Note that 40k 3E hit in the late 90s, and we're on 7E right now, so if we got back 12 years, I think it's 4E, 5E, 6E, 7E = 4 editions of 40k. Too bad the last 2 have been crap.
Yup, the last two versions of Blitz at least had it (I don't recall if the original blitz did though but it might have as well) as did starship troopers. I think it was a good idea in theory but never really implemented very well.
My recall is rusty, butI don't believe Blitz v1 had Priority Levels - that was added in the Locked&Loaded rules.
^ Your quote tags have gone wonky; that was Nomeny, not me.
I was actually meaning that Blitz (the first variant thereof) was the fourth edition of the wargame rules*, not that there have been four editions of Blitz itself. So, seven editions since 1994, compared with 40k's six editions since 1993 (when 2nd edition was released).
* 1st edition, 2nd edition, the "Miniatures Rules", then Blitz.
AndrewGPaul wrote: ^ Your quote tags have gone wonky; that was Nomeny, not me.
I was actually meaning that Blitz (the first variant thereof) was the fourth edition of the wargame rules*, not that there have been four editions of Blitz itself. So, seven editions since 1994, compared with 40k's six editions since 1993 (when 2nd edition was released).
* 1st edition, 2nd edition, the "Miniatures Rules", then Blitz.
HG released since 1995: 1st ed, 2nd ed, 3rd/Tactical (is that when they split off?), Blitz, L&L, Field Manual, Alpha test rules = 7 HG editions
40k: released since 1995: 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th: 5 editions
Now, that said, 40k has adopted a release schedule just as stupid as the one DP9 has traditionally had (replacing books/products after 1-3 years) while DP9 has with this living ruleset changed their own (hopefully permanently) to a more sensible one in the same timeframe. If GW hadn't cranked the stupid up to 11, they should have been at 4 editions compared with DP9's 7 during roughly the same timeframe of 23 years. I also may have missed an edition in there for HG as I didn't really pay attention from 2nd to Blitz's release.
GW at least just numbered their editions from the get-go. (Well, from 2nd, anyway.) There are no threads trying to figure out how many of editions of 40k there are, or what edition you're playing. That doesn't make it any less stupid, but it does make it a heck of a lot easier.
AndrewGPaul wrote: I was actually meaning that Blitz (the first variant thereof) was the fourth edition of the wargame rules*, not that there have been four editions of Blitz itself. So, seven editions since 1994, compared with 40k's six editions since 1993 (when 2nd edition was released).
* 1st edition, 2nd edition, the "Miniatures Rules", then Blitz.
HG released since 1995: 1st ed, 2nd ed, 3rd/Tactical (is that when they split off?), Blitz, L&L, Field Manual, Alpha test rules = 7 HG editions
40k: released since 1995: 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th: 5 editions
Now, that said, 40k has adopted a release schedule just as stupid as the one DP9 has traditionally had (replacing books/products after 1-3 years) while DP9 has with this living ruleset changed their own (hopefully permanently) to a more sensible one in the same timeframe. If GW hadn't cranked the stupid up to 11, they should have been at 4 editions compared with DP9's 7 during roughly the same timeframe of 23 years. I also may have missed an edition in there for HG as I didn't really pay attention from 2nd to Blitz's release.
Yeah, something like that, but definitely far too many of them, with multiple-year-long stretches between products/looks at a number of factions.
Gee, I'm a new player, I wonder which one I should pick up?
As opposed to:
Heavy Gear Tactical [1998]
[Heavy Gear Tactical Miniature Rules (2001)]
[Heavy Gear Silhouette Core Miniature Rules (2005)]
Heavy Gear Blitz [2006]
Heavy Gear Blitz Locked and Loaded [2008]
Heavy Gear Blitz Field Manual [2011]
[Heavy Gear Blitz Beta (2014)]
Shouldn't that list also include the 1st and second editions of the RPG since they had the fully functional and independent minis rules as a section in the back of the books? We tried the RPG for a bit but usually ended up playing the minis game only in our group. If so, the edition cycle DP9 has had for the miniatures portion of Heavy Gear is:
Spoiler:
Heavy Gear RPG 1st Ed [1995]
Heavy Gear RPG 2nd Ed [1997]
Heavy Gear Tactical [1998]
[Heavy Gear Tactical Miniature Rules (2001)]
[Heavy Gear Silhouette Core Miniature Rules (2005)]
Heavy Gear Blitz [2006]
Heavy Gear Blitz Locked and Loaded [2008]
Heavy Gear Blitz Field Manual [2011]
Heavy Gear Blitz Alpha/Beta/KS edition (2013/2014/2015)
So... 9 editions in 20 years...and that is considering the "alpha" and "beta" and "Kickstarter" rules releases as a single evolving conglomerate edition. I knew it was a lot but I don't think I've ever seen it listed year by year. I guess it is a good thing I missed the period between 1997 and 2006 specifically because of the 2nd edition RPG flip flop.
