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 would argue the opposite. The Opposed test is a simple and quick way to combine the attributes that contribute to defense and resistance to damage in a fast paired roll of dice. Attack roll v Defense roll: Then resolve. It is a fast and easy to use mechanic that well suits the level of detail we are targeting in a game of Heavy Gear Blitz.

The speed of the roll comes from the fact that I don't need to know my opponent's relevant attribute, I only need to know their result.

I choose my model's speed modifier, I choose my target, I choose my weapon and thus the weapon modifier. I choose if I move to give myself a flank or elevation modifier. I know if I have a crippled modifier. The modifiers are all add or subtract dice with only the weapon type and special model traits that affect the skill of the a model.

To see what my opponent has to roll all I have to do is look. Do they have a braced stand by counter? How much cover? Crippled token?

I figure my modifiers by adding or subtracting dice from my base of 2D6 and roll. Take the best and compare the rest to skill for bonus to my result. Compare to opponents then resolve damage with the margin.

Really, if I can give a demo game to players who have never played a miniature game and show them how to roll the dice to resolve an attack in the first minute of the demo then I think it passes the quick to pick up test.

I can compare this to my experience of playing 40K and Warmachine where it is pretty common for players to have to recheck stats when rolling or have an exchange over every relevant stat. I've experienced this at the highest levels of play in 40K (Grand tournaments, 40K Championship game etc).

Warhammer: Roll to hit, roll to wound, Roll save(s). It sounds simple but I could break that down into about 20 steps easily. and try playing that without knowing all the stats off the top of your head. It's a little unfair to compare warhammer since a model in warhammer is a unit of troops like a big old blob of wounds and attacks on the table. Virtually no differentiation between models and I hardly care who is taken as a casualty since other than 2-3 important models they're all the same. The advantage of this system is that the chewy filling of an army, it's special weapons, are protected by ablative bodies or virtually worthless excess wound counters in the shape of models. (BS3 S3vT4 2+ save? Better bring a lot!)

Warmachine: Roll to attack, roll to damage, roll location, roll save. It sounds easy but again, you have to know a lot of numbers, and even then it is the game jargon of +X/-Y for damage to rolls that is completely unofficial that players have developed to shorthand all the arithmetic of the game. Not to mention the time it takes to decide to boost, or not, if you haven't chosen your personal resource use decision tree algorithm. Here the result is personal - individual models target other models with precision. Here the problem is attribute range. There are a lot of models that have no personal agency in the game and are simply there to support the few models who do matter because the possibility of the support models achieving anything of note other than filling their niche is virtually nil without a vast expenditure of resources to make them barely proficient (MAT4 POW7 v DEF 15 ARM15 W20? Better to use another).

Heavy Gear Blitz: Roll Attack, Roll Defense, compare for result. Add and subtract for damage. Again it's simpler because it all hinges on one roll instead of three. It's relevant because the range of weapons that are non-threats are limited to a subset of model types, the infantry who often have a better option for heavier targets. Every model in Heavy Gear has a selection of tools and the players choice of the application of the tools/weapons is very specific to the success of the action.


Any of these games can slow from a player suffering from indecision or lack of knowledge of the game state: When a player has too many options and cannot make a choice that is a problem.

What each game is doing is approaching the use of the dice in a different way. IN 40K it is a flat skill-less 1D6 vs TN:X roll in 40K with no skill required other than the skill of choosing an appropriate target. It's the law of averages in game form.

In Warmachine the rolls follow the normal curve distribution with 2D6/3D6 +/-X/Y/Z and dozens of custom special modifier effects. it is the equivalent of the building of an artifact deck in MTG. You make your army to work a certain way and then you practice getting that way right as often as possible to win the game.

Heavy Gear has a 2D6 +/-X/Y/ZD6 compared roll that leverages skill in the decision of selecting the right weapon for the target and supporting appropriately with orders, re-rolls etc. There is still a lot of synergy possible but the models don't rely on it as completely as warmachine.

Every game has pieces that are impervious to the attacks of the weakest models in the game though the point of where a model can achieve an effect varies widely. 40K relies on ablative wounds for specialist weapons. Warmachine relies on making the truly special pieces, the casters, so hard to remove that they need their own victory condition. Heavy Gear takes a different approach and says you have an answer, what length will you go to use it? They have a tank and you lost your Bazooka in the first shot of the game. Well most every model has a vibro blade which is a serviceable anti-tank weapon. Not ideal since you have to close the range but they have an answer.

The uncertainty of Heavy Gear's opposed roll system is there specifically create and heighten tension and attention. It's designed to be an involved game where players have to be on the look-out for response triggers (reactions) and be ready to take their turn often. No I go, you go get a sandwich format of alternating turns.

The opposed roll mechanic isn't a negative on the system, it is a feature of the system. It doesn't slow things down, it makes you responsible for the life and death of you models.

