"- but, well, why climb when you can fly?

Anyways- the first and second wars of Terra Nova with the CEF are the best mecha inspired fluff stories and game fluff ever- even better then some of the Battletech stuff!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Does anyone have any thoughts on potential faction-appropriate fixes to spruce up the look and feel of the current/previous Frame models?

The CEF Frames look pretty much exactly what I would think such a Frame should look like. CEF comes to Terra Nova after a couple centuries, tries to reclaim the word and get their butts kicked by Gears and Striders. Running back home with their tails between their legs and hauling along quite a few captured Gears, they reverse engineer them with superior and advanced technology, and apply more advanced industrial techniques to manufacture them. While Gears are more "individually built" and/or hand crafted with extra details and a couple centuries of Terra Nova manufacturing experience behind them, the CEF probably programmed a manufacturing facility that pumped out 1,000 Type F6-16 Battle Frames in like a day, and each one was EXACTLY the same.

They are spartan, utilitarian and obviously built for war. Each one (from a series like the type F6-16) is exactly the same for the supply chain- a dynamo g-36 gyro will work in every F6-16 frame, making it easier for field repairs and getting parts from a loooooong supply chain going back to Earth. As the first frames from Earth, they look exactly the way they should. Reversed engineered, fast development, mass produced, frames.

Now at some point in the future when new types start rolling off the assembly line that they will have a little bit more style in them. Maybe they will go the integrated weapon route, instead of "strap on" weapons or hand held weapons. There are advantages and disadvantages to both, but I somehow get the feeling that the CEF would go for a more "complete" package right off the assembly line then having a separate industry set up to add weapons to the frames later.

For the current game- changing the pose for a little more dynamic look would be nice. The feet on most of them could really use a once over for proportion size and the heels (are they treads? Are they some kind of rubber skirt for the hover jets? Are they spikes? Just what, exactly, are they? LOL). I love the small, little heads with one big lens on the front. You know there is no human/Grel pilot head stuffed into it! The only thing I don't get are the hands on a Frame. Most of the Frames have weapons/equipment that poke out past the hands, making it impossible to really use those hands for anything. So why have them? They don't hold any weapons/equipment- that's all attached to the lower forearms. From a design perspective, if I was making a Frame, and mind you Frames are built for war, not general work or industry like the roots of Gears, then I'd have just made "weapon arms" with built in weapons.

The next heavy Frame I'd like to see is one with a shoulder mounted gun. That would look pretty cool to me.

When did they actually introduce frames as a thing in HG? Was it with the second video game or actually first introduced in the paper and pen rpg? I don't recall them in 1st edition and I tuned out after that until original blitz.

 warboss wrote:
When did they actually introduce frames as a thing in HG? Was it with the second video game or actually first introduced in the paper and pen rpg? I don't recall them in 1st edition and I tuned out after that until original blitz.

Looks like just 2nd Edition, which came out in December of 1997, with Tactical following in 1998, and then reprinted/rejiggered for 3rd Edition in 2003/2004.

The only actual 2e books that I know of with stats for Frame models are the Black Talon - Mission to Caprice (Activision PC game tie-in #2.) [Jan 2000] and Earth Book One: Colonial Expeditionary Force [April 2001].
I don't recall Life on Caprice [2000] having any Frames in it, and it's not out on my shelf to double check, nor were there any specialty Frames or hovertanks in the other colony books.


The HG 2 game for PC appears to have been released starting in 1998, so yeah, Frames could very well be something introduced to the RPG from that source.
John Buckmaster might know for sure one way or the other, and if not him someone else from the older company such as Nick Pilon or Marc Vezina.

 Tamwulf wrote:
[..] Now at some point in the future when new types start rolling off the assembly line that they will have a little bit more style in them.
[..] For the current game- changing the pose for a little more dynamic look would be nice.
[..] The next heavy Frame I'd like to see is one with a shoulder mounted gun. That would look pretty cool to me.

While I'm rarely a fan of his overall designs, I will admit there are a lot of individual features I do like on the mecha designs of Alexey Spitsyn (G+ profile link) that might serve as a jumping off point for ideas on making the Frames more visually appealing.

_
_

Sorry, I've not kept up with this thread properly.

How do they compare on ''in the flesh'' detailing to either Tactical- or HGB!- era sculpts of Gears from any TN faction?

The Type 6-16, 2-07 and 55, infantry and the light tanks are 2nd edition-era sculpts. generally, the quality of sculpting is the same as the Terranovan Gear miniatures. It's simply the designs that don't have so much surface detail. The elbow joints are particularly underdetailed IMO. I assume that the Type 55 and 2-07 Frames had a different sculptor; they have more detail - layered armour plates, panel lines and "rivet holes". It could also be that they were designed later. As you say, the Type 6-16 (and the hover tanks? at least the HT-68) were in the Black Talons book, whereas the rest were introduced in Earth Book 1. There's a picture of a "CEF Battle Frame" which looks like a Type 6-16, but with minor details different, and its name implies its the only one; presumably that's from the Black Talons book.

