IceRaptor wrote:
They are already up to nearly $7,000 CAD on the KS - not a bad start in the first few hours. Be interesting to see what they look like at the end of Sunday.

Cool, I didn't realize they started. It looks like they're up to 93 backers and $11k so far. It might be a good idea for someone enthusiastic about this to start a news and rumor thread about the kickstarter if they're also willing to keep it updated on a daily level with any passed stretch goals. If I go in, it'll be eventually at $1 when caprice stuff is unlocked at which point I'd consider getting more but I'm not the best candidate to take the lead in the meantime as I don't plan on pledging yet.

Does anyone know if the HG campaign will show up under your history if it doesn't fund or do only fully funded projects show up there?

Yeesh, I had to google Heavy Gear Kickstarter, as I couldn't find a link to it on the forums, not even in Dave's post that is literally, "Our Kickstarter is now live!"

And it's not even the first, second or third item in google. It's the fifth thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
(Though it looks like they will make their first goal anyway.)

So am I correct in understanding the scale for the KS minis is different?

I didn't know anything about Heavy Gear back when I was a kid and given the Activision game and loved it. Ever since I found out it was a miniatures game I wanted some northern minis. I like the old (current) sculpts, and want to snatch up a few if they're being replaced by mystery plastic in a different size. Maybe when all is said and done I'd purchase the new minis post-KS but we'll see.

For you Tydil.



Another way of putting it is that no, the scale will not be changing again. RAFM was the only one. The Blitz miniatures are either over-sized or under-sized depending on how they were portrayed in the actual art by Barbe.

I'll actually be happy to see a KS go off, I like that HG is a thing that exists, but years ago I decided that DP9 wouldn't get another dollar from me over the treatment of Jovian Chronicles. Never really cared for Heavy Gear, but I freaking adored JC and I've bought so much stuff I still have DOZENS of mechs and ships in blister even after making larger-than-is-really-playable fleets for Jovians and CEGA.

JC sat in limbo for well over a decade before DP9 finally just admitted it was dead, but for YEARS HG got release after release after release after release and edition after edition while JC had entire factions with only a single mech actually modeled. There were a lot of ships and mechs and fighters that had rules and stat cards in the books but nothing to represent them on the table, all the while DP9 was promising JC wasn't dead and that JC:Blitz! was just around the corner.

It was a very GW mentality - not updating anything because the models weren't selling, but they weren't selling because nothing ever got updated. Meanwhile HG got so many updates that people just walked away from it

The KS is on right now, Kala. And it just passed 24,000 of their initial 27,000.

And we're funded overnight in less than 24 hours. It appears my evaluation of this is not typical. Congrats to DP9 and the pledgers.

Thank you warboss. 32.5 and still going.

Ok, I have to admit that I underestimated the size of the remaining customer base.
I won't congratulate anyone yet. The product has not been delivered. I don't doubt DP9's capacity to get some people to give them money, I doubt DP9's capacity to deliver on their promises.
I'll only offer congratulations if they manage to resurrect the game they have worked so hard to kill.

As it is, they still don't seem to care about the rules, which are now going to be even more of an afterthought since their limited resources have to be used for the kickstarter.
Given their track record, I expect a repeat of Paladium's Robotech kickstarter.

BrandonKF wrote:
For you Tydil.



Another way of putting it is that no, the scale will not be changing again. RAFM was the only one. The Blitz miniatures are either over-sized or under-sized depending on how they were portrayed in the actual art by Barbe.

Help!

As someone interested in this one, but totally new to HG, what am I looking at there?

Far left is Jager. Southern general purpose trooper Gear.
mid left, above quarter, Black Mamba commando.
mid right, above penny, Spitting Cobra fire support Gear.
far left, Iguana scout Gear.

Hope that helps Alpharius.

Sorry, I wasn't specific!

Is that picture showing:

1) Scale issues between models?

2) Scale issues between new models from a new edition and older models from past issues?

I have been looking for a mecha game in this scale for a long time, but don't know much about...any of them!

Ideally it would have mechs, tanks and troops...

Is this that game?

 Alpharius wrote:
Sorry, I wasn't specific!

Is that picture showing:

1) Scale issues between models?

2) Scale issues between new models from a new edition and older models from past issues?

I have been looking for a mecha game in this scale for a long time, but don't know much about...any of them!

Ideally it would have mechs, tanks and troops...

Is this that game?

It's been 1/144 since the late 90s, so you're probably safe there.

As for whether the game is worth playing, well, this thread is 50 pages of "why not"...

@Alpharius, the game uses a mix of Gears, tanks, APCs, and Infantry as well as mounted cavalry, and just added hoppers (VTOLs). The Beta is open and free to download at DriveThruRPG.

BrandonKF wrote:
@Alpharius, the game uses a mix of Gears, tanks, APCs, and Infantry as well as mounted cavalry, and just added hoppers (VTOLs). The Beta is open and free to download at DriveThruRPG.

Ha - thanks!

All that right there makes it hard to resist...

But if there's something similar, yet better, well - what would it be?

 Alpharius wrote:
Sorry, I wasn't specific!

Is that picture showing:

1) Scale issues between models?

2) Scale issues between new models from a new edition and older models from past issues?

I have been looking for a mecha game in this scale for a long time, but don't know much about...any of them!

Ideally it would have mechs, tanks and troops...

Is this that game?

That picture shows mechs (Gears) from one of each "class," if you'll allow the term. Trooper, commando, support, scout. They are all in-scale with one another, and all from the same faction.

 Alpharius wrote:

But if there's something similar, yet better, well - what would it be?

Dropzone commander.
If you want more than a tick in a check-box, playing nothing is also better. You'll have more money and space for when someone creates a Mech+Vehicle+Troop game that's more to your liking.

If you want the feel of pre-2003 Heavy Gear, Infinity.

mrondeau wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:

But if there's something similar, yet better, well - what would it be?

Dropzone commander.
If you want more than a tick in a check-box, playing nothing is also better. You'll have more money and space for when someone creates a Mech+Vehicle+Troop game that's more to your liking.

If you want the feel of pre-2003 Heavy Gear, Infinity.

This is...depressing to read.

I guess the positive here being that I am already well into Infinity!

That's the whole problem.
I took part in a 50 pages thread of complaining/criticism about DP9. I consider not warning people about DP9's track record equivalent to not warning people about a scam.
At this point, I'll be the first to admit it, I so do not give them the benefit of the doubt that, if they saved all the children and puppies from a burning orphanage, I would probably suspect them of having started the fire.

I still follow them and hope they finally learn, because I want a mini game based on range combat, with mech, vehicle and troop, without stupid and pointless squad cohesion rule.
And I want it to be in the interesting setting they got from 2nd edition.

The first time I tried to stop playing Heavy Gear (after Lock and Loaded), there were no widespread sci-fi game based on range shooting.
I search, tried a few candidate, decided to give Heavy Gear another chance and confirmed all the things that made me stop (effective range: 3". Biggest tactical decision: move to the left or right side of the target. Game balance: nonexistent.)
So I stopped again.

Then, after years of denial by DP9, we got the Gear Up rule patch, finally put together in the Field Manual. I thought they had finally learned!
The rules were muddy, balance was still nonexistent, but tactics and range were back.
Rules questions were not addressed (it's not as if the rules matter.)
Complaining occurred.
Finally, we got an updated version of the PDF, but no errata.
So I spent 2 hours, going pages by pages, to find the changes. Others were asking about the changes on the forum and were not getting any answers.
When I was done creating a change log, Hudson, in a too frequent rare laps of judgment, convinced me to send it to DP9, so that it could be used to create an official change log.
I added a few unanswered questions and did so.
Then, I learned how much DP9 cares about its customers.
If creating the official change log was going to take time, I suggested just posting my log as an unofficial post (what I was planning to do in the first place.)
Instead, I was told to wait. So I waited.
After 1-2 weeks, I asked about the status, and offered help. I was told to wait.
After 1-2 weeks, I asked about the status, and offered help. I was told to wait, it was going to be done soon.
After 1-2 weeks, I asked about the status, and offered help. I was told it was ready and would be posted next Friday.
I offered to look at it, to confirm that my questions were answered. No reply.
Friday come. No change logs. I ask what's going on. No Reply.
During the weekend, someone ask the question. I'm tired of waiting and not answering, so I post my original text.
I warn DP9, saying that it's obviously taking them longer than expected, and that I'm tired of waiting (probably less politely than that, I'll admit.)
Within 30-60 seconds (I checked the timestamps), my post is deleted, and I have an angry PM in my inbox, from the owner who apparently was under the mistaken impression that he was my boss.
It took a few more months for the change log. The final results was, mostly, my original text. The answers did not actually answers the questions, and in fact indicated that the author did not understand the rules.
And the worse thing is that this was not the last drop.

At least, when the last drop dropped, Infinity was widespread. Corvus Beli, no matter what, is not DP9.

It is a real shame that currently, for me the best way to play HG is either using another system or 2nd edition (the one from the 90s).

Alph, this thread is literally filled like a refugee camp with folks that tried to help with HG over the years (from paid employees to playtesters). I fully realize that some folks will see that as just a hive of scum and villainy filled with only those with an axe to grind... and to a point, they're correct... but it's also correct to say that the thread is filled with folks who used to be incredibly enthusiastic about the universe and now aren't because of numerous mistakes by the company that have led us to the point where very few people can find others to actually play and most stores and the EXCLUSIVE official EU distributor don't bother stocking their products.

In any case, BrandonKF is a fellow infinity fan and has conversion rules in his blog to that game (see his thunder run sig link). In a nutshell, if you like the "look" of the gears and don't mind Gundam/Final Fantasy creeping in, download the free beta rules over on drivethrurpg and see if you like them. Just keep in mind that it is likely that any rules you buy/read/whatever will be flipped in 2-3 years like clockwork.

OK, if the KS hits a certain amount (it ain't there yet, by a fair way), I may have to get into it, despite all the issues. But given all of the apparent issues with the rules, my question for the gallery is this.

Assuming the rules for this edition are meh or worse, what previous edition of the rules would people recommend? Specifically for the North/South mecha that'll be included?

Also, do the South not get an equivalent to the Ferret? Everything else North/South tends to have an equivalent.

Morgan Vening wrote:

Also, do the South not get an equivalent to the Ferret? Everything else North/South tends to have an equivalent.

They will, give it time. The Ferret was meant to be a unique, interesting, characterful addition, as was the Gearstrider to Peace River. But recent developments have seen everyone get everything. There's a certain amount of homogenization going on (re: wheel-feet for everyone), and I can't imagine the South will go without a butt-wheel for long.

The southern equivalent of the "mascot Gear" Ferret would probably be the Asp.

Morgan Vening wrote:
OK, if the KS hits a certain amount (it ain't there yet, by a fair way), I may have to get into it, despite all the issues. But given all of the apparent issues with the rules, my question for the gallery is this.

Assuming the rules for this edition are meh or worse, what previous edition of the rules would people recommend? Specifically for the North/South mecha that'll be included?

Also, do the South not get an equivalent to the Ferret? Everything else North/South tends to have an equivalent.

It all depends as they all have issues. The biggest problem with the current "blitz" rules is the stubborn holding over of ideas from the RPG when you had small skirmish forces (<6 models) typically during a decade when the company was trying to sell the game as a platoon sized wargame. Basically, DP9 has been an RPG company whose Rpg failed and were forced to rely on the miniatures "tactical" chapter of their RPG books for many years/editions. Because they want to be an RPG company, they keep alot of the details that work in an RPG (like four DIFFERENT stats for electronics on EVERY model) that are simply bloat in a larger than skirmish minis game. If you want, check out my blog sig link for a simplified version that plays a bit better and faster (IMO) at the skirmish scale (the "FLASH" table of contents on the right).

These issues are supposed to be addressed wtih this new and (for the first time) completely different ruleset. Unfortunately, developer bias has crept in repeatedly over the last year into the alpha/beta rules with little regard for balance until necessary public drama forces a change. The goal of the new rules is to have a sweet spot of up to 20 models per side (so generally 3-5 squads).

As for the ferret, the north generally has more options for recon than the south. I'd say the ferret equivalent for the north is the anolis with the south, in that both are relatively obsolete recon gears in the fluff and not top of the line models.

Only one caveat: their RPG (actually their RPGs) failed because 1) they killed them doing a two-year hiatus to go film movies and 2) the actual brains of the operation left for greener pastures.

EDIT: Also, I'd say that the Ferret Mk II is pretty much a top of the line recon Gear. Wouldn't the equivalent of the Anolis be the Bobcat?

The Ferret Mk II is not really what I would call "top of the line". It's not a Mk I (i.e. obsolete and useless), but it's basically just a jeep. Useful, but no Cheetah.
Sure, it's about as fast, but it's not as manoeuvrable. If speed is your criterion, then Warrior Mk IV are even more top of the line.
They have speed and armour.

The Northern equivalent of an Asp is not a Ferret MkI, it's a firing squad. The Peace-River equivalent is Dubeau-Slovensky.

 Alpharius wrote:
Sorry, I wasn't specific!

Is that picture showing:

1) Scale issues between models?

2) Scale issues between new models from a new edition and older models from past issues?

I have been looking for a mecha game in this scale for a long time, but don't know much about...any of them!

Ideally it would have mechs, tanks and troops...

Is this that game?

I'm hoping Firestorm Planetfall will fill that niche in a more well rounded way.

For me, HG is so mech focused (for obvious reasons) and the mechs are so humanoid that it barely felt like I was playing a different scale. It just felt like a 28mm skirmish game....which Infinity does SO much better ruleswise that it's not even funny.

Scale really isn't a thing anymore, unless you've gone out of your way to hunt down the old minis.

 Albertorius wrote:
Only one caveat: their RPG (actually their RPGs) failed because 1) they killed them doing a two-year hiatus to go film movies

LOL, yeah, I forgot about that one. Can you imagine if Corvus Belli decided to completely stop developing Infinity for a few years just so they could focus exclusively on Spanish Soap Operas for Telemundo? LOL... that decision pretty much killed all of their product lines that weren't already on life support from minimal support and/or edition flip flops.

 warboss wrote:
Alph, this thread is literally filled like a refugee camp with folks that tried to help with HG over the years (from paid employees to playtesters). I fully realize that some folks will see that as just a hive of scum and villainy filled with only those with an axe to grind... and to a point, they're correct... but it's also correct to say that the thread is filled with folks who used to be incredibly enthusiastic about the universe and now aren't because of numerous mistakes by the company that have led us to the point where very few people can find others to actually play and most stores and the EXCLUSIVE official EU distributor don't bother stocking their products.

In any case, BrandonKF is a fellow infinity fan and has conversion rules in his blog to that game (see his thunder run sig link). In a nutshell, if you like the "look" of the gears and don't mind Gundam/Final Fantasy creeping in, download the free beta rules over on drivethrurpg and see if you like them. Just keep in mind that it is likely that any rules you buy/read/whatever will be flipped in 2-3 years like clockwork.

Just reminded me I need to upload the other profiles for the other factions on Thunder Run.

Seems that as long as Infinity is going, they won't be changing the rules up too much (although the little details are probably going to be the devil in disguise here for this 3rd edition ruleset).

-Brandon F.

ferrous wrote:
Yeesh, I had to Google Heavy Gear Kickstarter, as I couldn't find a link to it on the forums, not even in Dave's post that is literally, "Our Kickstarter is now live!"
And it's not even the first, second or third item in Google. It's the fifth thing.

Yeah, that kind of threw me too here yesterday - especially after all the effort of creating the forum graphics in the first place, which is definitely not on Balance.
Who by the way I apologize to if I gave the impression in my post that he was the incompetent and short-sighted individual who botched that kind of crucial first step.

mrondeau wrote:
I doubt DP9's capacity to deliver on their promises.
I'll only offer congratulations if they manage to resurrect the game they have worked so hard to kill.

 warboss wrote:
Alph, this thread is literally filled like a refugee camp with folks that tried to help with HG over the years (from paid employees to playtesters). I fully realize that some folks will see that as just a hive of scum and villainy filled with only those with an axe to grind... and to a point, they're correct... but it's also correct to say that the thread is filled with folks who used to be incredibly enthusiastic about the universe and now aren't because of numerous mistakes by the company that have led us to the point where very few people can find others to actually play and most stores and the EXCLUSIVE official EU distributor don't bother stocking their products.

 warboss wrote:
These issues are supposed to be addressed wtih this new and (for the first time) completely different ruleset. Unfortunately, developer bias has crept in repeatedly over the last year into the alpha/beta rules with little regard for balance until necessary public drama forces a change.

 Albertorius wrote:
Only one caveat: their RPG (actually their RPGs) failed because 1) they killed them doing a two-year hiatus to go film movies and 2) the actual brains of the operation left for greener pastures.

Perhaps the most amusing/frustrating thing of all about how TPTB at Dream Pod 9 carry on whilst treading all over anyone who doesn't blindly support the company is how they always eventually cut their own collective throats by repeating the exact same behavior(s).

Just like they're doing now in the news threads here on Dakka and elsewhere, talking up big plans without having waited to polish the detail questions everyone keeps asking to be answered, and then ignoring those outright or trying to get out of it with repetitive double-talk.
As a few folks have pointed out, about how on sites with the kind of traffic like Dakka, RPG.net, or BoardGameGeek have, the lack of much anyone discussing the company or its games is kind of a telling sign.

_
_

Beasts of War and other Facebook and Twitter sites sharing the news counts well enough, and the company staff hasn't said anything here.

And 44k with a few hundred to go for Stretch Goal #3 says folks are showing plenty of interest.

Edit: 45,000. Earther MHT-95 Hovertanks are good to go.

I appreciate the info everyone.

I've always been interested in HG, but never took the plunge.

IF the KS funds high enough, the $100 pledge will become a deal 'too good to resist' for me - knowing full well that it will also probably end up shipping significantly late, and that the rules might need a lot of additional work.

I still dream of a miniature wargame based off of the super awesome Giant Robot anime from the 70's like Getter Robo, Gaiking and Grandizer...

mrondeau wrote:
The Ferret Mk II is not really what I would call "top of the line". It's not a Mk I (i.e. obsolete and useless), but it's basically just a jeep. Useful, but no Cheetah.
Sure, it's about as fast, but it's not as manoeuvrable. If speed is your criterion, then Warrior Mk IV are even more top of the line.