What is true is that the decision tree for players is currently bloated. There are too many niche options with limited relevance. Most of them are disappearing in the next update, like the "We're in Trouble" rule. Don't need it any more. We're trimming the decision tree now to remove the clunk the game.

Check out the next update and let me know how I'm doing.
Cheers!
Dave


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Well that was longer than I intended. Sorry for the rambling. Getting my rest now post successful kickstarter!

OK, that is a pretty darn good example of the obstinancy that we've spent roughly 50 pages complaining about.

You say, "oh, it's just an Attack roll", but then you note, to create that roll you need to capture a ton of things:
1. my model's speed modifier,
2. my model's weapon modifier.
3. range modifier
4. flank modifier
5. elevation modifier.
6. crippled modifier.
7. skill of the model
That is a lot of stuff to remember each time - the notion that you wouldn't have to recheck stats is odd.

And all "modifiers" are bonus dice / penalty dice, which may, or may not be result modifiers. Because, when you roll, sometimes a die is a +1 bonus, sometimes, not. It's not like we're counting "successes". Nor are we generating a traditional total.

Before we compare, opponent must capture a similar amount of stuff for their Defense roll:
1. speed modifier,
2. cover
3. crippled modifier.
4. skill of the model

The defense roll holds things up, because no resolution can complete until both players generate their number.


And then we still need to assess Weapon Strength, Armor, and Hull, which is a matrix of stats of Light / regular / Heavy versions of the thing.

In 40k, I know that most of the target numbers, etc. are common across the army, and they don't modify. That makes it easy to focus on exceptions. HG seems to have far more numerical variety as well.
____

Igo-Ugo is pretty much the only way to play a mass battle game, and it has strong benefits of ensuring that each unit acts once (and only once) per bound. There's nothing wrong with being the Passive player when it's your opponent's turn.

As for being 'responsible for the life and death of you [sic] models', that's a strange way to put it, because nothing in the defense roll actually changes things. It just creates a varying target number

Finally, sandwiches are great. Don't knock sandwiches.
____

Definitely, the decision tree needs pruning.

We'll see where things go.

I feel it has more to do with the fact there are too many modifiers than how many rolls there are, also there are too many modifiers on both sides of the action for the roll's target number.

Something you omit on your comparing examples.

I am not sure I would feel good when a game designer praises the "uncertainty" of his system, but I think it is more poorly chosen words than the reality of the system.

Now as a personal preference, I dislike systems that bloat rolls with dice, I prefer modifiers adding or subtracting the target number, that's a personal preference though and I understand the simplicity of simply adding or subtracting dice.

That been said I am still mystified on what HG tries to be, if the game intends to be a "skirmish level" game with gears be individuals "loosely" on squads and the model count be around 10 models per side then the game system is not that bad it has an excessive RPG like detailing in the system but it can be seen as a virtue, if the game tries to be more mass combat with proper squads and many models then the system has excessive detail for its intended level.

mrondeau wrote:

 Tamwulf wrote:
Heavy Gear is the game of Mathematicians! No other game requires you to perform the Calculus in order to resolve damage!

You should really stop talking about your inability to do basic maths. I sympathize for all the problems your innumeracy must be causing you, but it's getting annoying, honestly.

Actually, it's not my math "inability" I call into question. Its the basic math skills of others. Every game I've ever played with dice seems to make my opponent forget basic counting skills. My favorite time was when my 40K opponent picked up 10 dice and scored 12 hits. He was dead set on those 12 hits (enough to wipe one of my squads off the table) even when I pointed out to him that he only rolled 10 dice.

Warmachine- my opponent states Dice +4 for damage. I'm like no, your P+S is 12, my armor is 16. It's dice -4 for damage. He continues to lecture me on how it's the difference between his P+S and my armor, I agree, but point out that it's my armor minus his P+S. Finally, after a few minutes of arguing, I tell him to just roll the dice and add his P+S, and we'll subtract my armor value from the total.

Star Trek Attack Wing- Me: OK, 3 hits and 1 crit. My opponent after he rolls two evade dice and gets two evades: "Yes! I evaded." Me: OK, you take 1 hit and a crit". "No, I rolled 2 evades". "I know, that cancels two hits, leaving 1 more hit and a crit," Him: " But I rolled two evades- why am I still taking damage? Do you have a card that gives you bonus damage?" Me: "No, I rolled a total of 3 hits and 1 crit. You rolled 2 evades, canceling two hits, leaving 1 hit and 1 crit." Him: "Exactly! I get that! So why am I taking damage?"

Battletch: Opponent: "Alright! I hit you with 12 missiles, and it's a CRIT!" Me:"Hold on. What did you shoot me with? An SRM 6?" Opponent: "Yeah, I hit you, then I roll 2d6 to see how many missiles hit," Me: "Yes, that's true, but you have to use the Missile Hit chart to tell you how many missiles hit." Opponent: "I did! I rolled 2d6 and rolled a 12, so 12 missiles hit!" Me: not worth arguing about, and I take 12 SRM 6 hits.