About the type 81-12 and the type 99- why have climbers when you have hover/flight frames? Yeah, probably cheaper and lighter then a "typical" Frame with built in "flying"- but, well, why climb when you can fly?

The feet on most of them could really use a once over for proportion size and the heels (are they treads? Are they some kind of rubber skirt for the hover jets? Are they spikes? Just what, exactly, are they? LOL).

I don't recall any of the Frames being able to fly. The SMS is a hover system, presumably to give a similar speed and terrain-crossing ability to the armour. The Octopus packs (4-armed drones that could clamp onto the back of Frames in the 2nd edition rules) and the jump pack (Blitz! rules) only allow short hops, not proper flight.

In-universe, it's a bit confusing. The Type 6-16 is built by Moscow Heavy Industries, with the never-sculpted Type 11-22 scout Frame being built by Kadelie Weapon Systems. However, the Type 55 and 2-07 are also built by MHI, despite looking like KWS; Type 11-22, and the Type 99 and 81-12 are built by KWS, despite looking like MHI's Type 6-16.

Compared to the "base" Type 6-16, the Type 81-12 alpine environment Frames (originally developed for use on Jotunheim, but it was useful on Terranova too) is lighter (lower armour rating), mouts a smaller main gun (SLC rather than an LLC, and less ammo) and loses the hover SMS. In return, it gains a grappling hook, climbing apparatus and improved off-road walking capability. It also has built-in jump jets, rather than having to use an external modification.

The Type 99 is a space-going Frame - so first of all, it's got a sealed cockpit and a rocket SMS (if you look closely at the artwork, you can see additional exhaust nozzles around the lower legs, much like a Jovian Chronicles Exo-Armour) rather than the now-useless hover SMS. It's designed as fleet defence against spacegoing Black Talon commando Gears. It loses all its explosive weaponry (rockets and grenades), because the CEF don't want them accidentally blowing holes in a Gateship, and instead mounts melee weapons for poking holes in attacking Gears instead. The grappling hook is almost a tertiary movement system, to allow it to move around without using up reaction mass.

Oh, another thing I've just noticed; on page 84 of the Earth Book 1, there's a picture of a CEF Frame firing a hand-held weapon. Presumably an early bit of art (from the Black Talon book) from before the designs were finalised.

 Tamwulf wrote:
[..] The only thing I don't get are the hands on a Frame. Most of the Frames have weapons/equipment that poke out past the hands, making it impossible to really use those hands for anything. So why have them? They don't hold any weapons/equipment- that's all attached to the lower forearms. From a design perspective, if I was making a Frame, and mind you Frames are built for war, not general work or industry like the roots of Gears, then I'd have just made "weapon arms" with built in weapons.
The next heavy Frame I'd like to see is one with a shoulder mounted gun. That would look pretty cool to me.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
Oh, another thing I've just noticed; on page 84 of the Earth Book 1, there's a picture of a CEF Frame firing a hand-held weapon. Presumably an early bit of art (from the Black Talon book) from before the designs were finalised.

The ''barrel'' portion of the energy weapons should be a lot more compact, or else be configured as stubby cylinders (or blocks too probably).

Atomic Rockets - Energy Weapons: Sidearms (details)
Future War Stories - Armory: LASERS, the Killer Light (basics)

HALO Spartan Laser


So it looks like the weapons shouldn't be projecting over the hands, but then you have to wonder for what reason(s) would the NEC designers choose to not copy one of the most flexible concepts about building a Gear in the first place.

_
_

A few quick size comparisons for Smilodon_UP and John HwangDD:

Thank you very much, the pictures are very helpful. Looking at the individual pictures, it was very confusing and unclear. Having them standing side-by-side is great, thank you!

The official labeling is atrocious and confusing. The 6-xx and 2-xx are the same size, except the other 2-yy which is HUGE?

It was not at all clear just how BIG that heavy hovertank was.
____

I pulled the trigger on a few frames, will probably order a few more along with GREL infantry.

I think that the type 6-xx have human/GREL pilots, while the type 2-xx models all have FLAILS upgrades instead.

OK, got it, thanks!

My first order of CEF Frames arrived:
- 2x 2-25 recon frames
- 1x 2-19 heavy frame
I like them very much as counterpoint to my Southern Gears.

An Interdiction squad is inbound, should arrive early next week, so I'll have basically all of the models covered by this time next week. Then bulk build.

At some point, I intend to pick up a HT-68 and some GRELs, and that'll finish off my CEF forces. But as the discount is a lot thinner, these can wait.
____

It is laughable how undersized the bases are, and OMG, the hexes look terrible. I really want to swap these out for something more appropriate to the footprint. The 2-19, in particular, should never be on a 25mm base.
____

OK, the remaining CEF Frames arrived:
- 2x 6-16 basic frames
- 2x 2-21 basic frames

So I've got a full set of the Frames, and I like the look, Still no GRELs or HT-68s -- those will wait until a later date, when they're on sale of sort.