It is faster than a Cheetah, actually. It also has low profile, which the Cheetah has not, a better main weapon (a LAC instead of a DPG, but that doesn't help recon), same sensors and comm arrays, a much longer deployment range, and the same Target Designator. True, it doesn't have ECM, but that's not really recon equipment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 warboss wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:
Only one caveat: their RPG (actually their RPGs) failed because 1) they killed them doing a two-year hiatus to go film movies

LOL, yeah, I forgot about that one. Can you imagine if Corvus Belli decided to completely stop developing Infinity for a few years just so they could focus exclusively on Spanish Soap Operas for Telemundo? LOL... that decision pretty much killed all of their product lines that weren't already on life support from minimal support and/or edition flip flops.

Yep. You're thinking south america there, though, not Spain ^^.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrandonKF wrote:
Just reminded me I need to upload the other profiles for the other factions on Thunder Run.

Seems that as long as Infinity is going, they won't be changing the rules up too much (although the little details are probably going to be the devil in disguise here for this 3rd edition ruleset).

I've gotten invested on Infinity as of late, so I'll be very interested in your project.

 Albertorius wrote:

Yep. You're thinking south america there, though, not Spain ^^.

It was as close to a accurate joke comparison as I could get. In any case, Telemundo is watched by and geared towards plenty of North Americans as well seeing as how the largest and most populous spanish speaking country is on that continent. They'd just need to tone down the lisps for their former colonial audience!

Also, it looks like the FLAILs will be unlocked soon so congrats to the CEF players.

Unlocked.

Thanks warboss, but I can use these just as good as targets.

And Albertorius, I will do my best to upload some more of the factions sometime tonight.

I do want to warn you, I have never played them. I had someone earlier who was using them for a Roleplaying group he had put together, but I haven't heard back from him. Currently I only have the rules for the Northern Lights Confederacy and the Southern Republic on my blog.

Edit: Just checked my blog and found the Stencil font I chose auto converts to something else in the phones. Darn it...

 Albertorius wrote:

mrondeau wrote:
The Ferret Mk II is not really what I would call "top of the line". It's not a Mk I (i.e. obsolete and useless), but it's basically just a jeep. Useful, but no Cheetah.
Sure, it's about as fast, but it's not as manoeuvrable. If speed is your criterion, then Warrior Mk IV are even more top of the line.

It is faster than a Cheetah, actually. It also has low profile, which the Cheetah has not, a better main weapon (a LAC instead of a DPG, but that doesn't help recon), same sensors and comm arrays, a much longer deployment range, and the same Target Designator. True, it doesn't have ECM, but that's not really recon equipment.

One of my favorite designs of the 2e Gears is the Kodiak, which likewise has a strange equipment loadout compared to others of it's type, as the damage types/potenial of the particle accelerator and light guided missiles are more suited for anti-Gear work rather than how it is fluffed.

I just can't see those weapons being all that useful versus ground vehicles equipped with tiered active and passive defensive systems. The Destroyer variant kind of fixes that, but not a whole lot.
Still, at least either aren't like the King Cobra in carting about a kitchen sink. You'd think too many machines would be getting knocked off whilst the pilot decides which delivery system to use in a situation.

_
_

 Smilodon_UP wrote:
One of my favorite designs of the 2e Gears is the Kodiak, which likewise has a strange equipment loadout compared to others of it's type, as the damage types/potenial of the particle accelerator and light guided missiles are more suited for anti-Gear work rather than how it is fluffed.

I just can't see those weapons being all that useful versus ground vehicles equipped with tiered active and passive defensive systems.

Well, the regular Kodiak's LPA worked well against terranovan tanks, actually, due to its inherent +1 and Haywire, which was quite nice back in the day (rolling twice for damages was kind of a big deal). Against HTs, though... eh, I got nothing. Not sure either how it was supposed to be good against them.

I know a little bit about the plastics industry, having worked in it for awhile, and the numbers don't seem right to get a finished injection mould and run production with it.

By the stretch numbers, they are figuring $5000 per tool (figuring 1 sprue per model, each sprue will be a separate tool), and not simple tools at that.

I can't see them funding that much tool and die making and running profitable production runs with those numbers. A production run of a 1000 is not a big one for any injection shop, so its not like DP9 will be a priority customer unless its a very small shop.

For that reason, I'm out of this Kickstarter. But also because I have lots of models already and no one to play with.

Well, it looks like the campaing is stalling hard, looking at the graphs:




which really, isn't that surprising all told (actually, i thought they would have less backers by now), but could snowball fast: I expect a non insignificant part of the current pledgers are probably in to get as much "bang for their bucks" as possible, and not reaching stretch goals can end up making those people retire their pledge... and then the real troubles start.

I also find really baffling the fact that the pod has not made any kind of advertisement for their arguably absolutely vital KS anywhere at all. Anyone else would probably had filled the net with it, particularly any miniatures and giant robots page, forum, wiki et all.

Instead, they seem focused on bombarding their current pledgers with update after update, most of them not really interesting at all, or naked, shameless and (their own words) gratuituous plugs.

There's also the fact that, seeing as most of the current pledgers seem to be also the current fanbase, I expect that any money they throw at this is probably money they won't be investing on buying stuff from the Pod store, at least in the near future (there's only so much money you can spend on humanoid IFVs, after all :p).

I haven't bought anything for Heavy Gear in about 3 years. The rules mechanics made my brain bleed. But the new box set in the KS is just too good to pass up. I can always use the minis in after games, like Tomorrow's War, or something like that if the new rules suck. I'm getting in on this as soonxas I get paid! I've always loved HG, but the rules chased me away. :(
Also: Bring Back Jovian Chronicles!!! I LOVED that setting! I played it for years in high school.

Would that we could Headcase.

 Albertorius wrote:
Well, it looks like the campaing is stalling hard, looking at the graphs:

I wouldn't worry about that as it is pretty typical for a KS. You get a rush typically at the beginning then it tapers off to a drizzle after 2-3 days. It is a bit unique that day 2 was bigger than day 1 apparently but the drop off after that is normal. The set is already a much better value than it was when it started (which IMO was definitely not worth getting at $130 CAD) and I'd put it currently in the ok value category personally once the Iggies unlock. As long as we don't see negative pledger and funding totals daily, it won't be in trouble.

 warboss wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:
Well, it looks like the campaing is stalling hard, looking at the graphs:

I wouldn't worry about that as it is pretty typical for a KS. You get a rush typically at the beginning then it tapers off to a drizzle after 2-3 days. It is a bit unique that day 2 was bigger than day 1 apparently but the drop off after that is normal. The set is already a much better value than it was when it started (which IMO was definitely not worth getting at $130 CAD) and I'd put it currently in the ok value category personally once the Iggies unlock. As long as we don't see negative pledger and funding totals daily, it won't be in trouble.

I do agree that it's mostly the case, except in stupidly successful ones, but the rate of "decay" tends to be much less pronounced, in most cases. That said, I expect a heavy spike the last days, too.

As to the current value of the starter... well, it is indeed much better now (and no, the original starter was very much not worth it at $115+shipping+VAT), but now it has another problem, IMHO: not it is heavily unbalanced, due to the inclusion of the CEF stuff. Not only what's in there right now doesn't allow you to field a whole army, it also doesn't allow you to field all the contents of the box in a game, as right now is effectively a 3-players, free-for-all box.

If the CEF ends up getting Frames and some Caprice stuff, the box will probably end balanced and you'll be able to play it as two forces. Right now, though... it is kina problematic.

How are you not able to field the stuff together? Can't the fire support and scout gears be added as support to the core trooper and elite gear squads? Am I missing some new restriction or can't you just add a FS support unit to the Strike primary unit and a recon support to the primary GP? It seems relatively balanced but simply has nothing to do with WFTN... it is currently 100% an Interpolar War set.

 warboss wrote:
How are you not able to field the stuff together? Can't the fire support and scout gears be added as support to the core trooper and elite gear squads? Am I missing some new restriction or can't you just add a FS support unit to the Strike primary unit and a recon support to the primary GP? It seems relatively balanced but simply has nothing to do with WFTN... it is currently 100% an Interpolar War set.

I mean that you can't field North+South against CEF (which looks like it's the expected default), because the force disparity is a bit too big. So the CEF's 2 HTs and FLAIL bases are a bit of a leftover, right now.

 Albertorius wrote:
I also find really baffling the fact that the pod has not made any kind of advertisement for their arguably absolutely vital KS anywhere at all. Anyone else would probably had filled the net with it, particularly any miniatures and giant robots page, forum, wiki et all.
Instead, they seem focused on bombarding their current pledgers with update after update, most of them not really interesting at all, or naked, shameless and (their own words) gratuitous plugs.

Most definitely, despite having been a serious problem for every previous product since at least FiF if not before.
I think maybe it boils down to that nobody important enough to TPTB has made a repeated effort of getting across how much not doing this is contributing to killing the company's exposure, reputation, and bottom line.

There are still only two things that come up on a web search for HG Kickstarter actually started by the Pod; on Gamewire & RPG.net, except of course both were put up after the KS went live.
Plus, there was a post by Dave on BGG, but it disappeared strangely fast. Maybe where he posted it was only for advertising completely new games, and not revamps of existing ones, but I don't frequent the site enough to know all the rules or geekmod personality quirks that crop up.


Although this was only the Pod's "biggest thing ever," and they are certainly carrying on to match if not going overboard until finally being checked, so yeah, the lack of beforehand advertising is awful damn silly.
But every time anyone brings it up on the forums or over here they still get knocked down for pointing out such a basic truth.

/shrug, It just makes no sense whatsoever; and it cannot possibly be that complicated, getting the word out in a regular and professional manner is like business 101.
Always expecting that the folks buying their products should be the ones to promote the company may seriously bite them in the collective ass this time.


A truly boneheaded thing about all this though; that Dave kept asking in the KS comments for people to tell TPTB about sites the Pod hasn't posted news to; .... I mean, .... really, .... just, .... hello?

_
_

 Albertorius wrote:

 warboss wrote:
How are you not able to field the stuff together? Can't the fire support and scout gears be added as support to the core trooper and elite gear squads? Am I missing some new restriction or can't you just add a FS support unit to the Strike primary unit and a recon support to the primary GP? It seems relatively balanced but simply has nothing to do with WFTN... it is currently 100% an Interpolar War set.

I mean that you can't field North+South against CEF (which looks like it's the expected default), because the force disparity is a bit too big. So the CEF's 2 HTs and FLAIL bases are a bit of a leftover, right now.

Yeah, that is more than a bit odd. For those reading this who don't know the details, it would be the 40k equivalent of making a Horus Heresy boxed set that contained only Ultramarines and Imperial Fists.... and didn't unlock any chaos stuff until several stretch goals later and always had twice the number of loyalists to rebels models planned.

warboss wrote:
I wouldn't worry about that as it is pretty typical for a KS. You get a rush typically at the beginning then it tapers off to a drizzle after 2-3 days. It is a bit unique that day 2 was bigger than day 1 apparently but the drop off after that is normal. The set is already a much better value than it was when it started (which IMO was definitely not worth getting at $130 CAD) and I'd put it currently in the ok value category personally once the Iggies unlock. As long as we don't see negative pledger and funding totals daily, it won't be in trouble.

Albertorius wrote:
I do agree that it's mostly the case, except in stupidly successful ones, but the rate of "decay" tends to be much less pronounced, in most cases. That said, I expect a heavy spike the last days, too.

I really should try to setup the (possibly hidden) Markov chain model of Kickstarter results, with a classifier used to decide which of the N class of KS is more appropriate based on the daily data combined with some other info derived from the number and values of the rewards levels. Some other features, like the category, should help with the classification. Shipping info, for example, should be important.
This would be an interesting problem, but fairly trivial. The hardest part is going to be getting the training data for the Markov model and the classifier.

Well now.

This could get interesting.




On the Kickstarter front, it seems that now there's money in it, they're willing to promote it. Odd, but I guess it makes a kind of sense.

 warboss wrote:
How are you not able to field the stuff together? Can't the fire support and scout gears be added as support to the core trooper and elite gear squads? Am I missing some new restriction or can't you just add a FS support unit to the Strike primary unit and a recon support to the primary GP? It seems relatively balanced but simply has nothing to do with WFTN... it is currently 100% an Interpolar War set.

You can use the leagueless rules to combine the forces in a mash-up of North And South armies. The only rule is that all variants are limited to 0-1 per unit unless they are 0+ models. and you can mix North and South models if they share a Unit Availability (UA). This means you could take a unit with a Stock Jaguar, Stock Black Mamba, Strike Black Mamba, and a Destroyer Jaguar under the Strike Unit Availability (UA:SK). However models in support units have their availabilitiy reduced by -1 so only unlimited models can be taken in Leagueless support units. This means Stock Hunters and Jagers and stock Jaguars and Black Mambas in the basic set. It still makes a perfectly legal army. In terms of stretch goals for the Leagueless player you put the Grizzlies and the Cobras in a Fire Support unit together (UA:FS) and mix the cheetahs and the Iguanas as a Recon unit (UA:RC).



Thanks for all your responses and comments. We have a lot of players picking up the new free beta rules and while they're not perfect yet they do a good job of speeding up the game and show an improvement on game play plus vastly easier army construction. The contributions to development of our fans in the open beta has been overwhelming, and mostly supportive, even the criticism has been examined carefully. Not everything has been handled the best way possible but I am constantly pushing to improve the communication around the feedback we get.

Thanks to everyone who has shown your support of the Kickstarter. We unlocked the first Frame goal today and now we're working our way up past $70K to get to the second frame type the BF2-21 then it's on to the Caprice mounts!

There was a comment about the mold costs compared to the length of the stretch goals. We have done an incredible amount of diligence with regards to how the molds will be constructed and costed. As the biggest capital purchase that will result from the Kickstarter we have investigated the process and the costs very seriously. The biggest risks to the KS was that the mold costs would get out of hand, or we would promise more than was feasible for our fulfillment schedule. We have received enough information now to be certain of including at least two additional weapons for each model pus some alternate poses for legs and arms.

Cheers!
Dave (DP9 staff: Line Dev, and rules designer/production manager)

Ha, yes. Beta rules developed by someone who has the same amount of experience as the previous rule writers (i.e. none), who works exactly like they did, who has the same level of assurance that his work is perfect, and who has the same approach to feedback (selective listening).
Well, the last one is not 100% true. As far as I know, actively pruning the feedback is an innovation.
Why, this will surely results in a ruleset not plagued with the problems that plagued every rulesets since the original Blitz!

Meanwhile, the testers have stopped testing and started designing, and they have no idea what is supposed to do what.
Like in all the previous playtests. Of course, it's their fault. It cannot possibly be DP9's fault. After all, if you keep doing the same thing over and over, the result will, eventually, be different!

Not to mention that the test procedure used has 0 chances of testing for game balance. None. Whatsoever.
It's not as if it's important, and has been a major problem since Blitz.
Now, it's combined with an army construction system that makes it even more impossible to know what will be actually used.
That's great for balance! It's not as if the value of a weapon depended on its expected utility, which is a function of the distribution of possible targets!

 warboss wrote:

Yeah, that is more than a bit odd. For those reading this who don't know the details, it would be the 40k equivalent of making a Horus Heresy boxed set that contained only Ultramarines and Imperial Fists.... and didn't unlock any chaos stuff until several stretch goals later and always had twice the number of loyalists to rebels models planned.

Hey Warboss,

The North and the South have a history going back centuries, it's easy to come up with any number of reasons for them to be fighting each other.

Same with the CEF vs North and South. There are multiple forces in the new Heavy Gear that let you easily take North with South or vice versa.

The starter rulebook will introduce players to the core rules of the game in an escalating scenario format: Scenario 1: 2 Hunters vs 2 Flails etc., and will build up each of the core rules of the game in a progressive way. This will allow the forces to be balanced in the scenarios though not necessarily by points until we reach the $105K mark at stretch goal #13.

Cheers!
Dave

mrondeau wrote:
(Numerous valid points, and this important bit applicable to the lack of a manifesto from the "Heavy Gear Line Developer, Rules Designer, and Production Manager at Dream Pod 9".)
Meanwhile, the testers have stopped testing and started designing, and they have no idea what is supposed to do what.

All the answer it apparently gets however is:

DP9Dave wrote:Sorry gents, I follow the rules of the road, especially the ones about not feeding the trolls.

So much for improving play-testing?....

_
_

And, once more, DP9 keep doing the same thing while pretending to change. How unexpected.

EDIT
All right, let's be direct.
Dave, can you explain why your predecessor failed?

Why did the previous playtests let some major problems through?

Why did the previous playtests not result in clear rules?

Why were known questions unanswered for years (and multiple editions)?

Why did the vision constantly changes?

Please explain what you are doing differently. Be concrete.

Also, please details the experience you claim you have. In which products are you credited?
How is your experience different than your predecessors' experience?

Can you also explain to me how and why you think the current playtest procedure can identify balance problem. Be concrete. Use numbers, especially expected sample size.

EDIT^2:
While you're at it, could you justify DP9's behaviour in this: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/1500/570123.page#7304078
An explanation of why it does not show that DP9 does not care enough about its customer to do the bare minimum would be appreciated.

The new Heavy Gear blitz beta rules are being play tested by a number of groups in the Montreal, Trois Riviers and Ottawa areas plus some other readers in the states and overseas.. I myself organize two game sessions a week (taking a bit of a hiatus for the Kickstarter of course), and there are numerous other people who send me notes, experiences and other feedback. This collaborative approach began with the plans to revamp the system over two years ago.

I won't go into the discussion of what decisions were made when, the developers blog and other discussions have covered those.

Each player has the choice of participating or not, and I have seen no participation from many of the detractors on this forum other than endless commentary without submission of game results. Sorry but smoke with no fire is not results that I count on. Discussion and calculation alone can identify problems and sometimes solutions, but nothing beats dice hitting a table for a reliable playtest.

The readers and playtesters I go to with Alpha material and rewritten rules are players whose deviousness both terrifies me and makes me chortle in glee. These guys know how to break a system. They keep me honest and I could do a lot worse in a rules council.

That said we know that there are a lot more changes that will come. The Blast damage, Command, Anti-tank, and Electronic Warfare sections all need to be re-examined and we'll do that in a small group before opening it up for a larger discussion.