Here is the definition of innumerate. Throwing US$0.05 words around trying to make yourself sound smarter while insulting me only makes you look like an @$$.

I had to read, reread, and read it again to even try to understand what this system was trying to do. I consider myself a reasonably educated person, but I'd love to see you teach this system to someone that has never played a game like this before. Just standing there and watching the POD Squad try to demo at Gencon was very enlightening about how well this edition would be received. Its too complicated and slows down game play too much.

If you want to call me mathematically ignorant, heh. You know nothing about me, or how/what I do for a living and my use of mathematics.

This test system that requires multiple modifiers, generating a measure of success, then comparing numbers again, and adding in the measure of success into the final result, is totally open for a misplaced +1 or +2 modifier, or a +/- MoS that can be the difference between a Hull Point, or a crit. Indeed, if we are talking about playing with 5-15 gears on the table (that's the last target number I saw a while ago), that's a potential lots of dice rolling and remembering modifiers. I see it all the time in the simple games, but the more complicated it gets, the larger potential there is for a mistake, abuse, or cheating.


edited for a poor choice of words.

 DP9Dave wrote:
Well most every model has a vibro blade which is a serviceable anti-tank weapon. Not ideal since you have to close the range but they have an answer.

Core paradigms of Blitz! over the past decade -

Tweak the stats and mods endlessly no matter how it affects the rules as a whole so those few inclined may play Gundam Wing et al instead of supporting the deliberately melee oriented and duelist-scaled Arena ruleset when it finally appears.
And all the while make it a point to state how much more plausible HG is as a combined arms wargame when compared to other "mecha-based" science fiction games and settings.

Models in HG should have realistic drawbacks or limitations when compared to another, so that everything has a role it can do well, only now the game has an endlessly growing number of mary-sue vehicles doing things they shouldn't be capable of doing while everything else gets left by the wayside.
Pointing that out however has long since become an exercise in utter futility.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
You say, "oh, it's just an Attack roll", but then you note, to create that roll you need to capture a ton of things:
[..]
That is a lot of stuff to remember each time - the notion that you wouldn't have to recheck stats is odd.

And all "modifiers" are bonus dice / penalty dice, which may, or may not be result modifiers. Because, when you roll, sometimes a die is a +1 bonus, sometimes, not. It's not like we're counting "successes". Nor are we generating a traditional total.

Before we compare, opponent must capture a similar amount of stuff for their Defense roll:
[..]
The defense roll holds things up, because no resolution can complete until both players generate their number.


And then we still need to assess Weapon Strength, Armor, and Hull, which is a matrix of stats of Light / regular / Heavy versions of the thing.

Then stance gets thrown into the mix if not covered by those others, along with actions like Standby, on top of the potential for a model or models to react to an opposing activation in some manner, etc etc etc.

It may not seem like a lot for less than a dozen models, although it sure does come across exactly the same as OldBlitz! when simplicity was a goal of the revamp, but trying to figure all of that for almost twice as many models for each player over the course of a game...
Yeah, quite a bit of detail if there rule design intends to play, and play the same, at a larger scale.

_
_

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
OK, that is a pretty darn good example of the obstinancy that we've spent roughly 50 pages complaining about.

You say, "oh, it's just an Attack roll", but then you note, to create that roll you need to capture a ton of things:
1. my model's speed modifier,
2. my model's weapon modifier.
3. range modifier
4. flank modifier
5. elevation modifier.
6. crippled modifier.
7. skill of the model
That is a lot of stuff to remember each time - the notion that you wouldn't have to recheck stats is odd.

And all "modifiers" are bonus dice / penalty dice, which may, or may not be result modifiers. Because, when you roll, sometimes a die is a +1 bonus, sometimes, not. It's not like we're counting "successes". Nor are we generating a traditional total.

Before we compare, opponent must capture a similar amount of stuff for their Defense roll:
1. speed modifier,
2. cover
3. crippled modifier.
4. skill of the model

The defense roll holds things up, because no resolution can complete until both players generate their number.


And then we still need to assess Weapon Strength, Armor, and Hull, which is a matrix of stats of Light / regular / Heavy versions of the thing.

In 40k, I know that most of the target numbers, etc. are common across the army, and they don't modify. That makes it easy to focus on exceptions. HG seems to have far more numerical variety as well.
____


____

Definitely, the decision tree needs pruning.

We'll see where things go.

To be fair, Warmachine has quite a few modifiers to track,
Including:
1. my model's speed modifier,
2. my model's weapon modifier.
3. range modifier
4. flank modifier: --------------------------Back strike
5. elevation modifier.----------------------Elevation
6. crippled modifier. ----------------------Damaged Systems
7. skill of the model.----------------------Rat/Mat vs defense
-------------------------------------------------Aiming
-------------------------------------------------Knocked Down
-------------------------------------------------Clouds
--------------------------------------------------Dug In
--------------------------------------------------Very Wide variety of spells many of which are only on a single model

and:
1. speed modifier,
2. cover----------------------------------------Cover
3. crippled modifier. -----------------------See Damaged systems above
4. skill of the model------------------------Rat/Mat above
---------------------------------------------------Equipment such as shields
---------------------------------------------------Screening
---------------------------------------------------Stealth

Not an exhaustive list, but a good example of the large number of modifiers/status effects to keep track of just to attack in WM/Hrds. And don't get me started on Battletech....