True enough, you could likewise add in the products & Gear Up emags that introduced or consolidated new rules and/or factions for stretches when the main books were delayed:
Old Company: Partial list, with miniature oriented products noted in red. (For the pre-Blitz! mini rules the Tactical & RPG sourcebooks still provided varying amounts of model data used in game.):
Spoiler:
Heavy Gear RPG (1st Ed) [July 1995] Field Guide(s): Northern Vehicles 1 & Southern Vehicles 1 [Dec 1995]
Field Guide(s): Northern Vehicles 2 & Southern Vehicles 2 [April 1996]
Tactical Air Support [May 1996]
Duelist's Handbook (1st edition) [Aug 1996]
Tactical Field Support: Artillery & Ground Warfare [Oct 1996]
Southern Army List One: Southern Republic (No other books were published in this format.) [Nov 1996]
Northern Vehicle Compendium One: Gears & Striders [Dec 1996]
Southern Vehicle Compendium One: Gears & Striders [Jan 1997]
Northern Record Sheets One & Southern Record Sheets One: Gears & Striders [Feb 1997]
The New Breed: Battle Before The Storm (Activision PC game tie-in #1.) [Sep 1997]
Heavy Gear RPG (2nd Ed) [Dec 1997] Northern Vehicles Compendium Two & Southern Vehicles Compendium Two: Tanks & Artillery [Feb 1998]
Heavy Gear Tactical [1998] Terranovan Military Powers Book One: Northern Guard [Aug 1998]
Tactical Pack One: Battle of Two Towers [Dec 1998]
Tactical Pack Two: Shadow War [March 1999]
Armor Pack Volume One: Tanks and Striders [May 1999]
Terranovan Military Powers Book Two: Southern MILICIA [Aug 1999]
Tactical Pack Three: Operation Sudden Fire [October 1999]
Black Talon - Mission to Caprice (Activision PC game tie-in #2.) [Jan 2000]
Tactical Space Support - Space Warfare [March 2000]
Duelist's Handbook (2nd edition) [Dec 2000]
Heavy Gear Tactical Miniature Rules [Feb 2001]
Earth Book One: Colonial Expeditionary Force [April 2001]
Raids & Raiders - Interstellar Strikes (Miniatures Supplement) [June 2001]
Tactical Dueling - Arena Champions (Miniatures Supplement) [Oct 2001]
Heavy Gear Player's Handbook (3rd Edition) [Sep 2003] Heavy Gear Vehicle Companion (3rd Edition) [Jany 2004]
New Company:
Spoiler:
Heavy Gear Silhouette Core Miniature Rules [2005]
(DP9 ceased producing RPGs between 2006 - 2008 for their entire game catalog, including Heavy Gear.)