Our commitment to an online living rule book PDF will allow us the flexibility to make regular updates and fix the bugs that appear, not to mention add in the new models that we regularly release. This may be the last time a definitive edition of the rules can be identified. A regular update schedule with a healthy dialogue and a preview period for those inclined to help detect bugs to do so is the gold standard we are looking to follow. It creates a longer process but one that is always able to respond to the needs of the game as they evolve.

Yes, we are a small company made up of 4-10 different types of workers from the owner Rob and myself dealing with rules and production to Our Resin Caster and our 3D artist. We have other artists that we bring in for contracts, and our miniature sculptor Phil whose work continues to be the standard for our other models follow.

Regarding service we always take care of our customers. I believe we have an excellent reputation of fixing problems and being responsive. Our supporters like what we do and while being a fan and a DP9 watcher may make people aware of issues and results but they don't get to see the work that goes into how those decisions are arrived at.

No company makes those conversations public so sorry, I won't be satisfying curiosity about that.

We're running a successful kickstarter! Period.

Anyone who wants to keep asking questions in an accusatory tone about things that are not going to be answered is just going to have to get used to disappointment, sorry.

Cheers!
Dave

 DP9Dave wrote:
Discussion and calculation alone can identify problems and sometimes solutions, but nothing beats dice hitting a table for a reliable playtest.

The readers and playtesters I go to with Alpha material and rewritten rules are players whose deviousness both terrifies me and makes me chortle in glee. These guys know how to break a system.

Unfortunately, Dave, Dp9 has proven to be enamored with decisions that absolutely screw over players and their collections and throw balance out the window... repeatedly. Some ideas are so bad that you don't need "dice hitting a table" to see how bad they are.. like giving away free abilities to ONE faction in a game that has a system that ostensibly charges for everything.. including the ability to ignore one of the ONLY ways of getting a negative modifier to the opponent in a game where you absolutely need those modifiers to not sit there and do nothing... for free. Oh, and that faction's book was spearheaded by the chief playtester who plays them pretty much exclusively... and who thought it was ok to charge for WORSE versions of those abilities for another faction while his faction got stat boosts free of TV and vet slot costs as well as load outs that he decreed as unbalanced for others. I agree that some playtesters know how to break the system but I'd add the caveat that they use that to THEIR own advantage when in charge of their own faction's future. You yourself were enamored for months with the idea of giving Paxton effectively free stat boosts and cheaper weapons as "faction flavor" despite the unanimous community response to that. I'm glad that it has for the most part changed but there are still (at least with the last beta update) a bunch of no brainer freebie why would I take anything else choices in the army building.

 DP9Dave wrote:
The new Heavy Gear blitz beta rules are being play tested by a number of groups in the Montreal, Trois Riviers and Ottawa areas plus some other readers in the states and overseas.. I myself organize two game sessions a week (taking a bit of a hiatus for the Kickstarter of course), and there are numerous other people who send me notes, experiences and other feedback. This collaborative approach began with the plans to revamp the system over two years ago.

All right, I'll give you that: unlike your predecessors, you are playing the game. That's an improvement.

 DP9Dave wrote:

Each player has the choice of participating or not, and I have seen no participation from many of the detractors on this forum other than endless commentary without submission of game results. Sorry but smoke with no fire is not results that I count on. Discussion and calculation alone can identify problems and sometimes solutions, but nothing beats dice hitting a table for a reliable playtest.

Two things: your predecessors made the same claim. I have seen decisions made from a single playtest game, going against multiple games played by others.
That's why the detractor don't participate. DP9 burned them, and more than once.
Similarly, I don't see any point in participating in a playtest where I will be given the mushroom treatment for weeks, and then blamed (with the other testers) for not reporting the problems I reported.

Second, and I say this as someone who test things as part of his jobs, your current setup does not control for any variable and rely on interpretation of all feedback by the designer.
Those are the fatal flaws of the process used by DP9 since Blitz. You need to control variables, and you need to let the testers decide what is and is not working.
The testers. Not you, the designer.
You can do both by explaining the purpose of the game's mechanics and directing the test (e.g. "Everyone, play this. You should see X. If you don't, or if you see Y, there's a problem").
This way, you can control for some variables, and you can get direct feedback.
With your current structure, the interpretation of the feedback is more important than the actual content. As a designer, you are defensive of your idea. That's normal!
You also have your opinion of what you did wrong. That's also normal!
If you interpret the feedback, you will tend to read it as confirming that you are wrong where you think you are wrong and that you are correct everywhere else. That's also normal!
That's also what killed Locked and Loaded, Arena and led to the current mess you are trying to solve.

 DP9Dave wrote:

Regarding service we always take care of our customers. I believe we have an excellent reputation of fixing problems and being responsive. Our supporters like what we do and while being a fan and a DP9 watcher may make people aware of issues and results but they don't get to see the work that goes into how those decisions are arrived at.

The Field Manual FAQ says otherwise. The swiftly abandoned rule threads on DP9's forums say otherwise.

Look, we have played together, we live in the same city. I'm trying to help you see the problems before it's too late. If I wanted you to fail, I would simply shut up.
Want to meet and talk about it ? PM me, we can surely schedule something.
You say you want feedback? I'm offering you feedback. Once more, I deal with those kind of problem as part of my job.

I would also encompass within "taking care of customers" giving them more than a year or two utility from first publication before those products are invalidated and/or abandoned. If the free "living rulebook" will actually stick around (instead of being abandoned like the "new" field guide and squad structure after only a year and a half spanning two products), that might improve the views on whether Dp9 takes care of its customers beyond just replacing defective parts which they are legally required to do.

 DP9Dave wrote:
Each player has the choice of participating or not, and I have seen no participation from many of the detractors on this forum other than endless commentary without submission of game results.
Sorry but smoke with no fire is not results that I count on.
Discussion and calculation alone can identify problems and sometimes solutions, but nothing beats dice hitting a table for a reliable playtest.

Concerns, problems, and internal inconsistencies within the faction model lists or the force construction system aren't exactly items that can be checked by rolling dice.

But I think now you'll have to be the one to do the work of finding the posts or digging through the material to fix those items, as you seem to have a pronounced gap in your knowledge of the setting based on your work to date that I'm not sure anyone else can help you cover.

 DP9Dave wrote:
Regarding service we always take care of our customers. I believe we have an excellent reputation of fixing problems and being responsive. Our supporters like what we do.
We're running a successful kickstarter! Period.
Anyone who wants to keep asking questions in an accusatory tone about things that are not going to be answered is just going to have to get used to disappointment, sorry.

Humility is not just being able to admit that you might be mistaken about something you hold to be true.

I think you are missing the point that no one is expecting you to answer for every foolish thing done by the Pod leadership in the past.
Rather, these things are being pointed out so the Pod more so than any consumers/investors can avoid falling into the same traps or show directly what is being done differently.
Especially when so many behaviors are small enough to be easily changed if not outright avoided.

Not just here, but even on the official forums, Facebook page, and KS comments folks are pointing out where they still see these kind of things happening despite what is being said by the Pod.
Change obviously isn't going to happen overnight, yet some visible effort that things aren't just as per usual would probably make a lot of those comments go away.

It is also not unreasonable for anyone to provide or seek out information not reliant solely on the organization asking for time, funds, or another commitment to verify the truth of what was said by that organization.

_
_

 Smilodon_UP wrote:
But I think now you'll have to be the one to do the work of finding the posts or digging through the material to fix those items, as you seem to have a pronounced gap in your knowledge of the setting based on your work to date that I'm not sure anyone else can help you cover.

I must admit that a hearty portion of Dave's posts have left me the same impression. To try and fix that, I'd suggest to start with the 2nd edition's Tech Manual and Life on Terra Nova books, to completely "get" the core assumptions of the setting, both about the setting proper and its technologies.

Once done that, you'll be properly informed to a) know how you want stuff to work, b) why you want it, c) what do you need to change and why, and d) properly give the testers a set of assumptions and guidelines to allow them to give actual, useful feedback in a timely manner instead of faffing around because they don't know what stuff is supposed to do.

Because right now, most if not all conversations I've had on the regular forums have left me with a keen feeling, namely that nobody really knows how stuff is supposed to work. That leaves most of their comments and testing void.

They can Retcon all they want- as long as the rules are consistent and constant. I don't want to see a HUGE FAQ or rules addendum less then a year after the new rules come out. That's a sign of sloppy, poor rules development and happens when you make a very complicated, and obtuse rule set.

 Tamwulf wrote:
They can Retcon all they want- as long as the rules are consistent and constant. I don't want to see a HUGE FAQ or rules addendum less then a year after the new rules come out. That's a sign of sloppy, poor rules development and happens when you make a very complicated, and obtuse rule set.

I don't want to see a kickstarter for Heavy Gear: Blitziest Edition a year or two after the rules for this one come out as that is what the decades long history of DP9 indicates will happen. They're not exactly known for coming out with huge FAQs and even the simplest issues have historically taken months of prodding culminating with public drama to fix. We still haven't gotten nor ever will get the huge FAQ that Arena needs.

In any case, if the living rulebook with ALL the rules (and not just some of them like the Field Manual with the "army building" rules in other books) stays a free download, I don't mind getting a large FAQ that is automatically corrected in the FREE and COMPLETE living rulebook download. It may not be the best solution compared with getting right the first time but it is still better than just leaving it a broken mess and/or just charging for another rulebook/edition in the same time frame.

 Tamwulf wrote:
They can Retcon all they want- as long as the rules are consistent and constant. I don't want to see a HUGE FAQ or rules addendum less then a year after the new rules come out. That's a sign of sloppy, poor rules development and happens when you make a very complicated, and obtuse rule set.

I agree, but I sincerely think that before you retcon or change stuff, you should know what there was, to better understand what you want to end up with and how to do it.

Dave did a fair job of explaining the future of the rulebook.

"We know that the Beta rules will be updated several times before they can be locked down as the definitive core rules of the game. We are planning to maintain a Black-and-White PDF of the rules as a free download going into the future, since this is becoming the industry standard. We are a company that sells miniatures and we want players to be able to access the most current rules through all the different formats without having a number of books/FAQ/Errata/updates to lug around and sort through.

"Once the Beta rules have undergone some more revisions, it will depend on the reception and demand for a locked down version to be printed. Even then, there are reasons to offer a print on demand service for those who appreciate a paper copy and retain the format of a living online rule book for accessibility . The simple fact is that doing all the work to lay out a book costs money and time which we would rather spend on artists, sculptors, and development. A living rule book allows us to make changes and save on those layout costs for multiple books.

"We fully expect the Beta rules to remain in beta until the completion stage of this kickstarter, and then be available in a locked format PDF with all the factions represented. When it comes to published material there are several formats such as the Art of Heavy Gear books on special right now on DrivethroughRPG.com, and story line books. In other words, we are looking at a number of solutions and will be surveying our customers to see what will work the best.

"We would rather produce a regular e-book, or e-magazine, of support material once or twice a year, instead of a paper field manual that won't be able to be renewed again until after another rules cycle in 4-7 years. Never mind the risks the company takes printing large numbers of paper books in order to get the price down.

"I think players themselves are more interested in spending the money on the models than the rules over and over again, regardless of what system you play. If we move to a business model with a premium 'pay to download' e-book that includes all the background, and the free rules-only living rule book with a minimum of fluff, then the players will have a choice. Players who want the current story included would only pay for the book once for a premium version and then future updates to the story line could be included with an update to the PDF. This will depend on the demand."

Following the Infinity model is not a terrible idea.

They have been doing the exact same thing throughout the last four years, and the fans love being able to reference the rules independently of the fluff.

I think this is a smart move, allowing the fans to decide if they want their full color fluffy rulebook or just stick with the meat of the rules, and editing anything that gets missed every six months to a year as you go.

The only concern I have over a "living eBook" is that you will need to regularly check for updates, and you'll need some kind of device to read it on- or it'll be expensive to print it out yourself.

Not saying it's a bad thing or good thing, but I've seen arguments break out during a game because one player has a different version of the rules then the other player.

 Tamwulf wrote:
The only concern I have over a "living eBook" is that you will need to regularly check for updates, and you'll need some kind of device to read it on

Not just read it, but also run it, as there are still a couple of the "optimized" e-book pdfs that even my newish multi-core PC has trouble paging through in certain sections.
When I had to do work on an old Vista laptop they were almost unusable, and kept crashing Adobe, Foxit, or PDF-viewer.

Some of the Gear Up e-mags hang on occasion too, probably because of all the layers on the model advertisement pages, etc etc.

If the Pod still uses DTRPG, although over my connection and browser the duplicate/clone Wargames Vault works so much better for some reason, the update notice(s) come as soon as a new version gets uploaded unless disabled in the account settings.
But yeah, if it gets hosted elsewhere that could be an issue - I wanted to look at the HGB:FSG a month or so ago but had to do a Google search because the link in the announcement thread was already defunct and it's not available from DTRPG.
Amusingly enough the search comes up with the top two or three results as BGG rather than the main DP9 site where all the paper terrain and whatnot can be downloaded.

DP9 KS Update wrote:Helping out on the book will be artist, Avelardo Paredes, who's artwork appears in many of our recent releases. Plus for all our old school fans, our original artist, Ghislain Barbe, is back and will be doing the cover for the book.

Wasn't the consensus on the multiple art poll threads to recommend not mixing styles, as the images from these two are pretty diametric going off published examples, especially for the vehicle models.

_
_

 Smilodon_UP wrote:

DP9 KS Update wrote:Helping out on the book will be artist, Avelardo Paredes, who's artwork appears in many of our recent releases. Plus for all our old school fans, our original artist, Ghislain Barbe, is back and will be doing the cover for the book.

Wasn't the consensus on the multiple art poll threads to recommend not mixing styles, as the images from these two are pretty diametric going off published examples, especially for the vehicle models.

_
_

Sounds like Barbe will just be doing the cover, though, which is not exactly rare in the world of, well, any printed media with art in it. Comics regularly have much better (or at least wildly different) art on the covers than on the interiors, for example.

I'd prefer Barbe do ALL the new art (or at least being "art director", or something like that), but seeing some new HG art from him'll be cool, even if it's limited.

I found Heavy Gear 1st Edition 20 years ago in one of my local gaming stores (Amsterdam, NL), it looked good, the problem with it was that I seriously doubted I would get to play it. As getting to play Battletech was already quite difficult. When it went on sale (50-75% off) I bought a lot (1/87 RAFM), since then I've never seen it again in a local game store nor have I played it. Since then I have collected the 1/87 RAFM minis whenever I could (ebay, tmp, gwhobby.net, etc.) also tried to get my hands on the first three editions of physical books (almost have my collection complete). Bought all the Blitz books as pdf at DTRPG as they came out. Even bought 11 heavy CEF tanks and a bunch of decals during a Wayland Games sale (for use as 1/100 light hover tanks). Never bought any of the 1/144 Gears, mostly due to price (very high) and availability (horrible availability in the EU), especially because I had gotten my 1/87 Gears at lower prices then I could get the 1/144 Gears. Another issue was the edition 'wars', new editions faster the GW ever did (I suspect that GW learned 40k 7th release from dp9), not getting all the books finished for an edition before moving onto the next edition, etc. I must also admit that I'm less charmed about HG during the Blitz era then I was during HG 1E... The new vehicle/Gear designs do continue to impress and invoke drooling ;-)

I've been working on a 1/100 HG project for a couple of years (on and off), as the 1/87 models are actually 1/100 according the specs. That kept my interest alive in the universe.

But I always held onto "If they would make HQ plastic miniatures at affordable prices I would certainly buy!", this KS is the time to put my money where my mouth is. During the run up to the KS they threw some ideas around, we gave feedback, they listed to some advise, ignored some and launched a pretty good KS. They are currently at $81k, enough to get a pretty good starter box at $115CAD ($100US or €80) with 32 minis (sorry I count 3 FLAILS on a base as one mini) and a quickstart rulebook. That translates to me to €1.90 for a Hunter or Jager and €5 for a medium tank. I suspect that will go to almost half that by the end of the KS in three weeks. Those are affordable prices, those are prices I'm willing to pay...

Have there been issues with the dp9 management? Sure, that it's taken this long for them to move to plastic is one big issue. The rules issues is another, having a 'living rulebook' in a digital format is a very good thing imho, it allows access to more folks, more folks being able to make changes by copy/paste an changing values and/or entire rules. And if the old guard doesn't like the game they can house rule it or play using different rules. No fantasy/sci-fi game having been around for 20+ years has stayed the same, Battletech and 40k are no exception...

Cergorach wrote:
I found Heavy Gear 1st Edition 20 years ago in one of my local gaming stores (Amsterdam, NL), it looked good, the problem with it was that I seriously doubted I would get to play it. When it went on sale (50-75% off) I bought a lot (1/87 RAFM), since then I've never seen it again in a local game store nor have I played it.
[..] with 32 minis (sorry I count 3 FLAILS on a base as one mini)
[..] And if the old guard doesn't like the game they can house rule it or play using different rules.

I don't think I've ever seen anything HG in a store period, besides the very occasional dusty copy of either PC game at OfficeMax once upon a time, and only maybe once or twice saw DP9 or HG advertised in game magazines or the like back then around ~2000'ish.

I'm wondering that there wasn't a bit more folks not quite as impressed with the FLAILS either, or at least for how they are being counted as (6) entire models, which seems a touch shady when they aren't comparably sized miniatures to the others.

The amount of interest in the 2e Tactical (boxed set) or TacMini rules shown in the KS comments & KS thread here has been quite nice to see though.

Concerning Flail infantry, this is from the comments sections on the KS regarding them:

Khell 5 days ago
To DP9, a question about the new plastic Flail infantry.
The metal originals had I believe two poses for Mordred Flail, a Morgana Flail, and heavy weapons. For the 3pk of new plastic ones, what do we actually get? Are there swappable pieces to make Morgana's, do we still get the heavy weapon sprue?

Dream Pod 9 5 days ago
FLAILS will be 3 different poses of new design Mordred FLAILS along with one set of all the weapons needed under the new rules.

Khell 5 days ago
@DP9, so no Morgana Flail then?

Dream Pod 9 5 days ago
No Morgana FLAIL for now, maybe later we'll see.