Granted I'm not saying that you can't streamline the game, but going the 40K route is just taking it a step too far. (Not that I don't enjoy 40K)
From looking through the rules (Think I'll be getting my first game Friday! YAY!), what's going to slow us down the most is any attempt at electronic warfare. That is, what will slow us down more than normal for a 1st game.
Overall, the decision making process of the game seems to be the long part, aka what should I do now, and looking it up, rather than the actual roll. After all, my group managed to get Warmachine and Battletech down fairly well.


@Tamwulf
You might want to think about finding a new group of players. I don't thing it's the system, but rather they're either cheating (poorly), or would be too incompetent for anything complex, like Candy Land.

 Smilodon_UP wrote:

 DP9Dave wrote:
Well most every model has a vibro blade which is a serviceable anti-tank weapon. Not ideal since you have to close the range but they have an answer.

Core paradigms of Blitz! over the past decade -

Tweak the stats and mods endlessly no matter how it affects the rules as a whole so those few inclined may play Gundam Wing et al instead of supporting the deliberately melee oriented and duelist-scaled Arena ruleset when it finally appears.
And all the while make it a point to state how much more plausible HG is as a combined arms wargame when compared to other "mecha-based" science fiction games and settings.

Models in HG should have realistic drawbacks or limitations when compared to another, so that everything has a role it can do well, only now the game has an endlessly growing number of mary-sue vehicles doing things they shouldn't be capable of doing while everything else gets left by the wayside.

The most ridiculous part is that Heavy Gear purports to model some sort of military organization with specialist units and combined arms coordination. Except that the intent is to make them all basically the same?

The entire point of having different factions and different units in a wargame is to enable strong differentiation, which specifically means that units should NOT be able to easily substitute for one another. It is *good* unit design in 40k and other games that makes certain units completely useless against other units, because those imbalances drive actual tactical play on the battlefield. If I see a Rock coming down the battleline, I had best get my Paper in a position to intercept an eliminate it. With luck, I can take out up his Scissors with my Rocks. If not, it's going to be ugly. OTOH, when everything carries varying amounts of Paper and Scissors, that's kinda boring.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mmmpi wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:


You say, "oh, it's just an Attack roll", but then you note, to create that roll you need to capture a ton of things:
[...]
In 40k, I know that most of the target numbers, etc. are common across the army, and they don't modify. That makes it easy to focus on exceptions. HG seems to have far more numerical variety as well.

To be fair, Warmachine has quite a few modifiers to track,
[...]

Granted I'm not saying that you can't streamline the game, but going the 40K route is just taking it a step too far. (Not that I don't enjoy 40K)

From looking through the rules (Think I'll be getting my first game Friday! YAY!), what's going to slow us down the most is any attempt at electronic warfare. That is, what will slow us down more than normal for a 1st game.
Overall, the decision making process of the game seems to be the long part, aka what should I do now, and looking it up, rather than the actual roll. After all, my group managed to get Warmachine and Battletech down fairly well.

I have Warmachine, but haven't played more than a handful of games since Quickstart & Prime, so I ignored it in favor of someone like you being able to have something more complete and coherent -- thank you!

While HG doesn't need to be 40k, they way GW managed to really streamline things is pretty admirable.

Before I threw my buck in, I tried to do a quick 1v1 duel with my regular gaming buddy. Puzzling through the rulebook was a lot more work than we wanted it to be, hence the "wait and see" result.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Except that the intent is to make them all basically the same?

That would seem to be the case, as even for the Northern project a couple of models got proposed in the various source material and early drafts that duplicated existing models without being a published legacy option that had to be covered.
Funny thing is, after getting cut from that project a couple showed up again as permanent fixtures in NuBlitz despite still being entirely superfluous, which in my experience with previous projects almost always equates to being a pet idea of one or more of TPTB.


Every time I look at another miniatures game done right, even something like Dystopian Wars with so many factions, I'm simply amazed at how there can be a reasonably coherent ruleset and overarching theme combined with such a differentiation for models as well as mechanics.

Not a problem John, just want to be complete if you know what I mean.

The role of each unit should be a bit clearer. Looking over the Model type spread-sheet (really, nothing else describes it), you can see the squad types take form, where FS can take more or each long range what-ever-role weapons, the SK squads more medium range ones on faster gears, ect. And that's all well and good, but there's a few things that stand out that illuminate John's point.

There's enough variety that you can make a squad do anything while staying in the per squad limits, such as a GP squad of two Hunters, two Hunter Gunners, and two Assault Hunters. It's under 50 pts with command added in. For that matter, every basic hunter has a split fire LAC (anti-gear), an APGL (anti-infantry), and a LPZ (anti-tank). I can get 16 of them in under 100pts, and that's with three command models added in. Granted it's short ranged AT, and AI weapons, but considering I can get across the board in two turns (12 inch deploy, 10 inch top speed, 10 inch top speed) and I'm 4" short of the opposing table edge. This is walking movement btw, so I'm not being slowed by terrain. This assumes my opponent lined up on his table edge and didn't move. If he's on his deployment line I can get into LPZ range first turn with a top speed order, and than the CO gives out coordinated fire, and I drown my opponent in bullets. I'll get enough sixes to skew the margin of success against heavy stuff, and I'll have enough shots to off-set my speed penalty against lighter stuff via LAC's and split fire.

The swarm of hunter's have the short range on their AT and AI weapons as their only weakness , but with a board so small, who cares? (The proceeding example is base purely on theory and conjecture)


The point is, this is just hunters. While I feel that a GP squad should be able to take on any role, they shouldn't over shadow the other roles. This is the part where I agree with John. The squad choices now are so open ended, it does feel like I have to do anything but try to get the models I like best from my collection into a coherent squad structure. Doesn't matter what type of squad.

Maybe if there was some indication of what each type of squad is supposed to do, and have the choices line up to reflect that, or at least a write up on what each type of squad is expected to do (doesn't have to be the same between factions either).

Sorry if my other post had any errors in it. The post kickstarter weekend has been a rush of catching up on family time and other tasks that had been left undone while the KS was on.

I have nothing but admiration for the many miniature game rules out there and I admire many of the innovations and shortcuts that make those rules what they are. If the Heavy Gear rules can create a game experience where players feel that they are in command of an army of soldiers that are piloting mecha on a battlefield, then the goal will have been achieved. The goal is also to make it an intuitive and hassle free experience. We chose a format closer to a skirmish game than a mass battle game because the level of detail lets you play fast without losing the detail of the individual weapons and vehicle frame.

I know I have my work cut out for me as doing this job in a small game company means that I always have to prioritize what the time gets spent on. The living rule book will be a boon in this regard since without the deadline of a hard paper publishing date we can maintain the rules and improve on them steadily without the issue of printing costs. The quick start rules for boxes going out with the Kickstarter rewards will be the true test of getting the language and presentation right to introduce new players easily to the game.

The next beta rules update will be on or before December the 12th. This is the six month anniversary of the rules being released in beta form and this update will be actively cutting rules out rather than just fixing typos and adding errata. There are still a number of corners to be smoothed out in the rules, and I rely on honest opinions like those here to point out the rough patches, and the crap, so that it can be fixed. Sometimes it's simple like the EW system being overly complex and needing a complete rewrite. Sometimes it's the player who notices the weapon or trait missing on their Gear and takes the time to let me know so that it gets checked and fixed. Sometimes a player points out something in the way a rule interacts that was never intended and I get to close the loophole or add the word that was missing. There's a lot of history in the game to ensure is given a proper homage and with over 18000 attribute data cells to check that make s a lot of places where mistakes can be made.

One of the hardest things to overcome is the decision made to keep the old squad availabilities into the current rules. since that was what a lot of armies that were build had been based on. We didn't want to invalidate armies if it could be helped, but some kind of order had to be established. This update is about reducing the clutter. The next one will likely be focused on more defined niches for the models people have. Currently some models have up to six unit availabilities. I would prefer to have a maximum of 4 per model if only for simplicity sake. Getting there will be a little complex and is sure to cause some angry e-mails.

Cheers!
Dave

I don't understand why 2E needs to be so heavily hamstrung by the past. If you're taking an axe to the rules, take an axe to the lists while you're at it. Make a proper "2E", not a "1.2E".

If a player wants to field an non-standard model, that's between him and his gaming group.

 Mmmpi wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
OK, that is a pretty darn good example of the obstinancy that we've spent roughly 50 pages complaining about.

You say, "oh, it's just an Attack roll", but then you note, to create that roll you need to capture a ton of things:
1. my model's speed modifier,
2. my model's weapon modifier.
3. range modifier
4. flank modifier
5. elevation modifier.
6. crippled modifier.
7. skill of the model
That is a lot of stuff to remember each time - the notion that you wouldn't have to recheck stats is odd.

And all "modifiers" are bonus dice / penalty dice, which may, or may not be result modifiers. Because, when you roll, sometimes a die is a +1 bonus, sometimes, not. It's not like we're counting "successes". Nor are we generating a traditional total.

Before we compare, opponent must capture a similar amount of stuff for their Defense roll:
1. speed modifier,
2. cover
3. crippled modifier.
4. skill of the model

The defense roll holds things up, because no resolution can complete until both players generate their number.


And then we still need to assess Weapon Strength, Armor, and Hull, which is a matrix of stats of Light / regular / Heavy versions of the thing.