Khell 5 days ago
Is it possible to order the metal Morganas in bulk, rather than packaged with the 12 Mordreds? (Kinda not a KS question I know, but affects what I order)

Dream Pod 9 5 days ago
Yes, I'll get an option to order just the Morgana FLAIL added to the Dream Pod 9 Online Store in the next 2 days.

Gregory Morris 1 day ago
Ok, I've upped for enough FLAILs to round out a unit's worth of brain-in-jar clanking death. I was never really sold on the idea of the FLAILs before but in the Beta they do look like a very solid skirmish screen for Frames.

Remy van Vliet about 4 hours ago
@Bill & William: <snip>(I consider 3 FLAILS on a base as a single mini).<unsnip>

So yes, one base of FLAILs is one miniature by most anyone's standard. But they are going to be 3 separate brand-new sculpts. Word is they want to rework the look with this one.

BrandonKF wrote:

So yes, one base of FLAILs is one miniature by most anyone's standard. But they are going to be 3 separate brand-new sculpts. Word is they want to rework the look with this one.

That's not my point, it was rather obvious that the three FLAILS would be 'unique' sculpts/poses, I believe that they already said this on the dp9 forums before the KS launched.

My point is that dp9 is counting the two bases of three FLAILS each as six miniatures in the KS and the boxed set contents. So we're now at 30 gears and 2 bases of FLAILS, which according to dp9 is 36 miniatures, I think that's only 32 miniatures. A minor point, but something folks need to realize.

That "one base of FLAILS is three miniatures" confusion probably also ties back to when they used to be three miniatures on separate bases that have to stick together.

All of the big infantry models are kind of going through that transition at the moment to "X miniatures per base" instead of "X miniatures per model".

But they appear to be consistent about the practice. Here's the description for the Northern Infantry Platoon in the store:

This Pack contains 40 Northern Infantry miniatures (New Sculpts) and 12 hex bases for the Northern factions. Replaces all other previous Southern Infantry blisters. 40 Infantry pewter miniatures at 1/144 scale, assembly & painting required.

In the beta, that's really going to be some mix of hex-based "team" models and 40mm based "squad" models with several infantry miniatures per base. 40 or 12 or as few as 4, depending on how you count and organize the models.

Is it just me, or is the MHT one fugly model? It doesn't look related to any other CEF model, and looks like it needs some sort of directional thrust component in the front, so the thing can turn. And it has lots of random extra panels going on, it's like the Rob Liefeld of tank models.

ferrous wrote:
Is it just me, or is the MHT one fugly model? It doesn't look related to any other CEF model, and looks like it needs some sort of directional thrust component in the front, so the thing can turn. And it has lots of random extra panels going on, it's like the Rob Liefeld of tank models.

Not just you, no.
I think it looks more like something intended for RL:Centurion.

It's not just you. I don't remember if I posted it here or the other thread but I'm not a fan of both the design ideas and the aesthetics that IMO don't match any of the existing admittedly disparate models in the range. I do like the Acco though on both fronts.

Nope, not just you. I don't really care at all for it either.

...and I have the sinking suspicion that that's the level of his current 3D sculptor, from what I'm seeing. A friend of mine that's also a modeller has (repeatedly) assured me that each and every model currently showing in the KS is "crap that I could have cobbled up during my luch break".

He's a bit full of himself though xD.

You know, I'm sure people complained when they replaced beakies, and I guess in the long run that all worked out for the best but, well, stop changing my Gears, dammit!

 Firebreak wrote:
You know, I'm sure people complained when they replaced beakies, and I guess in the long run that all worked out for the best but, well, stop changing my Gears, dammit!

Speak for yourself! Every SM army I've done I've had to scour the world to find beakies

You'll need to pry my beaky marines from my cold, dead hands, good sir.



Also, Dark Angels are black, I'll have you know, and I don't know what a "grognard" is

 Albertorius wrote:

 Firebreak wrote:
You know, I'm sure people complained when they replaced beakies, and I guess in the long run that all worked out for the best but, well, stop changing my Gears, dammit!

Speak for yourself! Every SM army I've done I've had to scour the world to find beakies

You'll need to pry my beaky marines from my cold, dead hands, good sir.

Oh absolutely! I just anticipated cries of "It's not like OTHER companies don't modify designs."

 Albertorius wrote:
...and I have the sinking suspicion that that's the level of his current 3D sculptor, from what I'm seeing.

 Firebreak wrote:
Oh absolutely! I just anticipated cries of "It's not like OTHER companies don't modify designs."

Exactly how many times do multiple and at times entirely different folks have to point out essentially the same things done in error for each design before the impression that gives about the current artist(s) & modeler(s) and thus by extension the company is understood.
Rushing to present something that comes off as half-baked, and/or coming up with ideas "that cannot possibly fail because all of us thought it was a good idea.... except now we need to change this, this, & this," has clearly not served the interests of DP9 in the past and into the present.


Wherever it is that the Pod is taking the game & setting under the most current "vision," if any, less and less does much all of it really fit with Heavy Gear anymore in my opinion.

_
_

Been going back and looking at the 2nd Edition Tactical Rules again, and thinking they are pretty good for a skirmish game, especially if you want to do narrative games.

Anybody ever point up some of the models that came out after they stopped supporting it? With a couple of modifications (I might try using the Bushido rolling mechanism to give a better spread of results) I may be able to talk some people into playing small games with my models.

RJVF wrote:
Anybody ever point up some of the models that came out after they stopped supporting it? With a couple of modifications (I might try using the Bushido rolling mechanism to give a better spread of results) I may be able to talk some people into playing small games with my models.

I did some of the NuCoal stuff for 2nd edition. Or rather, remade them to fit my vision of the faction.

That said, it's actually quite easy to port them. What units were you thinking about?

The NuCoal and PRDF ones. I have the RTCE book which I think has the points for Black Talons and CEF/Utopia etc.

I know I can sit down with the creation table and point everything out, but I was just hoping that someone had already done it in a comprehensive manner so I can just look at how I built my models and find something that fits.

RJVF wrote:
The NuCoal and PRDF ones. I have the RTCE book which I think has the points for Black Talons and CEF/Utopia etc.

I know I can sit down with the creation table and point everything out, but I was just hoping that someone had already done it in a comprehensive manner so I can just look at how I built my models and find something that fits.

Well, this is what I started to do for the NuCoal stuff, but as I said, its intent was to rework them to fit my view of the faction:

http://dp9forum.com/index.php?showtopic=14531&hl=%2Breworking+%2Bnucoal

 DP9Dave wrote:
The new Heavy Gear blitz beta rules are being play tested

Discussion and calculation alone can identify problems and sometimes solutions, but nothing beats dice hitting a table for a reliable playtest.

Our commitment to an online living rule book PDF will allow us the flexibility to make regular updates and fix the bugs that appear,

We're running a successful kickstarter! Period.

Anyone who wants to keep asking questions in an accusatory tone about things that are not going to be answered is just going to have to get used to disappointment, sorry.

Cheers!
Dave

[decloaking]

Hi Dave!

You talk about beta playtesting?? Great. I beta tested the current rules. They are much better than before (with the multiplying), but mechanics-wise, they are now merely about 20 years out of date, rather than 30+ years out of date.

I've played a lot of games and I can do numbers. Your game does NOT scale past a dozen models per side. It does scale past 3 models, so bravo for that. Thing is, it doesn't scale like any of the other wargaming systems out there. This is still a small skirmish game, and it's clunky enough that no player should ever desire to play with more than a dozen models. Which means that your Kickstarter is going to be a one-and-done for most backers.

The Kickstarter is a chance to start with a clean slate of rules that make the game enjoyable to play with large numbers. Do that. Pick something that regularly fields dozens of bases of things, and go forward with a clean new vision that is familiar to your target market.

Your Kickstarter is barely $100k. For a game like this, you're doing OK, but not great. Had this been launched by pretty much anyone else, you'd be looking at a $500k draw.

Quite frankly, you should take the Flames of War ruleset and adapt it to Heavy Gear. Or pay BattleFront to do the conversion. Or license the Flames of War ruleset from them. Make a game that plays similar to the games of the vast majority of your future target customers. Right now, Flames covers WW2, Vietnam, and WW1. It succeeds because it aggressively streamlines things compared to the high detail WW2 stuff that was in vogue during the 70s. There is no reason Flames could not cover Heavy Gear very nicely.

Being pointed, I'm sorry in advance, but why the need to carry so much baggage?
- Why do we need nearly 200+ pages of rules! Go read the Warhammer 40,000 3rd Edition rulebook for inspiration.
- Why the need for so much detail, and everything as an opposed mechanic? That's RPG, not wargaming. 40k resolves this with a series of very simple d6 rolls - why can't you?
- Why old-fashioned, undersized hex bases when all the modern models are on round bases of appropriate size? Why the hex holdover? This isn't played on a hexboard.

I haven't decided whether to back, but if I do, it'll be for the minis, not the rules.

Anyhow, hope the KS finishes strongly.

[cloak]

While I usually refer the Flames of War rules to as the standard on how to write rules, I would not say that they are anything close to modern.
They are polished to a shine, definitively; Well organized, well written and coherent, absolutely. They are also really old.
All the concepts in them were current before I started wargaming.

They are also a very bad fit for the Heavy Gear setting, and have nothing in common with the shreds of vision that have been consistent since 2nd Edition.
Ironically, those shreds are the modern part of the rules. Interactivity and alternated activation. Two essential components of a modern game, completely missing from Flames of War.
In general, given the setting, most of the rules from Flames of War would be wasted: Gears are vehicles and should act like vehicles. Infantry is significantly more secondary in Heavy Gear than in Flames of War.
Enforced squad coherency is not needed, and in fact harmful.
The only thing I would use is the list creation system, but that's because I believe that any and all games that involves organized armies should use that system.
It's fluffy, it's flexible, it can be expanded, and it can be controlled. A system that's perfect from a fluff and gameplay perspective is awesome.

I would not use anything from Game Workshop as an example on how to write rules. This includes the single game they made that I like (Epic).
They are not as badly written as Star Grunt, Dirtside or even Arena, but they are still badly written.

Finally, the minor points:
Opposed vs "To-hit-then-to-wound" does not change much in term of actual complexity.
Binomial distribution simply become "roll as many dice as you can". P(success) has usually little relevance compare to N. They also have a very large variance that actually increases with N.
The problem is "undersized", not the hexagonal shape. Hexagons are prettier than boring circles.

1) The rules are actually closer to 50 pages and the beta is trimming them. The range of models is huge and that's what bring the page count up to 100+. Putting fluff and art in the book for the factions is what will really push the page count up.

2) The opposed mechanic resolves in a opposed roll what might take three or more rolls in 40K. You get success and damage all in one. If you look at the DP9 forums I've started previewing the November update that is removing a lot of opposed rolls for niche situations and replacing them for action>effect rules which are fast. Does it need to be pointed out that this is a game with mecha? With mecha you want the detail. When you consider that every Gear is the size of a 40K Space Marine Dreadnought it makes sense that with what they are armed with and what they are doing that they are significant models.

3) The hex bases are optional. We'll sell you all the 40mm or 50mm bases you want. The rules will accommodate that. The hex bases do make it easy to identify the front arcs by drawing a line corner to corner.

As the beta progresses the responses I'm getting are helping to fashion a faster and leaner game. It is very much a tactical tabletop wargame and not a RPG. The living rule book will also allow for additional rules and factions to be added on cleanly after the beta rules are finalized.

Cheers!
Dave

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Being pointed, I'm sorry in advance, but why the need to carry so much baggage?
- Why do we need nearly 200+ pages of rules! Go read the Warhammer 40,000 3rd Edition rulebook for inspiration.
- Why the need for so much detail, and everything as an opposed mechanic? That's RPG, not wargaming. 40k resolves this with a series of very simple d6 rolls - why can't you?
- Why old-fashioned, undersized hex bases when all the modern models are on round bases of appropriate size? Why the hex holdover? This isn't played on a hexboard.

I can only speak for myself, but the quickest way for me to dump out of this project, is to make it 40K-lite. Personally, I like the smaller force size, and the more intricate combat system. And while I have many criticisms of the 40K mechanics, I don't need to go into them here. Just to say I think it'd be a mistake for DP9 to do so, for one simple reason. If it's made into a 40K clone, why would a prospective player buy it? When they could just buy into 40K, and have a much larger support base/player base, right from the start? Instead of buying a game at a different scale, and needing to build a playerbase up? From my perspective, the only way Heavy Gear succeeds, is by being DIFFERENT enough both aesthetically, and mechanically, that there's a reason for people to either choose it over 40K/FoW, OR to have both as separate systems. While I like the Heavy Gear universe, I'm not sure it's strong enough by itself, to straight up compete with the monolithic 40K. Cloning 40K just seems like setting it up for failure.

Morgan Vening wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Being pointed, I'm sorry in advance, but why the need to carry so much baggage?
- Why do we need nearly 200+ pages of rules! Go read the Warhammer 40,000 3rd Edition rulebook for inspiration.
- Why the need for so much detail, and everything as an opposed mechanic? That's RPG, not wargaming. 40k resolves this with a series of very simple d6 rolls - why can't you?
- Why old-fashioned, undersized hex bases when all the modern models are on round bases of appropriate size? Why the hex holdover? This isn't played on a hexboard.

I can only speak for myself, but the quickest way for me to dump out of this project, is to make it 40K-lite. Personally, I like the smaller force size, and the more intricate combat system. And while I have many criticisms of the 40K mechanics, I don't need to go into them here. Just to say I think it'd be a mistake for DP9 to do so, for one simple reason. If it's made into a 40K clone, why would a prospective player buy it? When they could just buy into 40K, and have a much larger support base/player base, right from the start? Instead of buying a game at a different scale, and needing to build a playerbase up? From my perspective, the only way Heavy Gear succeeds, is by being DIFFERENT enough both aesthetically, and mechanically, that there's a reason for people to either choose it over 40K/FoW, OR to have both as separate systems. While I like the Heavy Gear universe, I'm not sure it's strong enough by itself, to straight up compete with the monolithic 40K. Cloning 40K just seems like setting it up for failure.

I didn't get that from his post at all. I heard "why isn't this game a bit more abstracted in how the rules work so that you can actually handle more than a handful of units/gears in a game." I for one would prefer to see a simplification. Just about every single game that is being released nowadays is being "abstracted" to lesser or greater extents in order to make it more "play friendly" and to accomodate more models on the table in about a 2 hour play time. If HG wants to be an RPG, then that's one thing. If it wants to be a mass-battle game, that's something else.

I have the old old Heavy Gear Tactical box, and for the life of me couldn't figure out how to actually play it - the spotting, ecm, etc. was beyond my feeble attempts to actually play games. I've since grown older (about 40+ years now), and "get it", but it took awhile. I saw and played Blitz, and it was ok. It was more 'abstracted' than Tactical, but still "complex". Now, it could be a case of 'different strokes" and all that, but if you're trying to grow a playerbase, you don't do it by making players have to multiply, then divide, then square root the result (blatant over-exaggeration there ) in order to resolve a game mechanic or figure out target numbers. That's the easiest way to drive off "most" players. Consider that many of the players who may pick up HG are those 40k players, FOW players, Warmachine players, and Dropzone Commander players. If you don't already play HG, how much harder is it to figure out? How much more complicated is the rule system? If it is, you're unlikely to draw many players.

I know that when I was first drawn to HG, it was right around when I was becoming less enamored with Battletech, and the Gears scratched my "stompy robot" itch. Now that the game has such an emphasis on "combined arms", I'm less interested, much as when Battletech went citytech and aerotech, Warmachine became less about the Jacks (and yes, I know now it can be played Jack heavy, but there was a stretch where infantry was much better), I didn't pursue that either. I've been hanging around the fringes of HG for many years, and they've still not given me any indication that I should actually jump in - from complexity, to lack of a playerbase, to what I read about how things are done, meh. I'll scrabble together a handful of specific Gears to go with my Blitz gears, and then go back to playing an earlier version.

And yes, to each their own, different strokes, etc., but I also think HG could be so much more than it is, and that's a shame.

mrondeau wrote:
While I usually refer the Flames of War rules to as the standard on how to write rules, I would not say that they are anything close to modern.
They are polished to a shine, definitively; Well organized, well written and coherent, absolutely.

They are also a very bad fit for the Heavy Gear setting,

Interactivity and alternated activation. Two essential components of a modern game, completely missing from Flames of War.

Enforced squad coherency is not needed, and in fact harmful.

I would not use anything from Game Workshop as an example on how to write rules.

Opposed vs "To-hit-then-to-wound" does not change much in term of actual complexity.

The problem is "undersized", not the hexagonal shape. Hexagons are prettier than boring circles.

OK, I'm going to stay delurked, because this is kinda ridiculous.

Flames of War is modern, because that is what people are actually playing, several-fold over compared to Heavy Gear. I bet Heavy Gear sells less than 5% of what Flames does annually, and I wouldn't be surprised if Flames outsells Heavy Gear by at least 100:1. Flames is far less clunky than Blitz, and that's a fact.

Flames is military combat, combined arms, platoon-sized units, company-sized engagements. And you say that's not a fit for the HG universe? Really? As I see it, it's a perfect fit.

Igo-Ugo is the best playing system for company-scale games, by far. Interactivity and alternating activation does not scale. They are bad decisions that only work at a RPG scale.

Squad coherency is how military units operate, which is what HG pretends to be part of.

Games Workshop's 40k US sales probably exceed Dream Pod 9's entire global revenue by at least an order of magnitude. 40k is also military combined arms company-level battles. It's also a good fit.

Opposed adds a lot of delay. Instead of simply rolling dice that the opponent can observe, both sides need to stop and calculate a bunch of modifiers and factors each time someone wants to do something. That's ridiculous. I can have a newbie process a unit of 10 models shooting at another unit of 10 models in about a minute. Can you do that in Heavy Gear? No, not even close.

Boring or not, circles are the de facto standard for miniatures, along with rectangles. Being different for the sake of being different is not good.


Really, the vast bulk if your post is: I played Heavy Gear when it was nigh unplayable (the version of rule where you multiply MOS is objectively terrible. Never again.), and I don't want Heavy Gear to succeed with a modern game that is actually suitable for the company-level vision that is claimed. If you're so happy with 2nd Edition, go play that. Stay out of the discussion for an actual new game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DP9Dave wrote:
1) The rules are actually closer to 50 pages and the beta is trimming them. The range of models is huge and that's what bring the page count up to 100+. Putting fluff and art in the book for the factions is what will really push the page count up.