In 40k, I know that most of the target numbers, etc. are common across the army, and they don't modify. That makes it easy to focus on exceptions. HG seems to have far more numerical variety as well.
____


____

Definitely, the decision tree needs pruning.

We'll see where things go.

To be fair, Warmachine has quite a few modifiers to track,
Including:
1. my model's speed modifier,
2. my model's weapon modifier.
3. range modifier
4. flank modifier: --------------------------Back strike
5. elevation modifier.----------------------Elevation
6. crippled modifier. ----------------------Damaged Systems
7. skill of the model.----------------------Rat/Mat vs defense
-------------------------------------------------Aiming
-------------------------------------------------Knocked Down
-------------------------------------------------Clouds
--------------------------------------------------Dug In
--------------------------------------------------Very Wide variety of spells many of which are only on a single model

and:
1. speed modifier,
2. cover----------------------------------------Cover
3. crippled modifier. -----------------------See Damaged systems above
4. skill of the model------------------------Rat/Mat above
---------------------------------------------------Equipment such as shields
---------------------------------------------------Screening
---------------------------------------------------Stealth

Not an exhaustive list, but a good example of the large number of modifiers/status effects to keep track of just to attack in WM/Hrds. And don't get me started on Battletech....

Granted I'm not saying that you can't streamline the game, but going the 40K route is just taking it a step too far. (Not that I don't enjoy 40K)
From looking through the rules (Think I'll be getting my first game Friday! YAY!), what's going to slow us down the most is any attempt at electronic warfare. That is, what will slow us down more than normal for a 1st game.
Overall, the decision making process of the game seems to be the long part, aka what should I do now, and looking it up, rather than the actual roll. After all, my group managed to get Warmachine and Battletech down fairly well.


@Tamwulf
You might want to think about finding a new group of players. I don't thing it's the system, but rather they're either cheating (poorly), or would be too incompetent for anything complex, like Candy Land.

Questions in reverse order- I haven't lived in geographic location for more than 4 years since I was 16. I've lived in England, Germany, the Netherlands, and all over the US. I've played games all over the world for the last 30 years. My anecdotes are the culmination of more than 30 years of playing games. For every bad story I have, there are usually 2-3 good stories as well. Unfortunitly, the interwebz are inherently negative and full of Trolls, whether the Troll knows they are a Troll or not. There is such a thing as an "Unintentional Troll".

About Warmachine:

It really feels like you are trying to over complicate the system in order to make your point- that's its just as complicated as HG:B. I disagree STRONGLY. The basic mechanic of Warmachine is take a stat, add +2d6, and compare it to another stat. Period. There are modifiers- but the modifiers are easy to see and apply. It's also on a per model/roll basis. What I mean is, when I make an attack, there is one roll. All the applicable modifiers apply to that one roll. I compare that dice roll + modifiers to a stat. If it's equal or better, I hit. there is one damage roll, and it's independent of the attack roll unless the attack has a critical effect attached to it- and the card will clearly state how that critical is applied to the target. The damage roll is similar to the attack roll. 2d6+ mods compared to the ARMOR of the model.

Taking a step back, yes I can see the point that there are many modifiers in Warmachine/Hordes. I've never felt overwhelmed by those modifiers. If I stand still, I get a ranged aiming bonus. If I'm standing behind a wall, I get cover, which is a flat modifier versus all ranged attacks. If I'm standing in a copse of trees, I get concealment. If I charge, I get a movement bonus and a boosted damage roll. There is either Line of Sight to my model, or there is not. There is no partial cover, no hard, or soft cover. My DEF is not modified by how fast/far I moved in the turn. Some of these are very much subjective, but there has to be some suspension of belief in order to make the rules work on the table top (I'm talking cover- doesn't matter if I'm standing behind a plywood wall, or a reinforced concrete and steel barrier. I get +4 to my DEF vs. Ranged attacks- if you have line of sight to me).

With all that being said, I believe Warmachine/Hordes is the perfect example of a simple rules mechanic and a tight rules set for a skirmish level game. When you talk to people about Warmachine/Hordes, they usually don't list the rules as a weakness of the game.

Referring to Battletech- I never found it all that difficult adding up the mods. Of course, it was an exercise in counting hexes on the map, and what those hexes had in them that modified the rolls. After that, it was just figuring out what chart to use. The thing I hated about Battletech was filling in those bubbles. Alpha Strike is what Battletech should be. Not too keen on the way they simplified the mechs down- what I mean is, you lose a lot of the flavor of being able to say things like "I'm going to shoot you with my LRM 20. Suck it, Freebirth!" and instead it's "I hit you with 6 damage from whatever weapons my mech has". That's where I like Heavy Gear- it's got some of that fluff contained in the game. The problem is, there are so many different weapons in HG, with so many different traits. I never felt outclassed in Battletech (well, unless I was running an Innersphere mech against a Clan any tonnage mech...) for taking say, a medium laser over a AC10. In HG, it's pretty obvious what weapons you want on your gears, and the army selection process boils down to getting as many of those weapons in your list as possible.