2) The opposed mechanic resolves in a opposed roll what might take three or more rolls in 40K. You get success and damage all in one. If you look at the DP9 forums I've started previewing the November update that is removing a lot of opposed rolls for niche situations and replacing them for action>effect rules which are fast. Does it need to be pointed out that this is a game with mecha? With mecha you want the detail. When you consider that every Gear is the size of a 40K Space Marine Dreadnought it makes sense that with what they are armed with and what they are doing that they are significant models.

3) The hex bases are optional. We'll sell you all the 40mm or 50mm bases you want. The rules will accommodate that. The hex bases do make it easy to identify the front arcs by drawing a line corner to corner.

As the beta progresses the responses I'm getting are helping to fashion a faster and leaner game. It is very much a tactical tabletop wargame and not a RPG. The living rule book will also allow for additional rules and factions to be added on cleanly after the beta rules are finalized.

Cheers!
Dave

Thanks for the reply.

100+ pages is still excessive. Are you planning to split the rules off separately from the fluff?

In 40k, I can process shooting/melee a lot faster than Blitz. Throw a die (hit), throw a die (wound), validate save/fail. And I can mass roll. It's very fast, especially as 90% of the models only have 1 wound. 40k scales much faster than Blitz. If you don't believe me, go line up 50 Blitz models each side, and play 6 rounds of combat. In 40k, I can finish that in a couple of hours. Can Blitz?

I like mecha. The models are cool. If I didn't like mecha, I wouldn't be having this exchange with you at all. Good mecha don't excuse terrible rules.

Your claim that "every Gear is the size of a 40K Space Marine Dreadnought" is not true if we're talking model size. I own Space Marine Dreadnoughts, and I own Heavy Gear models (Southern Milicia General Purpose Cadre & Fire Support Cadre). Those models are not anywhere close to being the size of a Dreadnought. The Dreadnought is at least 60% taller, and more than twice as bulky. It's not even close. At best, a Heavy Gear model is the size of a regular 40k Space Marine infantry trooper, except, the Space Marine's Bolter is bigger than the Jager's gun.

I don't think you answered the question - which bases will be included with the models? Is your intent to ship undersized bases so that backers are forced into a hidden cost to buy proper-sized bases? That seems more than a little underhanded. 30mm round would appear to be the correct size based on the feet but if you're pushing 25mm hex for nostalgia's sake, I'd like to know whether I would need to budget for 3rd party bases so the models don't look ridiculous on their undersized bases.

If hex bases are such a good idea for front arcs, why aren't all of your minis on hexes? All of your larger models are on larger 40/50mm round bases. Please explain. Are you deliberately compromising the design intent by shipping round bases with those models?

If it really is a wargame, please play a 40k-scale game with 50 to 100 bases per side, and let us know if you finish 6 rounds of play within 3 hours.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Cruentus wrote:
I didn't get that from his post at all. I heard "why isn't this game a bit more abstracted in how the rules work so that you can actually handle more than a handful of units/gears in a game." I for one would prefer to see a simplification. Just about every single game that is being released nowadays is being "abstracted" to lesser or greater extents in order to make it more "play friendly" and to accomodate more models on the table in about a 2 hour play time. If HG wants to be an RPG, then that's one thing. If it wants to be a mass-battle game, that's something else.

Yes, thank you!

Modern games are dramatically streamlined compared to games of the past. A good example is last year's breakout game: X-Wing. That game is hugely abstracted and simplified compared to Star Fleet Battles. I can run a newbie through an X-Wing dogfight in less than an hour. I defy anyone to do the same with SFB.

I can do a similar squad-level engagement of 40k or Flames in similar timeframe.

X-Wing, 40k and Flames all have a very simple base mechanic to keep things moving along (though I enjoy X-Wing the least). Why can't Blitz have similar goals?


And being very frank, Blitz being different for the sake of being different is not a good thing. It simply raises the bar for entry. A game that looks similar to the market leaders, and plays similar to the market leaders, can grow much faster because the players have less to new stuff learn each time they want to play a pick-up game. If they need to spend hours fumbling through an all-new ruleset just to get started, that's not a good experience.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Your claim that "every Gear is the size of a 40K Space Marine Dreadnought" is a bald-faced lie. I own Space Marine Dreadnoughts, and I own Heavy Gear models (Southern Milicia General Purpose Cadre & Fire Support Cadre). Those models are not anywhere close to being the size of a Dreadnought. The Dreadnought is at least 60% taller, and more than twice as bulky. It's not even close. At best, a Heavy Gear model is the size of a regular 40k Space Marine infantry trooper, except, the Space Marine's Bolter is bigger than the Jager's gun.

Welcome back, btw. I believe he's talking about the "in universe" size of the gears about which he is correct. Gears are indeed roughly the size of a dreadnought compared to a human. His point is that you shouldn't compare infantry on infantry combat (which is predominantly what 40k is) with the more "dreadnought on dreadnought" combat and expect exact correlations. I agree that the rules need to continue to be slimmed down significantly with a relatively ruthless culling of most things that break the pace (unfortunately the much and over IMO expanded EW and CMD stuff) but it may be a good idea to take a few steps back before calling someone (incorrectly) a liar. And this is coming from a very persistent and vocal critic of the company before you throw out any white knight name tags...

You know what? Once I read the word "size", I totally fixiated on physical dimensions. And then the "every" bit made me want to verify, so I ran over, dug into my closet to take out the models and compare them side-by-side and one in front of the other. It never even occurred to me that he might have been talking background fluff vs physical models. Nope, totally clueless. Oops.

Back on point, while I understand the point about Dread on Dread combat, it's important to also note that Dreads are elite "super" units in 40k, whereas HG Gears are akin to 40k infantry (and HG Infantry are like 40k Swarms). I might be persuaded that Gears take the role of 40k MegaNobz or other TEQs on the tabletop. Even then, 40k Dreads are pretty simple to play. I play Imperial Guard, so having lots of Vehicles on board isn't a big deal to manage.

If Blitz is going to be truly ruthless in cleaning things up, I might actually consider HG as a game to play, versus looking at it as a toybox of cute little robots. The EW/ECM/ECCM stuff is messy.

I agree with some of John's points, disagree with others. I've been a big fan of getting rid of all the opposed rolls, and it looks like Dave is slowly trying to do that, or at least lessen then somewhat.

I don't think they should make the game entirely 40k/FoW, (lets face it, the two systems are nearly identical) Currently, Gears really are more like Dreads. They are very rarely removed after one successful attack against them, while almost all infantry in 40k are just fodder.

And I agree that all the EWM/ECM/Spotting stuff still needs more revision, it's been tough as it's something more unique to the setting, to help differentiate it from 40k/FoW, but it's always been poorly worded, and slows the game down.


Personally, I think they should just stick with what they are good at, and aim for a 15 model vs 15 model game, and do what needs to be done to make that fun, quick and financially successful. They only way they could really do a game of 50 vs 50 models is by doing the rather annoying thing that 40k does, where you buy figures that are really just one unit, and might as well be abstracted out to one large die with a wound counter on it.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Which means that your Kickstarter is going to be a one-and-done for most backers.
Your Kickstarter is barely $100k. For a game like this, you're doing OK, but not great. Had this been launched by pretty much anyone else, you'd be looking at a $500k draw.

Morgan Vening wrote:
While I like the Heavy Gear universe, I'm not sure it's strong enough by itself, to straight up compete with the monolithic 40K.

 Cruentus wrote:
I've been hanging around the fringes of HG for many years, and they've still not given me any indication that I should actually jump in - from complexity, to lack of a playerbase, to what I read about how things are done, meh.

The sparse player-base is a strange thing, because when exposed to the setting most folks are initially attracted, but the problems do indeed seem to come later.

The G+ community is essentially a void, and the only other non-DP9 forums right now are a small one for the Ottawa folks on Game Summit and another that requires logging into & using Facebook.
Any currently active blogs dedicated either in large part or in totality to Heavy Gear are similarly very few and far between.

So I would agree, when taken together all of what I mentioned does not indicate any kind of significant community, let alone the ability to find other folks willing to play, and I doubt the year plus minimum to get the models produced and shipped is going to help in any fashion.
There just doesn't seem to have been quite enough of a critical mass in the past and into the present to draw a larger, self-sustaining fanbase - especially over the past ten years of Blitz!.

mrondeau wrote:
In general, given the setting, most of the rules from Flames of War would be wasted: Gears are vehicles and should act like vehicles. Infantry is significantly more secondary in Heavy Gear than in Flames of War.
Enforced squad coherency is not needed, and in fact harmful.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Squad coherency is how military units operate, which is what HG pretends to be part of.

I would add that HG is not taking place in a WW2 or even a Cold War setting where only select vehicles have radios.
Instead, pretty much every vehicle as well as most individual infantry soldiers or their immediate commanders have computerized multi-mode communication systems able to network within the typical battle area represented by a terrain board.
Given that technology I think that each players force can already be considered to have full internal cohesion when present on the tabletop barring select terrain features and/or localized EWAR efforts.

mrondeau wrote:
The only thing I would use is the list creation system, but that's because I believe that any and all games that involves organized armies should use that system.
It's fluffy, it's flexible, it can be expanded, and it can be controlled. A system that's perfect from a fluff and gameplay perspective is awesome.

I'm not a fan of the FoW ruleset, but the force construction system definitely has some real elegance to it, which I think might have to do in large part with how divorced making a list is from the gameplay rules.

_
_

I have been away from this for awhile. So I thought I would come back and tell you Smilodon, that most of the 'love it or leave it' commentary has originated from this thread and another, two year old thread on RPG.net.

For the most part, players who return are interested in the KS, and they are interested in building the community.

Toward that end, I have a Facebook Group here, titled Terra Nova DMZ, for building up the community, answering and asking questions, painting, sharing pictures, and organizing Heavy Gear groups through the social media.

https://m.facebook.com/groups/302254736538781

The Google+ Group you mention may or may not grow because, realistically, I haven't seen as much activity there for pictures, games, battle reports or otherwise. The longest conversations I can recall are from you and I, and that is because you and I have very different opinions.

And as for your question of when the rules will be completed, Dave has already made it very clear that the core rules will be finalized for the Quickstart rules.

My suggestion, which I put in the comments on KS, but I will post them here, is to make the Quickstart rules the foundation that won't change for the next 5-7 years.

Clearly, the idea of the Army sub-Lists will be in need of playtesting and balancing.

However, by the time the Backer kit is complete I expect that we will have a good core rulebook and good Quickstart rules to present to new players.

Also, Smilidon, plenty of people of those 700 have been sharing, posting, and mentioning the Kickstarter.

So there have been several recorded incidents of trolls posting pledges, and we also had one or two Pledger's who were hacked and had theit prices exponentially increased, for which they apologized publicly in comments.

Peace.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@JohnHwangDD

I don't know if we have written to each other before.

Your ideas of playing with 50 to 100 miniatures as a 'wargame', I would like very much.

I suppose that that is a major question to ask of anyone who would be interested.

@Smilodon - HG lacks large community because the rules present a significant barrier to entry, that the typical gamer is not interested in investing the effort to learn.

It's not like HG is the only miniatures battle game out there. Not even the only one with lots of robots / mecha:
- Warmachine.
- Robotech Tactics (which is delivering RIGHT NOW!).
- BattleTech (24 plastic minis for $60).
All of those are plastic starters and have much larger gaming communities.

I would agree that Heavy Gear would have everyone with radios. Coherency still applies due to Gears not being invincible units - cover fire and direct support still applies.

Rules-wise, the fact that they're going "Living Rulebook" suggests that it will never be done.

Flames isn't the magical be-all/end-all of wargaming, but it is very playable and produces generally reasonable results at a scale that looks good on a 4'x6' board.
____

@Brandon - it's a question of how smoothly the game scales against similar things that people play as miniatures wargames. 2 to 3 hours is a typical gaming time for a match, so that is what we might aim for.

It is an interesting thread to read indeed.

I would like to add my thoughts as an outsider to it.

I became interested in heavy gear around mid to late 90's but quickly lost interest because of the cost to get involved from a country on the other side of the pond, eventually some books and minis accidentally slipped to my country and had the opportunity of a first hand experience admittedly almost a decade later.

The game as a game is a design sin, the rules I read and the later Blitz rules that came free on drive through are not for a wargame, not even a really low models count skirmish game, its a heavy RPG ruleset that lost its way and has an identity crisis.

I get there is a drive for a more logical redesign of the rules now, but for the comments I see the same ideas that were bad in my opinion in the past continue.

I cannot comment on DP9's attitude, they have a bad reputation on the partially interested, like me, people and they seem to be on a steady decline, but other than that I have never interacted directly with them.

Coming to present, DP9 seems in my eyes to be stuck in the past, looking at their kickstarter the fonts they use are difficult to read, if on a kickstarter page reading is difficult, I am dreading how the books will be, ther eis no real mention on how the game actually plays/ how many models are involved on an actual game, the models look old, there are several companies that produce mecha games now and their quality is stellar, not only in sculpting, but also on representing something that has the illusion of been functional, the renders look like something that would be acceptable more than a decade ago, if they are going to spend money on this and even make it plastic, why not modernize an old and tired design, keeping the aesthetic but adding the detail?

In my opinion, if DP9 wants to succeed and make their IP strong they need to modernize and streamline, they need to present information in a coherent easy to read way, they need to make game rules that are easy to read and execute and they really should make modern miniatures, a heavy gear is the height of a "28"mm model at this level detail is expected regardless of the "scale" it is supposed to be.

Before I wrote that above I went to DP9's homepage, it is an unacceptable design cluttered with useless information and not delivering the basic questions one would like to ask, the "design manifesto" on the front page is from a blog feed, how long till this gets bumped out by a newer blog post and is lost?

Don't know if this might change your mind, but the most recent edition of the Beta, with the updated rules on September 24, has been receiving word of a lot of rules being cut by Dave here on the DP9 forum for Beta Development:

http://dp9forum.com/index.php?s=8607097becd5c3cd143f2924ac2a6419&showforum=66

I'll quote a few of the posts Dave has made for the updates:

"The following rules are starting to look like good candidates for complete removal from the Beta Rules:

9.5 We're in trouble: Remove Entirely.
We're in trouble came about as a way for model to use actions to reduce the effect of weapons with a high MOS against them. It really isn't required with the options of spending an action to add 1D6 to a defense roll and re-rolls.

18.2 Hull Down: Remove Entirely
This can be replaced by an effect called "using cover".

Update (Nov 12th)
These Traits are being removed/replaced.
Remove Rugged: Anything (Effect covered by DC and Aux Trait)
Remove Fragile: Anything (Effect covered by DC and Aux Trait)
Remove Flanked:XD6 - Flanking a vehicle now is an standard attack modifier of +2D6. (Gears and Stiders will have a standard flanked modifier of +1D6 to the attacker. This will remove the need for remembering to check for the modifier before attacking.
Replace Spider with Mount (Flanked:0D6 equivalent). (This covers the situation of models that effectively have no front or rear arcs and are not nice blocky models used to represent tanks that are easy to identify the rear arcs of.


These are the only rules that are being reviewed for complete removal/replacement.
They are being removed for being duplication of other effects and to simplify the decision tree."




For Traits:

"Here is an updated traits list. The main goal in this review was to ensure that traits were standardized, shortened, and made as legible as possible.
Please comment with any questions, errata, or mistakes noted.
If a trait is not listed here then it will be unchanged from the current book version.

Note that some traits will appear to have some strange terminology especially when referencing Electronic Warfare actions. I will be previewing the updated EW section, Command/orders section and Updated weapons section alphas this week and later next week.

Once the Kickstarter is complete we will be able to update the Beta Rules Download. This preview section is alpha status until that happens and is incompatible with the current beta rules until the beta rules are completely updated. These rules are for commenting only. If you wish to start a discussion about a particular trait please start a new thread and reference this one in it so as not to clutter this thread unnecessarily."

So there is movement to remove the older RPG stats and move to a more streamlined option.


-Brandon F.

Also, the electronic warfare and command section is being streamlined a lot, this section will loose a lot of uneeded fat!

...only at least half of those weren't from the RPG, of course.

Flames of War is basically 40K-lite, that's not what I'd call revolutionary any day.
If FoW has taught us one thing though, it's that highly-polished, well-written rules will sell, even if the actual mechanism themselves are neither new nor original.

... So says the guy who now plays FoW.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
[..] looking at their kickstarter the fonts they use are difficult to read, if on a kickstarter page reading is difficult, I am dreading how the books will be,

Some of the books put out by the current company have their good points - but yes, the amount of errors, especially with spelling, has gotten unbelievably bad just since 2011.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Flames isn't the magical be-all/end-all of wargaming, but it is very playable and produces generally reasonable results at a scale that looks good on a 4'x6' board.

 HudsonD wrote:
If FoW has taught us one thing though, it's that highly-polished, well-written rules will sell, even if the actual mechanism themselves are neither new nor original.
... So says the guy who now plays FoW.

I don't think it's all that bad of a ruleset in the respects of writing and completeness, primarily I'm just not a fan of saves and buckets of dice, but along with Infinity it just doesn't seem a good base idea for a game intended to allow mass sci-fi vehicular combat at any scale.

A number of folks here on dakka have mentioned that either Grunts or Stargrunt might be a viable choice. I have downloaded SG 2 off Wargames Vault but haven't had the time or much inclination of late to do more than browse through the rules.
I was also going to take a look at Strike Legion and Dirtside 2, while Fistful of TOWs has a number of interesting concepts and I think is fairly streamlined without being too dumbed down.

_
_

 HudsonD wrote:
Flames of War is basically 40K-lite, that's not what I'd call revolutionary any day.
If FoW has taught us one thing though, it's that highly-polished, well-written rules will sell, even if the actual mechanism themselves are neither new nor original.

... So says the guy who now plays FoW.

And that's entirely the point. 40k is (was?) the largest minis wargaming market bar none. Flames was broadly similar, leveraging many of the basic 40k mechanics. That speeded understanding of how to play, allowing people to buy the minis and start playing Flames very quickly.

Why HG wouldn't want to leverage the massive investment that GW and BF have made in teaching people to play 40k and FoW is pretty crazy. Insisting to stick with a clearly failed set of mechanics is anti-market and self-pandering at its worst.

Yeah, no. Look, I don't want to open the can of worm that is asking "why does 40K sell so well ?" here on Dakka , but I'm pretty sure it ain't the quality of the rules !

HG was, and still is, a lot more modern in its gameplay concepts than FoW and 40K. What kills HG is the extremely sloppy writing and quality control, whereas this is something the FoW team has excelled at.

While it's fashionable to hate on GW, 40k3's rules do (did?) an effective job of moving players through the game in a manner that scales well. Same with Flames.

HG has mechanics that other gamers have simply refused to touch with a 10-foot pole. The sloppiness isn't the deal-breaker, aside from making their inherently slow and complex mechanics even harder to understand.

http://heavygearthunder.blogspot.com/2014/11/heavy-gear-blitz-ks-beta-postures-dice.html

In comments:


Nov 3, 2014

Thanks. Like the way that Blitz uses the other dice by comparing if higher than skill for a +1 rather than just extra 6s. You'll get bigger skill roll numbers with this system. 

Brandon Fero
Nov 4, 2014

The original designer's idea, if I recall correctly. I had difficulty early on, but now I am starting to understand the elegance of it.


Nov 4, 2014

Actually, now I think about it, this means that the higher skilled you are the less likely you are to get +1s?

Brandon Fero
Nov 4, 2014


There isn't 'skill ratings' any longer. Each chassis is base lined with PILOT, GUN, and EW capabilities with ratings between 2+ (excellent) and 6+ (poor). The base number of dice (2D6) is then modified by Posture, weapon and Vehicle Traits, and then either a unopposed check or opposed roll.


Brandon Fero
Nov 4, 2014

So, you have 3D6. You roll 5, 3, and 2. Your PILOT skill is 3+. The 5 is highest, so that is baseline. The 3 passes the check and adds 1. The 2 doesn't pass, so it adds none.


Nov 4, 2014

Ah gotcha, low ratings are good. I see.

Brandon Fero
Nov 4, 2014

I am glad I could help. 

Or, we could simply note Gun (3+), apply modifiers and simply roll a d6 to hit...

Then, Opponent could note Pilot (3+) or EW (5+), apply modifiers, and simply roll a d6 to evade.

Guess which scales faster?

You have 75 miniatures to play with?

BrandonKF wrote:
You have 75 miniatures to play with?

Are we using the creative new math like in the kickstarter and counting individual infantry as separate models? If so, then I've got at least double that personally. If we're counting normally, I probably just pass that mark if I include my unpainted stuff.

 warboss wrote:

BrandonKF wrote:
You have 75 miniatures to play with?

Are we using the creative new math like in the kickstarter and counting individual infantry as separate models? If so, then I've got at least double that personally. If we're counting normally, I probably just pass that mark if I include my unpainted stuff.

Count infantry bases as 1 miniature. Count 10 infantry on 1 base as 2 miniatures.



Not crazy about the whole one base thing, but I get it.

Anyway, my point being, I would like to be able to play with 75 miniatures to a side in 2 hours.

-Brandon F.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just for the sake of reality, though, I will take what I get with the Beta until the RPG comes around. I'm a fan of the universe, after all.

BrandonKF wrote:
You have 75 miniatures to play with?

75? Nah. I think I have about 300, give or take, and not counting infantry. I'm thinking about doing a ginormous free for all with all of it using Future War Commander, see how it goes. I've always been a fan of Warmaster, so...

that said, the current ruleset (that being the Beta, but it's the same for the rest of the HG rulesets) would never let you play 75 units a side in a couple hours. A weekend? sure.

 Albertorius wrote:

BrandonKF wrote:
You have 75 miniatures to play with?

75? Nah. I think I have about 300, give or take, and not counting infantry. I'm thinking about doing a ginormous free for all with all of it using Future War Commander, see how it goes. I've always been a fan of Warmaster, so...

that said, the current ruleset (that being the Beta, but it's the same for the rest of the HG rulesets) would never let you play 75 units a side in a couple hours. A weekend? sure.

Heavy Gear Armageddon?

BrandonKF wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:

BrandonKF wrote:
You have 75 miniatures to play with?

75? Nah. I think I have about 300, give or take, and not counting infantry. I'm thinking about doing a ginormous free for all with all of it using Future War Commander, see how it goes. I've always been a fan of Warmaster, so...

that said, the current ruleset (that being the Beta, but it's the same for the rest of the HG rulesets) would never let you play 75 units a side in a couple hours. A weekend? sure.

Heavy Gear Armageddon?

Guess so... never really liked the Armageddon rules. It's asking 40k to do something they'd do better with Epic.

Eh, yeah, I may not be able to tell the difference, since all the models by now are truly m-o-d-e-l-s. Not miniatures.

But you're correct that the current ruleset wouldn't handle 75 miniatures a side in anything close to a few hours.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
You know what? Once I read the word "size", I totally fixiated on physical dimensions. And then the "every" bit made me want to verify, so I ran over, dug into my closet to take out the models and compare them side-by-side and one in front of the other. It never even occurred to me that he might have been talking background fluff vs physical models. Nope, totally clueless. Oops.

Back on point, while I understand the point about Dread on Dread combat, it's important to also note that Dreads are elite "super" units in 40k, whereas HG Gears are akin to 40k infantry (and HG Infantry are like 40k Swarms). I might be persuaded that Gears take the role of 40k MegaNobz or other TEQs on the tabletop. Even then, 40k Dreads are pretty simple to play. I play Imperial Guard, so having lots of Vehicles on board isn't a big deal to manage.

If Blitz is going to be truly ruthless in cleaning things up, I might actually consider HG as a game to play, versus looking at it as a toybox of cute little robots. The EW/ECM/ECCM stuff is messy.

Yeah, I'm being pretty ruthless with the rules right now as can be shown in the forums. The beta has a lot of clutter and I've broken out the shop vac.

When I refer to size I mean the actual dimensions if the models were the same scale, in the real world. A Space Marine Dreadnought tops out at about 14 feet, a Jager trooper Gear is about 15. The SM Dread is clearly more massive but is a walking pill box compared to the Gear. A Gear is more equivalent to an Imperial Guard Sentinel walker in speed, mobility and armor.

Here is the Activision Hunter Gear 1:1 scale model (life sized). That's a 20' tall backer behind it for scale.


Cheers!
Dave

Well, the Kickstarter is near it's end run. Sitting at CAD$113,442 and 804 backers... I'd call that a successful Kickstart.

I have not contributed (yet). I'm still really on the fence. $100 for 50 models and bits, all in plastic.... I'd love to get that many models! It would be a solid start for just about any faction... well, North, South, CEF, and Caprice anyways (and here I am most interested in Peace River and Black Talons.... and I have a full NuCOAL army too.... LOL).

The rules really, really concern me, and I'm pretty sure I'd be in a situation where I'd have to build up the player base around here to find an opponent- but the rules...! So different from everything my gaming group plays. Those systems being Warhammer 40K, Warmachine, Star Trek Attack Wing, and X-Wing. The "minor" games are Infinity, Relic Knights, Dice Masters, and M:tG (and 1-2 other card games). Point being is that NONE of those games have even CLOSE to the same game mechanics as Heavy Gear. Heck, I've played more games than I care to remember over the last 30+ years, and I'm pretty familiar with all kinds of rule sets. The current HG Beta rules... when I have to read a rule, reread the rule again, think about it, read it AGAIN, then walk away for a bit and come back just to read it AGAIN and I STILL DON'T GET IT or how it would actually work in play, that seems like a bad design to me. Yes, there are some rules that you just need to see on the table in order to understand how they work. Charges in 40K, two-handed throw in Warmachine, and cloaking in STAW are just a few examples of complicated rules that you have to see in action to fully understand.

Simplicity and elegance should be the key words in any rules endeavor. I'm still confused as over the core mechanic in the current Beta. I roll X amount of dice, where X = the skill + whatever extra dice bonus I get (due to cover, or some other effect). I then look at the dice, and the largest number I roll is the "Primary Dice". Now, I look at my skill rating- we'll say it's a 4. Every die that rolls a 4 or better, not including the primary die, adds a +1 to the Primary die. When the final number is determined, it's compared to a "threshold number"- either an opposed roll or set number, whatever. Every number above the threshold is a margin of success that has more effects on things like damage.

WTF is that? Do I want a low skill number, or high skill number? If it's high, I roll more dice, but won't get as many +1's to the final roll. If I have a low skill number, it becomes much easier to get the bonus, but... if I have a pilot skill of 1, what ever I roll on the die will be my Primary Number and my final result. There will be no mods to the die because I'm only rolling one die? That means I could make a "success" on a 1... on the other extreme end, would be a Skill Rating of 5 dice- I could roll a 6, and then 4 more 5 or 6's for a total success roll of 10. Yet the skill rating 5 is supposed to be worse then the skill rating of 1... I'd love to see the curve on these numbers, because something tells me that the "sweet spot" is something like a skill 3 or 4, where a 1-2 would be actually bad for you and a 5-6, while having a higher top end, would have a lower probability of success. Add in opposed skill tests, and I'd say that the higher skill rating (which is supposed to be bad?) would have the advantage over the low skill rating (which is supposed to be good?).

Now then! I haven't really looked at the rules since October, so what I just wrote could be coming from the body part I sit on a lot. I just looked at the Heavy Gear: Blitz 2015 Development, and wow. Even the forums are confusing! The first sticky post says "Nov update preview: Stand by (Alpha). I thought the rules where in Beta? Or have they been rolled back to an Alpha status? Some of the other sticky posts reference the Beta rules that I have, including a November update.

Ah! I get it now- it's for the RULE standby... but why call it Alpha? OMG, so confusing! WHY!?!?!

Alight, I just talked myself out of the Kickstarter.

 Tamwulf wrote:
Simplicity and elegance should be the key words in any rules endeavor. I'm still confused as over the core mechanic in the current Beta. I roll X amount of dice, where X = the skill + whatever extra dice bonus I get (due to cover, or some other effect). I then look at the dice, and the largest number I roll is the "Primary Dice". Now, I look at my skill rating- we'll say it's a 4. Every die that rolls a 4 or better, not including the primary die, adds a +1 to the Primary die. When the final number is determined, it's compared to a "threshold number"- either an opposed roll or set number, whatever. Every number above the threshold is a margin of success that has more effects on things like damage.

WTF is that? Do I want a low skill number, or high skill number? If it's high, I roll more dice, but won't get as many +1's to the final roll. If I have a low skill number, it becomes much easier to get the bonus, but... if I have a pilot skill of 1, what ever I roll on the die will be my Primary Number and my final result. There will be no mods to the die because I'm only rolling one die? That means I could make a "success" on a 1... on the other extreme end, would be a Skill Rating of 5 dice- I could roll a 6, and then 4 more 5 or 6's for a total success roll of 10. Yet the skill rating 5 is supposed to be worse then the skill rating of 1... I'd love to see the curve on these numbers, because something tells me that the "sweet spot" is something like a skill 3 or 4, where a 1-2 would be actually bad for you and a 5-6, while having a higher top end, would have a lower probability of success. Add in opposed skill tests, and I'd say that the higher skill rating (which is supposed to be bad?) would have the advantage over the low skill rating (which is supposed to be good?).

It's initially counter-intuitive, but in the long run it actually works well as a mechanic. The answer is, you want a low skill number. You always take the single highest die, but every other die is compared to the target to see if it adds.

The number of dice rolled are not based on the stat, but on circumstances (is the target at optimal range, in cover, am I running, etc). These are all standardized.

What a low target number allows, is for much higher potential. Here's a hypothetical. Two models, in the same situation, one with a target number of 2, one with a target number of 5. Both will use the exact same rolls.

The spread. 6 dice, 1-2-3-4-5-6 (2 dice base, + 4 dice from every beneficial mod.)
The 2+ guy counts the highest die, a 6, and then adds +1 for every other dice that equaled or beat his target number. So, 6, +4 for a total of 10.
The 5+ guy does the same, but because only one other die hit his target number, he has a total of 6, +1 for a total of 7.

Another hypothetical with the same two guys. 3-3-3-4-4-4
The 2+ guy gets 4+5, or a total of 9.
The 5+ guy gets a 4. No bonuses, total of 4.

In some circumstances, 2d6, results are 5-6, both models get a total of 7. But in most cases, the advantage goes to the 2+, and he's never worse off with equivalent dice rolls. That doesn't mean he can't roll 1-1 vs the other guy's 6-6, but that's part of the randomness of wargaming.

Took me a little while to get my head around it. But it does work.

There is where I got confused. Where does it say you only roll 2d6 for the attack and defense roll? I see the attack and defense modifier table, but...

I found a little blurb under 2.2 Dice Mechanics that says "Each Test requires a set number of Base Dice (BD), normally two six sided dice (2d6), unless indicated otherwise."

Then a couple sentences down it talks about the mods. So, yeah, I guess an attack is 2d6 plus modifiers. To be technical, it's a Ranged Attack using an action to make a GUN Test opposed by the target's PILOT skill. The Margin of Success determines the amount of damage, modified by the penetration value of the weapon used versus the Armor Rating of the target, and then further modified by the weapons traits. Question for the people that have been playing- do a lot of Gears get one shotted?

That's awfully complicated and counter intuitive. I want low SKILL NUMBERS, a lot of dice, and roll high on the dice. The modifiers add or subtract whole dice- and if two dice are the base, then looking at the defense modifiers, there are far more ways to get extra defense modifiers (defense dice) then attack modifiers (attack dice). And it all goes out the window as soon as I use a weapon with the Armor Piercing or Anti-Tank trait. Unless that's changed since October?

When it's easier to explain how to play Euchre, you know your rules are a mess...

 Tamwulf wrote:


Question for the people that have been playing- do a lot of Gears get one shotted?

I've played alot of games and very few times do I have gears one shotted. If you have a gear get caught with a few modifiers you can get one shotted.

Oneeye wrote:

 Tamwulf wrote:


Question for the people that have been playing- do a lot of Gears get one shotted?

I've played alot of games and very few times do I have gears one shotted. If you have a gear get caught with a few modifiers you can get one shotted.

I find that kind of hard to believe- most of the gears have AR 5-6, and only 4/2 damage (6 points total). Let me see if I understand damage correctly.

I get an MoS of X on my hit test. Then we compare the PENETRATION value of the weapon to the ARMOR RATING of the target. PEN < AR, no damage. PEN >= AR, you do damage equal to the difference in the PEN-AR + the MoS. If your PEN is lower then the AR of the target, it doesn't matter how well you hit it, you deal no damage.

The LAC has a PEN of 6, and a Hunter has an AR 7 with 6/1. To one shot it, I'd have to get a PEN+MoS of 14. That... could be difficult. A bigger weapon though... seems like it could happen. It also means that weapons with the Anti Tank and Armor Penetration traits are HIGHLY desirable. Bazooka's have the AT trait- and Bazooka's are pretty common... It also means that big Gears with high AR's like the Hussar with AR 10, Cataphract, Drake, and Scimitar are immune to any weapon with a Pen value less then 10... which is a LOT of weapons. I think I saw an AV of 12 on the big Striders?

That explanation of damage is turning me off the new game rules....seems somehow more complex that OldBlitz.

Here a simpler way of how you should look at it:

PEN + MoS - Armor = damage done.

Example: a PEN 6 weapon hit a Hunter with Armor 6 with a MoS of 2, you do 2 hits. (6 +2 - 6 = 2)

riker2800 wrote:
Here a simpler way of how you should look at it:

PEN + MoS - Armor = damage done.

Except when that formula's result is 0, of course, which has its own little set of rules...

Which is simple as you roll 1d6 and of a 4+ you do one damage

So I just found a Kickstarter for this and threw a dollar at it for now.

Is there a quick summary for someone who's never heard of it before? I can't even tell what the factions are. There seem to be 4 but two of them have much fewer models than North and South. If those are factions.

riker2800 wrote:
Which is simple as you roll 1d6 and of a 4+ you do one damage

Yeah, so? You did ignore it, did you not? And it adds yet another dice roll to the process, does it not? And it is yet another thing you have to take into account and remember from the core mechanic, before going into special weapon and mini traits that might change how it works, is it not?

Would you agree that it is a special rule that adds mechanical complexity and resolution lenght the the core damage mechanic, and that it kind of doesn't agree with the K.I.S,S school of rules design?

You know, I play with the new rules at least once a week with 3 others player that are all used to WH40K, and we get 100TV game under the 1:30 time mark. So, no, this single rule is not added complexity for us and we are fine with it.

Anything you have to do to resolve an action is added complexity.

riker2800 wrote:You know, I play with the new rules at least once a week with 3 others player that are all used to WH40K, and we get 100TV game under the 1:30 time mark. So, no, this single rule is not added complexity for us and we are fine with it.

...Great! So what? What you and your group might do or don't do is anecdote. And the plural of that is not data. You can play a 100TV game in an hour and a half? Whoa, boy! What's a 100TV game, going by Dave's example builds from the starter, like 8 to 10 minis per side? With a game that you play at least once a week and for which you are a playtester? Funny... I can play an Infinity game with that "many" miniatures in half an hour... and Infinity is a very involved game and I'm a very new player. I can play like a dozen OGRE games in that hour and a half. Riker, don't say that like it is some kind of feat... it is not. It might be in comparison with HG Blitz, but in the whole gaming scene? Please.

mrondeau wrote:Anything you have to do to resolve an action is added complexity.

This. Anything that adds a step in the resolution is added complexity. By the very definition of the term.

 Albertorius wrote:

riker2800 wrote:You know, I play with the new rules at least once a week with 3 others player that are all used to WH40K, and we get 100TV game under the 1:30 time mark. So, no, this single rule is not added complexity for us and we are fine with it.

...Great! So what? What you and your group might do or don't do is anecdote. And the plural of that is not data. You can play a 100TV game in an hour and a half? Whoa, boy! What's a 100TV game, going by Dave's example builds from the starter, like 8 to 10 minis per side? With a game that you play at least once a week and for which you are a playtester? Funny... I can play an Infinity game with that "many" miniatures in half an hour... and Infinity is a very involved game and I'm a very new player. I can play like a dozen OGRE games in that hour and a half. Riker, don't say that like it is some kind of feat... it is not. It might be in comparison with HG Blitz, but in the whole gaming scene? Please.