The main thing about Warmachine that I always hated is that there is about umpteen unique rules for all the models. So lots of crazy modifiers, and oh gak, I just lost because I had no idea (or forgot) that unit Y could do X.

Blitz mods, there really weren't that many, once you remembered them (not all that different than the massive speedup in play once you memorize all the basic charts of 40k.) And they weren't unique, much like 40k charts.

But that said, while Warmachine hosts similar complexity in many ways, it is most definitely a skirmish game, meant for a fairly low model count. Though, I think that's what Heavy Gear should shoot for, anyway.

I haven't played NuBlitz enough, but it seems to be tossing some of the mods, and more unneeded states and actions, and for the most part, all for the better. I'm glad to see WiT go, it was always a gakky kludge for broken mechanics. I'll sort of miss Hull Down, but it's not really needed either. On the other hand, I think it dropped the ball when it came to weapons, and instead of expanding the weapons, it should've contracted the weapons table. I almost think the game would've better with just a single type, or maybe light/heavy for guns. It would really help solidify weapon roles.

If all weapons had a maximum of 2 versions (Heavy -or- Light), with a smattering of single-form weapons out there, that would probably be helpful.

Again, it's a question of doing some real editing to consolidate things down to a series of options that matter, rather than carrying detail because it fills in a gap, or because it splits the tip of a hair.

I have no interest in the wargame. I'll never play it, with any rules.

I will rabidly devour anything from the RPG side of things and play those until my eyeballs fall out.

That said. There's no reason the wargame has to adhere to anything my side of things is interested in. The wargame doesn't need to present the granularity of the RPG. Take Battlefleet Gothic - "What kind of weapons does your ship have?" "Guns." Yeah but what kind?" "...the gun kind." Macro-cannons worked just fine as a catch all for the hundreds or thousands of gun-like weapons that could reasonably be assumed to exist. But if in Rogue Trader, you want to get specific about it, that's perfect!

The point of that being, the wargame can be a representation of combat on Terra Nova, without being an RPG-level simulation of it. It doesn't need to be.

Seriously. Most "conventional" attacks could even be conflated to a single value and an optimal range, and just give half damage out of optimal or something. Then you could add in the special, "one shot" weapons and you're done.

I like that BFG has 2 kinds of direct-fire weapons: "guns" and "lasers". Easy.

Not everything must be simplified to a pulp though, there is a measure for everything.

That's absolutely true. But in the case of Heavy Gear, the decision was not made to create a complex and engaging wargame with extreme, engrossing detail. The decision was to keep as many elements of an old RPG as possible.

 Firebreak wrote:
I have no interest in the wargame.
The point of that being, the wargame can be a representation of combat on Terra Nova, without being an RPG-level simulation of it. It doesn't need to be.

I'm not honestly sure that "wargame" is the same thing as whatever NuBlitz is intended to be nowadays, and that maybe a bland moniker of "[title] [optional: Space Opera] miniature ruleset" more adequately serves as a description.

It might just depend on whatever niche market the Pod intends to try and carve out a slice of come next Fall, but right now "anime" seems to be the primary direction.

_
_

 Smilodon_UP wrote:
It might just depend on whatever niche market the Pod intends to try and carve out a slice of come next Fall, but right now "anime" seems to be the primary direction.

Anime is a media, not a genre. Just wanted to throw it out there that doing that is like trying to make a niche out of moviegoers.

 Smilodon_UP wrote:

 Firebreak wrote:
I have no interest in the wargame.
The point of that being, the wargame can be a representation of combat on Terra Nova, without being an RPG-level simulation of it. It doesn't need to be.

I'm not honestly sure that "wargame" is the same thing as whatever NuBlitz is intended to be nowadays, and that maybe a bland moniker of "[title] [optional: Space Opera] miniature ruleset" more adequately serves as a description.

It might just depend on whatever niche market the Pod intends to try and carve out a slice of come next Fall, but right now "anime" seems to be the primary direction.

_
_

I'd disagree with this, because every anime mecha show I've ever watched has always been about a hero, his sidekicks, and the vast tide of bad guys that out number them 100:1 they face all the time. There is only two sides: us and them. The good guy has some supped up, awesome Mech that no one else but his trusted mechanic can fix, he has a girl friend that is in love with the antagonist, but eventually comes around to the protagonist. One of the sidekicks ALWAYS dies that spurs on the protagonist in the fight, and there is ALWAYS some kind of moral ambiguity that the hero's face.

In anime, there is no ammo- guns have an infinite supply of ammunition, lasers/ray guns/particle weapons, whatever can shoot and shoot and shoot without ever over heating or depleting some energy source. A mecha shoots 100+ missiles in each attack, and they all have some kind of melee weapon- usually a laser sword. They fly straight at the bad guys, do an Alpha Strike killing 99% of the bad guys, then the protagonist faces off against the antagonist in a duel with laser swords. If something does have ammo, or requires charging, etc. etc. it's a one shot, cinematic "kills everything it hits" kind of gun.