One thing to keep in mind, by that 1h30, you need to take account the time to set the table, get your models out of your bag, some chatting before the game start, etc..

riker2800 wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:

riker2800 wrote:You know, I play with the new rules at least once a week with 3 others player that are all used to WH40K, and we get 100TV game under the 1:30 time mark. So, no, this single rule is not added complexity for us and we are fine with it.

...Great! So what? What you and your group might do or don't do is anecdote. And the plural of that is not data. You can play a 100TV game in an hour and a half? Whoa, boy! What's a 100TV game, going by Dave's example builds from the starter, like 8 to 10 minis per side? With a game that you play at least once a week and for which you are a playtester? Funny... I can play an Infinity game with that "many" miniatures in half an hour... and Infinity is a very involved game and I'm a very new player. I can play like a dozen OGRE games in that hour and a half. Riker, don't say that like it is some kind of feat... it is not. It might be in comparison with HG Blitz, but in the whole gaming scene? Please.

One thing to keep in mind, by that 1h30, you need to take account the time to set the table, get your models out of your bag, some chatting before the game start, etc..

Just like every other game, then? Duly noted.

OK, so, you have time to get your board out, place terrains, get your model outs, play the game, all this in 30 minutes? Is that a race or what?

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

Yes, that damage roll is a function! Woot! And they said all those math classes I took wouldn't be useful in life...

It's over complicated, requires WAY too many rules inputs, and I'd love to watch someone try and teach a 14 year old kid how to play this game- because that's the real metric right there.

1 1/2 hours to play a 100 TV game? And that includes the small talk, set up and army creation process? I don't really like to say I don't believe you, but I don't believe you. Or, maybe if you are playing on a 2'x2' table with no terrain and you just stand there and shoot at each other...

It's also a bit disconcerting that if you are a play tester, that you are playing a "full sized game" with new rules, concepts, and ideas in less then 1 1/2 hours... so how much play testing did you actually do? What does your "play test diary" look like? What are your write ups to the lead designers like? I would imagine that if you were play testing something, you would be playing more than one game a week. More like 10-15 games a week, and each game would be at least double the normal time as you stop to take notes and maybe even pictures. Then at the end of the week, you would submit a couple page summery to the lead designer including all your notes. Oh, and you wouldn't be here bragging about it, that's for sure. I've never encountered a play tester that wasn't under an NDA, even after the game was released.

Anyways, the topic at had is the absurdly complex and needless damage resolution system of Heavy Gear Blitz. I don't think I've ever seen a more complicated system before... and I play a lot of games. It's not about old neck beards "getting it", or veterans of Heavy Gear saying "it's not that bad!". You have to get kids in on the game- the 12-16 year old crowd that has a ton of disposable income, and nothing but time to play games. They are the future of any game system. I could play a 1500 point game of Warhammer 40K with a 12 year old, and by the end of the game, they would "get it" and be able to play another game with little to no rules input by me. Granted, I might be the worlds "Best Game Demo'er", but it's also the result of the absurdly simple rules mechanics of 40K. Think that will happen with HG:B?

 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.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
So I just found a Kickstarter for this and threw a dollar at it for now.

Is there a quick summary for someone who's never heard of it before? I can't even tell what the factions are. There seem to be 4 but two of them have much fewer models than North and South. If those are factions.

The factions in the Kickstarter are North, South, Earth, Caprice.

North and South are, you can think of them in terms of Axis and Allies, in that they are two broad powers made up of smaller factions. Those smaller factions do not have much impact on models. Northern Gears = boxy, Southern Gears = round, and the countries that make up the North and South all use (mostly) the same respective models, but have some different rules and special Gears available to them.

The North, South, and Badlands, which is another "overarching" faction (made up here by some actually quite different armies - those being Peace River and NuCoal) make up the playable factions of Terra Nova, the home planet and main setting of the game and fiction.

Beyond Terra Nova exists Earth, represented on the tabletop by their army the CEF, and the other colonies. Terra Nova is one of around a half dozen very isolated colonies, but now Earth wants its colonies back. Some of the colonies are cool with that, others, not so much. Caprice is a colony which is (mostly) collaborating with Earth and the CEF, but there is a resistance there.

The reason Earth and Caprice in this Kickstarter seem so small, is because they are! Terra Nova's armies have many more models, and have had much more time devoted to them. They are the primary focus of the game, while Earth is the looming threat from beyond.

 Tamwulf wrote:


It's also a bit disconcerting that if you are a play tester, that you are playing a "full sized game" with new rules, concepts, and ideas in less then 1 1/2 hours... so how much play testing did you actually do? What does your "play test diary" look like? What are your write ups to the lead designers like? I would imagine that if you were play testing something, you would be playing more than one game a week. More like 10-15 games a week, and each game would be at least double the normal time as you stop to take notes and maybe even pictures. Then at the end of the week, you would submit a couple page summery to the lead designer including all your notes. Oh, and you wouldn't be here bragging about it, that's for sure. I've never encountered a play tester that wasn't under an NDA, even after the game was released.

Sorry but that post is a load of crap. There are plenty of open playtests in gaming nowadays without NDAs. Also, Fyi, the DP9 NDA expires when they come out with a product (the alpha rules release) or iirc a year after you finish working on it. Finally, 10-15 games a week each taking 3 hours is your criteria for calling someone a playtester??? I know it isn't your strong suit but do the simple math... that time commitment makes you a full time employee of Dp9 in all but name (and pay). Only GW and WOTC likely have resources for staff that meet your criteria to be called "playtesters".

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.

I must I like that one.

riker2800 wrote:OK, so, you have time to get your board out, place terrains, get your model outs, play the game, all this in 30 minutes? Is that a race or what?

Nope. Just a game. It's not really all that hard, honestly.

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

Wow... no, let's not get waaaay too much to the other side either, please.

It's over complicated, requires WAY too many rules inputs, and I'd love to watch someone try and teach a 14 year old kid how to play this game- because that's the real metric right there.

I do believe that the marginal hit rule is overcomplicated for what it brings to the table, but the rest is just addition/subtraction, really.

It's also a bit disconcerting that if you are a play tester, that you are playing a "full sized game" with new rules, concepts, and ideas in less then 1 1/2 hours... so how much play testing did you actually do? What does your "play test diary" look like? What are your write ups to the lead designers like? I would imagine that if you were play testing something, you would be playing more than one game a week. More like 10-15 games a week, and each game would be at least double the normal time as you stop to take notes and maybe even pictures. Then at the end of the week, you would submit a couple page summery to the lead designer including all your notes. Oh, and you wouldn't be here bragging about it, that's for sure. I've never encountered a play tester that wasn't under an NDA, even after the game was released.

If I ever do 10-15 games a week for a playtest, I'd be getting paid for it. No other way in hell.

Anyways, the topic at had is the absurdly complex and needless damage resolution system of Heavy Gear Blitz. I don't think I've ever seen a more complicated system before... and I play a lot of games.

How about Battletech? Warmahordes 'jacks/beasts? There are probably a lot more. Let's not get too carried away, please.

 Albertorius wrote:

riker2800 wrote:OK, so, you have time to get your board out, place terrains, get your model outs, play the game, all this in 30 minutes? Is that a race or what?

Nope. Just a game. It's not really all that hard, honestly.

Ok, you must be playing with people that plan their move very quickly then, what take the most time is player thinking about their next move/action, not really damage resolution. Anyway, we are not really interested in a game of I place my models, then next turn I remove all of them because game is over.

riker2800 wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:

riker2800 wrote:OK, so, you have time to get your board out, place terrains, get your model outs, play the game, all this in 30 minutes? Is that a race or what?

Nope. Just a game. It's not really all that hard, honestly.

Ok, you must be playing with people that plan their move very quickly then, what take the most time is player thinking about their next move/action, not really damage resolution. Anyway, we are not really interested in a game of I place my models, then next turn I remove all of them because game is over.

That's why I said that the plural of anecdote is not data: my anecdote is just as invalid and worthless as data as yours

Honestly, the attack/damage system doesn't feel all that complex, at least compared to 40K's vehicle charts Battletech, and Warmachine. With 40k you have to roll to hit, roll to penetrate, there's a saving throw, than you roll to see what happened, which could lead to more rolling. With warmachine you roll to hit vs defense, roll damage vs armor, apply damage. Looking at HG, you roll to hit vs opponent's piloting, than apply damage, with maybe an additional roll for marginal hits. The math involved is just simple addition and subtraction, and HG's feels like it could be intuitive with a few games under one's belt. Definitely not calculus.

Granted this is all based on appearances.

As a new player (still trying to get my first game), the parts of the game that looks the most complex are the EW, comms, and Command rules. Command seem fairly straight forward, similar in principle to the current Imperial Guard book. EW doesn't even seem hard rules wise, just has alot of interactions and choices of interactions that take seem like it would take time to get used to.

How much does EW factor into a standard game? Should it be something that I should be prepared to defend against? (AKA redundant EW platforms), or would just a token EW gear suffice? Looking at rules it SEEMS like it's something that while useful to have, it doesn't completely over shadow having an extra couple of guns.

And EW, Comms and Command is all being Greatly simplified

 Albertorius wrote:
That's why I said that the plural of anecdote is not data: my anecdote is just as invalid and worthless as data as yours

That may be true; however, in the case of Heavy Gear, there is a consistent pattern of people being exposed to the game, finding the opposed MOS mechanic to be excessive, and not playing again.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
in the case of Heavy Gear, there is a consistent pattern of people being exposed to the game, finding the opposed MOS mechanic to be excessive, and not playing again.

Gawd, that does get so old - a player does everything they can during their activation to get as many [+Attack] modifiers as they can, and in fact might even have the other model dead to rights, only to see absolutely nothing at all happen after figuring all those modifiers for each roll.

In large part the field guides seemed too often to be just a way to limit the heavy weapon models players had to take anyways to be able to do anything in game so that every army list wasn't just complete munchkin min/maxing.

 Tamwulf wrote:
It's also a bit disconcerting that if you are a play tester, that you are playing a "full sized game" with new rules, concepts, and ideas in less then 1 1/2 hours... so how much play testing did you actually do?
What does your "play test diary" look like? What are your write ups to the lead designers like? I would imagine that if you were play testing something, you would be playing more than one game a week.

I don't know that any of the field guide projects I was involved with ever saw anyone do (15) games in total during the months long process for each book.
But I do agree with the time figure per game, especially if that wasn't the actual game time, as that seems quite rushed and I think most anyone would be hesitant about the resultant data or feedback proving useful.

Most of the games I participated in for testing took at least two and a half hours, but three to four or a split session was not uncommon due to conversation about results and checking rules or source material.

_
_

The complexity of how the rules is written is a comment that I've heard a lot and this next update will be updating the language for basic tests to be friendlier. I look forward to showing it to you all.

I'll be back next week. Gonna go relax now.

Cheers!
Dave

As I called out earlier, the Opposed MOS mechanic needs to go away.

In lieu of shooting, a unit may make a 2d6 Piloting test to increase difficulty of being targeted.

That makes it a clear choice to attack or dodge/evade.

Seriously, a key goal should be to eliminate interactivity in favor of playability.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Seriously, a key goal should be to eliminate interactivity in favor of playability.

I feel you are wrong, as a game design principle interactivity does not hinter playability in any form or sense, what you may think is streamlining (or polishing) the rules to enable better playability, that's another chapter altogether.

The current opposed MOS mechanic reduces playability in the sense that it creates delay and uncertainty in resolution, compared to an explicit decision to dodge and a fixed dodge bonus result.

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.

Sounds like Tamwulf wants to play a KADA army with a lot of duelists in elite gears. Now there's a Force with violent intentions written all over it...

Cheers!
Dave

DP9 "Beta" update preview wrote:MP Hunter: MFC, LRP, APGL, LVB

Just... wow, Dave ...you keep proving that you don't have a clue about anything related to either HG fluff or legacy models, which makes it rather impossible for much anyone to provide that respectful criticism you claim to so crave.

But hey, in the end just another bit on another model for folks to rip off and/or try to magnetize etc etc etc due to more whipsaw changes, so just blue-tack everything on their entire collections in the meantime right.
Or just leave bits that way forever, so as to be ready for the next changes y'all decide to make that is the exact opposite of everything the company mandated with the last batch of changes -- then Rinse & Repeat.

_
_

Maybe for the next stage of rules DP9 can add in the missing units. Might be difficult with the stripped down versions, unless I've read the rules wrong and stripped down can be added to those variants. I mean, the unit lists are basically excel spread-sheets.

 DP9Dave wrote:
Sounds like Tamwulf wants to play a KADA army with a lot of duelists in elite gears. Now there's a Force with violent intentions written all over it...

Cheers!
Dave

Actually, Tamwulf has a NuCoal army, Black Talon Force, a small Northern force, a couple Southern Gears, another small Caprice force, and a Peace River force. He WAS looking at a CEF Frame heavy force, but gave up when he heard another edition of the game was coming out. He tried to play Arena and found it too difficult to understand and inexplicably unplayable from a campaign standpoint. He found it OK to simulate a one-on-one duel, but that was it, and it was obvious that certain combo's of Duelists were all but unbeatable one-on-one.

Tamwulf participated in the Kickstarter against his better judgement, more to fill out his Northern Force and start his CEF army. He has high hopes tempered by the realistic performance of Dream Pod Nine in the past. He does not like the direction the play test has gone, but still follows along like a sad, disenfranchised Fan Boi of the genre. He would rather have bad/poorly written rules then no rules at all.

Dave, please don't make me refer to myself in the third person again.

 Tamwulf wrote:
He would rather have bad/poorly written rules then no rules at all.

I have never thought rules to be particularly difficult to write, assuming that one has a very clear notion of what one expects the rules to do, and how the game should play from beginning to end.

I have seen many rulesets that were poorly-adapted to the game that people play, resulting in extended playtime from excessive detail - a failure to understand what elements of the ruleset are important to retain, and a failure to understand what elements can be absorbed or ignored as insignificant to the actual playing of the game.

Assuming DP9 rationalizes the stats, I believe a "Lite" Gear game would not be difficult to assemble, using proven mass battle rule concepts as a basis, rather than arcane RPG pseudo-simulation.

Personally, I am watching and waiting to see how the minis come out. If the models are nice and real, then I'll bump my pledge from a placeholder and start knocking something together.

 Tamwulf wrote:


Dave, please don't make me refer to myself in the third person again.

Tamwolf, Lol, I will try not to make that necessary for your sake. I had to imagine you saying that using an Arnold voice to parse it all properly.

@Smilodon - Your comments are noted. All I can say in answer to that is: New Edition Beta. Some of your assumptions are no longer valid since the game has shifted since you were involved.

I agree that Wheatons Law always applies to everyone(!), everywhere, though I am also a fan of the part of Murphy's Law that states "Nothing is as easy as it seems."
http://davetgc.com/murphy__s_law_pannel_by_lone_preacher.jpg

Cheers!
Dave

Dave, I agree that Wheaton's Law applies to everyone but I also think that if you take a thousand people's money that you should put greater emphasis on making sure your company doesn't break it (again).

As for Murphy's Law, there is also another saying about success being 90% perspiration and 10% inspiration. If you thought it was as "easy as it seems" and were wrong, you likely added too much on inspiration and not enough of the other when preparing.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Tamwulf wrote:
He would rather have bad/poorly written rules then no rules at all.

I have never thought rules to be particularly difficult to write, assuming that one has a very clear notion of what one expects the rules to do, and how the game should play from beginning to end.

I have seen many rulesets that were poorly-adapted to the game that people play, resulting in extended playtime from excessive detail - a failure to understand what elements of the ruleset are important to retain, and a failure to understand what elements can be absorbed or ignored as insignificant to the actual playing of the game.

Assuming DP9 rationalizes the stats, I believe a "Lite" Gear game would not be difficult to assemble, using proven mass battle rule concepts as a basis, rather than arcane RPG pseudo-simulation.

Personally, I am watching and waiting to see how the minis come out. If the models are nice and real, then I'll bump my pledge from a placeholder and start knocking something together.

In my mind, there is no better example then Cataylst Game's current Battletech system.

In the Introductory Rule Box, are "Simplified" starter rules that make the game pretty fun. The actual rules are... well, let's just say I remember playing Battle Droids in 1985, and the game still uses bubble sheets, hex mats, and a 2d6 system where lower numbers are always better. Incredibly detailed system, and for one on one games, plays pretty well. When you step up to Inner Sphere Lances or Clan Stars (4 or 5 Mech's, respectively), prepare to have an entire afternoon available to play.

I remember one of my local players who has some of his mechs in the current rulebooks (awesome painter!) had a set of rules back in 2005 ? that we played just after Catalyst Game acquired the Battletech license. Little did I know that we were playing the new introductory rules for the new game... and I have to say, I love those rules so much more than the regular rules. My love for the game expanded even more with Alpha Strike- which is what the game should be IMO. No more hex maps, no more bubbles, no more incredibly long list of modifiers... just an awesome, streamlined game of mechs. Of course the die hards hate it ("Not detailed enough!", "It's too dumbed down!", etc.), and with so many other great games out there, it's hard to compete, especially when the Battletech Era was the 90's with cartoons, videogames, novels, comics... but that genre seems to have died out. :(

TLDR version- Battletech has the complex, detailed rules that are great for 1-2 Mech's per side, and the streamlined, very fast playing Alpha Strike for when you want to step up to larger games (Lances and Stars or greater). I think DP9 could learn from this.

Exactly. The old stuff is still out there, and the diehards still own their books. But starting new gives the chance for something that plays a 6-10 models per side within an hour's time.

I'm in the position of wanting to play, can probably strong arm my friend Roger to play another game, and I'm looking forward to seeing how the new rule book turns out. For me it needs to be readable and well laid out, the current offering is neither. However, what I have a hard time understanding is the angst over faction composition. Maybe it's just me, but surely you just play with the models you have or want to buy and sod the official lists if they don't work for you, or am I missing something here?

@PIP, I'm with you. Play what I like until army building cleans up.

Paint it Pink wrote:
I'm in the position of wanting to play, can probably strong arm my friend Roger to play another game, and I'm looking forward to seeing how the new rule book turns out. For me it needs to be readable and well laid out, the current offering is neither. However, what I have a hard time understanding is the angst over faction composition. Maybe it's just me, but surely you just play with the models you have or want to buy and sod the official lists if they don't work for you, or am I missing something here?

While things vary significantly in the US from region to region, alot of gamers play at stores here as opposed to the "club" model I see on alot of UK youtube videos. When meeting strangers in that setting for a pickup game, the expectation is that you bring a "legal" army built according to the official lists and not something that varies from it due to house rules that necessitate the opponent's permission to use. If a company decides to suddenly restrict previously widely available models in a faction to only one sublist each, players end up with mutually exclusive models that they in effect can't use together. That obviously isn't an issue if you're playing in a tight knit group of friends but that isn't a typical scenario (in my experience) with strangers and acquaintances. Most every organized play experience I've been a part of (I play exclusively at stores) has by the book army list restrictions as the defacto standard except for preplanned themed events. YMMV but that is why telling people they can't use half their collection with the other half is so unfriendly towards customers and why DP9 gets so much (deserved) flak for it.

That problem is what "counts as" is for. During transition, you do a "counts as" thing while you simplify things. This keeps models legal and players playing.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
That problem is what "counts as" is for. During transition, you do a "counts as" thing while you simplify things. This keeps models legal and players playing.

There is no "transition" if your model is suddenly locked behind a subfaction that is different from other models locked behind yet another subfaction when you previously were able to use both. "Counts as" is an ad hoc temporary band aid, not a permanent solution to being unable to use your purchased models.

Let's get real - at the rate things are going, there is ZERO chance this takes off for store / tournament play.

 DP9Dave wrote:
@Smilodon - Some of your assumptions are no longer valid since the game has shifted since you were involved.

To which assumption do you refer:
Because for myself, it's getting really hard to tell at all anymore in DP9 products what is intentional, what actually is a typo, or what is just an unnoticed/noticed cut+paste error carried over for who knows how long through umpteen Blitz! rulesets.
People understand that change is going to happen, some of it desperately needed, but it is not I think unreasonable for them to be asking for that to be implemented in a planned, workable, and coherent fashion.

From the outside, when a company spends a year publicly on top of a year plus privately working things up but can't fix or doesn't care to fix common mistakes already inherent to almost every previous version of the rules, the subsequent impression is what else aren't they getting right or can't be bothered to make work.


All those folks who were excited enough about the Alpha to post in the Spring, and then went silent, should've been a big clue that you might not be going in the right direction with the Beta - just like the thousands of folks who used to be fans of HG yet aren't any longer.
But I guess in the end the only real option left is indeed to play as you like in your local meta, because if the Pod was capable of getting both a miniatures ruleset and force building right it probably would've happened by now given all (5+?) the iterations.

_
_

@Smildon - I wonder if part of the issue is that DP9 gets all of their models for FREE. It's not like they have to pay money for them. They just take something off the shelf and build it to play with. No big deal.

I've visited DP9 HQ, I can tell you, that excuse doesn't fly.

I'm not sure what to make of that. When you were working there, they didn't play at all? Didn't play with models? Or didn't get them for free? In any case, I hope everyone has a happy new year!

 warboss wrote:
While things vary significantly in the US from region to region, a lot of gamers play at stores here as opposed to the "club" model I see on a lot of UK youtube videos. When meeting strangers in that setting for a pickup game, the expectation is that you bring a "legal" army built according to the official lists and not something that varies from it due to house rules that necessitate the opponent's permission to use. If a company decides to suddenly restrict previously widely available models in a faction to only one sublist each, players end up with mutually exclusive models that they in effect can't use together. That obviously isn't an issue if you're playing in a tight knit group of friends but that isn't a typical scenario (in my experience) with strangers and acquaintances. Most every organized play experience I've been a part of (I play exclusively at stores) has by the book army list restrictions as the de facto standard except for preplanned themed events. YMMV but that is why telling people they can't use half their collection with the other half is so unfriendly towards customers and why DP9 gets so much (deserved) flak for it.

Yes but, and everything after the but is the important part, IMNSHO Mecha games are SF and therefore fictional setting to allow players to freely use their own imaginations, and your assumptions about things over here in the UK are just that assumptions. And again but the point is to negotiate what is acceptable by using army lists to govern this (is again) IMNSHO the problem, not the solution that people tout it as being. Of course YMMV, terms & conditions apply to what I've just said, and errors and omissions excepted.

And one final thing, if whoever from whatever company ever tried to tell me what models I can or cannot use for a SF game they would get a very British profanity as a response from me. Just saying, because some perspectives need to be stated. Disclaimer T&CA, E&OE etc., because I'm just an old school BOF.

If you are talking historical games then research is your best friend.

You asked and I answered. The fact is that plenty of people (the vast majority in my own experience) use the official army lists to almost solely decide what they'll play both with and against. That isn't limited to Heavy Gear nor is it limited to tabletop minis games either. You made up some chapter of your own with homebrew rules in 40k? Sorry, you're not likely to see any tabletop time versus strangers. Got some d&d character you made using fan classes and feats? Don't try bringing that to a convention as your only character or a league event for the first time. You may not be of the same mind but right or wrong that is the baseline I've come to expect from 20+ years of gaming.

Are there exceptions? Sure, but again in my experience they're in the minority unless you're playing exclusively with friends or organizing an event yourself. Brandon's group sounds like an exception from his posts' views on count as and such. Unforuntately, having the company build failure right into the rulebook by screwing over players yet again right after their last real blitz product did that and expecting some community consensus to solve it (when none previously ever developed) isn't going to win many people over either. A significant portion of players won't accept homebrew versus strangers whether out if ignorance or actual bad experiences and segregating minis that were previously together with no limits will ultimately lead to that. Those players who get screwed over (some repeatedly) generally stop posting/buying/caring which is why Heavy Gear is where it is today with the company unable to find players for their marque championship at a venue with tens of thousands of players and why they couldn't afford to develop their last two products or bring much to sell at that same event.

The core rules are the standard that you specifically accept when you "get into" a game. Expecting a random stranger on the other end of a table to accept whatever you've come up with on your own is an assumption that you shouldn't automatically make. It doesn't make that person any less creative, reasonable, or any other pejorative but rather simply someone with a different set of expectations for the game. If the core rules tell you that you can't use what you previously could (and bought), you have to be prepared to not use it. I've experienced it both in trying to use my homebrew HG rules (all politely refused) as well as the "beta" threat values; my opponents in all three cases didn't feel like using any of them and there frankly wasn't anything I could do about it short of going home. Like it or not, every rules product tells you what you can and can't do. It is simply up to you and your opponent to agree whether to enforce it or not. The baseline, if no agreement can be reached, is what the company developed.

As for historical games, I'm not sure any research would help me with the Aztecs versus Samurai game I saw a while back nor the US vs US FOW game just a few weeks ago. Using history as the sole arbitor of historical games is even more strict that using the just the official rules of a game and nothing else.

The point of having army lists in a game is usually to use them.

Personally, most of the time I've played HG as a minis game, it has been using the lists and the rules for the wargame. Whenever I haven't, most of the time we've been playing the RPG, which, incidentally, is kind of a better option to get a narrative game anyways.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
@Smildon - I wonder if part of the issue is that DP9 gets all of their models for FREE. It's not like they have to pay money for them. They just take something off the shelf and build it to play with. No big deal.

I feel is more lack of interest in the setting and a general apathy about the game as long as it sells minis, from at the very least the head of the company.

 Albertorius wrote:
, from at the very least the head of the company.

I imagine the fact that after the head of the company, there's like, two other guys contributes, as well. Heavy Gear is all but a basement side project. And they could do great things from that position! But at some point if the minis aren't selling one of them is going to say to the other "Look, I love Heavy Gear, but I've got kids to feed, and this ain't cutting it" and there will go half the company. So sales are a big priority, which leads to the apathy for setting and, well, quality, in favour of "excitement", and new minis.

 Firebreak wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:
, from at the very least the head of the company.

I imagine the fact that after the head of the company, there's like, two other guys contributes, as well. Heavy Gear is all but a basement side project. And they could do great things from that position! (...)

Make that the head of the company, Robert, and one other guy, Dave. That's it.

As for why they won't do great things from that position, you have 50+ pages of answers in this thread...

 Firebreak wrote:
And they could do great things from that position! But at some point if the minis aren't selling one of them is going to say to the other "Look, I love Heavy Gear, but I've got kids to feed, and this ain't cutting it" and there will go half the company. So sales are a big priority, which leads to the apathy for setting and, well, quality, in favour of "excitement", and new minis.

If minis aren't selling, I don't personally have a problem with them going out of print. That, of course, isn't equivalent to dropping support for them in the rules though which is a completely separate idea that I wouldn't support. Having the minis go OOP if they don't sell well doesn't really affect the supply much in my experience. The last time I bought a squad of older sculpt minis (the King Cobra) when FIF came out, the models I got from an online store closeout were at 5-7 years old judging from the very outdated original Blitz pre-L&L packaging they came in and in an older, darker (or aged?) formulation of pewter. It took a 50% off sale for them to finally move that merchandise. One of the relatively few business decisions I've supported the pod doing is switching their low selling lines to OOP with periodic in print status as I think it's a great idea. I think they should do the same thing with blitz for the stuff that they just don't consistently sell enough of as long as they keep the rules support for those minis current (to support the customers who did previously buy them).

Going OOP to save costs is nice and all, but why is it always the minis that are known to be underpowered that sell less ? I wonder if there's a coincidence...

I may have solved my issues with the ruleset.

I bought the Gruntz pdf, and reading and rereading thru it, I like it. I'm thinking it can be used for Heavy Gear with very few issues. Gonna play a few games, and am thinking the most I may need to do is tweek the Soak or add some slight granularity to some of the weapons, and it'll be Heavy Gruntz, and downright Blitzy in play speed.

 warboss wrote:
I'm not sure what to make of that. When you were working there, they didn't play at all? Didn't play with models? Or didn't get them for free? In any case, I hope everyone has a happy new year!

seems obvious that employees and the owners don't get the product for free. After all, if you're producing it then taking it for yourself just eats into profits.

Nomeny wrote:

 warboss wrote:
I'm not sure what to make of that. When you were working there, they didn't play at all? Didn't play with models? Or didn't get them for free? In any case, I hope everyone has a happy new year!

seems obvious that employees and the owners don't get the product for free. After all, if you're producing it then taking it for yourself just eats into profits.

Most companies will give a nice discount to employees, it's only fair. I get a freebie once and a while when I've contributed significantly to the design or pre-sculpting work, or if there is a significant defect in a resin model and I'm willing to take the time to fix it (this is pretty rare).

Though I would describe myself as a miniatures fan, I like my job and respect everyone involved enough not to request freebies. That way lies a terrible feeling of entitlement that I'm sure many people in the industry understand. We accept that we don't get to have all the shiny, but we get to make them for everyone else and that's pretty cool.

Cheers!
Dave

I assume there's also house minis. I mean, you have to show stuff off at cons, if you ever go. And if you want a Hunter for a rules test, you're not going to walk over to the shop, cast one, and then charge yourself.

Among the many issues facing Heavy Gear and DreamPod 9, the fact that there's probably some minis laying around the office is not one of them.

Just a quick request for the old timers out there that might still be reading this thread... does anyone have the old fleet scale gear counter models that you can post a scale pic of? I did some google searching and found very little beyond the pic attached below. I was hoping to see if I could use them as Dropzone Commander Wolverine counts-as models. If someone could post a pic of the HG fleet gears next to either HG infantry or DZC infantry (or even better the DZC UCM wolverines), I'd appreciate it.







The infantry above looks like it might instead be 3mm but that is the best scale pic I can find. I also realize that PHR has walkers in the game that I could use instead but the overall aesthetic of UCM appeals much more to me.

 warboss wrote:
Just a quick request for the old timers out there that might still be reading this thread... does anyone have the old fleet scale gear counter models that you can post a scale pic of? I did some google searching and found very little beyond the pic attached below. I was hoping to see if I could use them as Dropzone Commander Wolverine counts-as models. If someone could post a pic of the HG fleet gears next to either HG infantry or DZC infantry (or even better the DZC UCM wolverines), I'd appreciate it.

I don't play UCM, so I can't give you the exact comparison, but I'll try to get a picture of some fleet-scale gears and tanks next to PHR scouts and belt-fed artilleries tonight.
I don't think they would work as Wolverines.

mrondeau wrote:

 warboss wrote:
Just a quick request for the old timers out there that might still be reading this thread... does anyone have the old fleet scale gear counter models that you can post a scale pic of? I did some google searching and found very little beyond the pic attached below. I was hoping to see if I could use them as Dropzone Commander Wolverine counts-as models. If someone could post a pic of the HG fleet gears next to either HG infantry or DZC infantry (or even better the DZC UCM wolverines), I'd appreciate it.

I don't play UCM, so I can't give you the exact comparison, but I'll try to get a picture of some fleet-scale gears and tanks next to PHR scouts and belt-fed artilleries tonight.
I don't think they would work as Wolverines.

Thanks! It's much appreciated. I realize they're a bit taller and not as long but I was hoping to use two gears on a base for one wolverine. I'm also not sure how the old gear counters are packages in the blisters. I found an old ebay auction that said there are "5 pieces" but I wasn't sure if that meant 4 gears and one stone head or 5 bases of two gears and one stonehead each. I edited the post above with a couple more pics I found while you replied as well. I saw that PHR has scout walkers that came out since I last looked at the line that would probably be a more accurate size if not to the gears then the fleet scale striders. I don't need them to be the exact same size (although I fully admit to being pretty clueless as to how a size change would affect the models in DZC whether better or worse) but I would prefer that the DZC infantry actually look like they could fit into the chest of the gears.

 warboss wrote:
Just a quick request for the old timers out there that might still be reading this thread... does anyone have the old fleet scale gear counter models that you can post a scale pic of? I did some google searching and found very little beyond the pic attached below. I was hoping to see if I could use them as Dropzone Commander Wolverine counts-as models. If someone could post a pic of the HG fleet gears next to either HG infantry or DZC infantry (or even better the DZC UCM wolverines), I'd appreciate it.

Thanks! Do you happen to recall how many of the counters (two gears and a stonehead on a base?) were in each blister?

 warboss wrote:
Thanks! Do you happen to recall how many of the counters (two gears and a stonehead on a base?) were in each blister?

I think it was 10 gears and 5 bases, but that was years ago. The Fleet scale minis were available before the fleet scale rules.

Rules whose publication should have been a major warning sign, in retrospect, but I'm getting on-topic.

mrondeau wrote:

 warboss wrote:
Thanks! Do you happen to recall how many of the counters (two gears and a stonehead on a base?) were in each blister?

I think it was 10 gears and 5 bases, but that was years ago. The Fleet scale minis were available before the fleet scale rules.

Rules whose publication should have been a major warning sign, in retrospect, but I'm getting on-topic.

HG 2nd edition so soon after the inaugural 1st edition release with so very few changes charged at full price should have been a major warning sign as well. In any case, I suspect this is now the general all purpose HG (complaint) thread. Any utility from the poll in the first post has long past as I started it to provide constructive criticism in a neutral setting for DP9 to or ignore at their leisure. I might end up changing the title of the first post to reflect that. The KS specific discussion has the KS thread whereas this one might be better suited to the defunct games in the line and general questions/complaints/ideas.

The 10 gears and 5 bases jives with the most common sense interpretation of the old ebay auction I found. Thanks again for the pics. It looks like they'd be a better sub for PHR scout walkers size-wise (as a pair) but they also seem about halfway in height between the wolverine and the janus. It seems like two hunters on a base at least from above are a decent approximation. I'm not sure how the height factors into LOS in DZC but my first instinct is to mount all the models in DZC on bases anyways to protect the paint jobs on the bottom surface of the models from wear. I'm still not sure what I'll do though as I like the idea though of having a four man squad of gears dropping out of a raven dropship as scouts. The weapons are an OK substitution given that the wolverines have an autocannon OR rockets (whereas the gears have both). It's a bit theoretical though given I don't currently have a DZC opponent or an army.

I have some UCM stuff at home (the stuff from the starter), but until the weekend I won't be able to take some pics.

 Albertorius wrote:
I have some UCM stuff at home (the stuff from the starter), but until the weekend I won't be able to take some pics.

Thanks in advance. I'm still a bit worried about the height (not sure how much height matters in DZC though) so a pic of the HG fleet gears next to the tanks should be a big help as well.

 warboss wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:
I have some UCM stuff at home (the stuff from the starter), but until the weekend I won't be able to take some pics.

Thanks in advance. I'm still a bit worried about the height (not sure how much height matters in DZC though) so a pic of the HG fleet gears next to the tanks should be a big help as well.

I think I have all the HG stuff back there, so I can even make some comparisons with those, too (was thinking about using Gears as proxies for PHR walkers. I even have a Red Bull for the big scorpion thingie).

I don't have and haven't seen a Red Bull in person beyond the display case at gencon years ago and have ever seen the big PHR scorpion walker but they definitely could work as a swap as can the NG heavy walker (thunderhammer?) whose name escapes me at the moment. Mrondeau's size pic above has the smallest (and apparently newest) PHR walker and the other ones are about double the width and 30-50% taller than those.

Yeah, I kind of have the same problem, I'll have to try it sometime.

As for your pics, would this work for you? (taken with the kinda crappy phone camera):






Unrelated to this... oh Robert, don't ever change

 Albertorius wrote:

Unrelated to this... oh Robert, don't ever change

Do I want to know ?

Thanks for the pics! They make me alot more comfortable combined with Mrondeau's pics on the height of the models. If anything, those pics make me think that the infantry are way too big for the scale of the vehicles instead!

 Albertorius wrote:

Unrelated to this... oh Robert, don't ever change

BwahahahahahAHAHAHAHAHAH.
...
Héhéhéhéhé.

mrondeau wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:

Unrelated to this... oh Robert, don't ever change

Do I want to know ?

I kind of want to but I'm in the dark currently... On an unrelated note, the HG KS update went out but there was no mention of them continuing the funding period nor officially ending it either. Previously, Dave kept saying that the post KS campaign would be open during January and February which officially ended yesterday.