The Antagonist and Protagonist's mecha are the most maneuverable mecha in the show, and they are able to perform leaps, spin kicks, hay makers, upper cuts, etc etc- daring feats of Martial Arts. Gun-Fu comes to mind when I see a couple shows.

This is NOT the Heavy Gear Blitz universe. Although it would be kind of cool if they went that route...

It also isn't VOTOMS to my knowledge or Robotech for the most part.

 Tamwulf wrote:
This is NOT the Heavy Gear Blitz universe.

Not the setting no, or at least not always, but it does seem to be where quite a lot of the NuBlitz rules are heading.

 Tamwulf wrote:
Although it would be kind of cool if they went that route...

Overlord, Drake, Scimitar, Lynx, FLAIL & PILUM armors, Black Talons, etc etc etc?

 Albertorius wrote:
Anime is a media, not a genre. Just wanted to throw it out there that doing that is like trying to make a niche out of moviegoers.

True enough.
Mostly I was just answering to how the ruleset no longer seems to have a focus in any specific area, which is a needed component for any title, because "wargame" is definitely not one of the things going on anymore.

 Tamwulf wrote:
I'd disagree with this, because every anime mecha show I've ever watched has always been about a hero, his sidekicks, and the vast tide of bad guys that out number them 100:1 they face all the time. There is only two sides: us and them. The good guy has some supped up, awesome Mech that no one else but his trusted mechanic can fix, he has a girl friend that is in love with the antagonist, but eventually comes around to the protagonist. One of the sidekicks ALWAYS dies that spurs on the protagonist in the fight, and there is ALWAYS some kind of moral ambiguity that the hero's face.

In anime, there is no ammo- guns have an infinite supply of ammunition, lasers/ray guns/particle weapons, whatever can shoot and shoot and shoot without ever over heating or depleting some energy source. A mecha shoots 100+ missiles in each attack, and they all have some kind of melee weapon- usually a laser sword. They fly straight at the bad guys, do an Alpha Strike killing 99% of the bad guys, then the protagonist faces off against the antagonist in a duel with laser swords. If something does have ammo, or requires charging, etc. etc. it's a one shot, cinematic "kills everything it hits" kind of gun.

The Antagonist and Protagonist's mecha are the most maneuverable mecha in the show, and they are able to perform leaps, spin kicks, hay makers, upper cuts, etc etc- daring feats of Martial Arts. Gun-Fu comes to mind when I see a couple shows.

This is NOT the Heavy Gear Blitz universe. Although it would be kind of cool if they went that route...

Maybe you should try some shows that lean more towards the "real-robo" spectrum of the genre, instead of the "super robot" one?

Which is not to say that many real robot series don't have some of what you say (as Gundam, the first of the genre, is actually all over the place in the spectrum), but there are certainly series out there where most if not all of what you said don't apply.

For example: VOTOMs. It has the "Chirico is awesome, has sidekicks and the enemy usually outnumbers it 100:1", certainly, but the hero never gets to have any AT better than the enemy can have, ammo is a very real consideration, the main moral consideration he faces is "I want to live and people don't" and "I think I love this super soldier girl", there are sides basically everywhere... and Chirico is usually in the middle, etc., etc.

Tamwulf wrote:
In anime, there is no ammo- guns have an infinite supply of ammunition

Heavyarms ran out of bullets so often that I think that was actually its special attack.

 Firebreak wrote:

Tamwulf wrote:
In anime, there is no ammo- guns have an infinite supply of ammunition

Heavyarms ran out of bullets so often that I think that was actually its special attack.

LOL I forgot about that one! Their are always exceptions. Guns always seem to run out of ammo at the dramatically appropriate moment, usually when the hero finally confronts the villain, and they end up in some kind of melee.

 Tamwulf wrote:

 Firebreak wrote:

Tamwulf wrote:
In anime, there is no ammo- guns have an infinite supply of ammunition

Heavyarms ran out of bullets so often that I think that was actually its special attack.

LOL I forgot about that one! Their are always exceptions. Guns always seem to run out of ammo at the dramatically appropriate moment, usually when the hero finally confronts the villain, and they end up in some kind of melee.

So... just like basically every movie ever, then?

 Tamwulf wrote:
In anime, there is no ammo- guns have an infinite supply of ammunition, lasers/ray guns/particle weapons, whatever can shoot and shoot and shoot without ever over heating or depleting some energy source.

Pretty sure Shinji only got ONE shot with the Positron Sniper Rifle in Evangelion, because it took the entire power of Tokyo-3 to charge it...

Further, Eva only have a few minutes operation time when running on internal battery vs umbilical.

Two shots, though the reload/recharge time from swapping capacitors almost killed Rei. Evangelion has them running out of ammo all the time. Usually in an "empty the magazine: whoops monster's still fine!" kinda way.