Heavy Gear Blitz [Aug 2006]
- Heavy Gear Blitz! Hammers of Faith (North) [Dec 2006]
- Heavy Gear Blitz! Swords of Pride (South) [Mar 2007]
- Heavy Gear Blitz! Shields of Freedom (Peace River) [Dec 2007]
Heavy Gear Blitz Locked and Loaded [May 2008]
- Black Talon: Return to Cat's Eye (Caprice, CEF, Black Talons) [May 2009]
- Shattered Peace: The War for Terra Nova Book 1 (Eden) [2010]
- Terra Nova Gambit: The War for Terra Nova Book 2 (Utopia) [2010]
- Gear Up (Utopian rules primer & template, Field Testing: Defense Modifiers, Errata) [Issue 1 - Spring 2010] pdf
- Gear Up (Medical Support Section rules, The Drop Bears Diggers rules, Field Testing: Revised Range Bands, Errata, Quick Reference Flowcharts) [Issue 2 - Summer 2010] pdf
- Gear Up (Field Testing: HHT-90 Combat Group & Multi-Component Vehicle Rules, Field Testing: New Overkill Rules, Revisions & Errata, Southern Medical Support Section, PRDF Medical Section, PAK/CEF Medical Section) [Issue 3 - Winter 2010] pdf
- Gear Up (Combat Engineering Companies, Official Rules: New Heavy Hover Tank combat group) [Issue 4 - Summer 2011] pdf
- Gear Up (Captain Alston Ash-Dreyes: NuCoal Special Character) [Issue 5 - Winter 2012] pdf
- Gear Up (Lieutenant Colonel Mikhaela Moore: NuCoal Special Character, Constable Keiko Hijikawa: Drake Pilot & Ace Special Character) [Issue 6 - Spring 2013] pdf
Heavy Gear Arena (Unsupported after release save for a Gear Up article or two.) [2010]
Heavy Gear Blitz Field Manual (Consolidation of Gear Up field testing rules with a partial reprint of Locked & Loaded) [Nov 2011]
- Heavy Gear Blitz! Perfect Storm; NuCoal Field Guide [Nov 2011]
- Heavy Gear Blitz! Forged in Fire; Southern Field Guide [~late Dec 2012]
- Heavy Gear Blitz! Blood Debt; Peace River Army List [Dec 2013] pdf
- Heavy Gear Blitz! Lion's Wrath; Northern Army List [June 2014] pdf
Heavy Gear Badlands Rally (Unsupported stand-alone tabletop game introducing rule concepts similar to the Alpha/Beta ruleset) [2013]
Heavy Gear Blitz! Field Support Guide (Consolidation of Gear Up material & unsupported factions to Field Manual rules) [2014] pdf
Heavy Gear Blitz Alpha/Beta/KS edition [~late 2012/2013/2014/2015]
Shouldn't that list also include the 1st and second editions of the RPG since they had the fully functional and independent minis rules as a section in the back of the books? We tried the RPG for a bit but usually ended up playing the minis game only in our group. If so, the edition cycle DP9 has had for the miniatures portion of Heavy Gear is:
Heavy Gear RPG 1st Ed [1995]
Heavy Gear RPG 2nd Ed [1997]
Heavy Gear Tactical [1998]
[Heavy Gear Tactical Miniature Rules (2001)]
[Heavy Gear Silhouette Core Miniature Rules (2005)]
Heavy Gear Blitz [2006]
Heavy Gear Blitz Locked and Loaded [2008]
Heavy Gear Blitz Field Manual [2011]
Heavy Gear Blitz Alpha/Beta/KS edition (2013/2014/2015)
Hm... yes and no. Up until Blitz!, the actual rules changes were quite a bit minimum. Only real change on those was the default damage system on the Tactical rules (similar to Blitz!'s, but even less complicated), where the "full" damage tracking rules from the RPG were optional.
The SilCORE miniature rules had a couple of small changes, but it still was 95% compatible with the previous stuff. Most of the changes between those editions I'd sau were on the "look and feel" category.
GW did a decent job with compatibility for 40k. RT & 2E are compatible. 3E to 5E is basically folding FAQs and Errata into the main rules. 6E and 7E are basically the same game.
And yes, GW numbering the editions was a good thing, so everybody knew what they were playing.
It was Blitz where things started to get complicated; it wasn't helped by their practise of continuing to bundle the 1.0 rules with all the Blitz 1.1 publications on DriveThru RPG.
Heavy Gear is one of the few games where my entire army is painted (apart from a few of the old 2nd edition Battleframes which were retconned out anyway. I even converted up the mountain-terrain and space Frames, variants of the 6-16. Those bizarrely brightly-coloured images in the art books actually look pretty good on miniatures )
Automatically Appended Next Post: Anyway, to change the tone a little, here's a painted battle frame:
Both forearms and the shoulder are magnetised, as is the front of the rocket pod and the engine, so I can do any of the variant equipment options.
Ah, Heavy Gear Assault's deleting threads they don't like, in the grand Heavy Gear tradition. The one asking for an official response to the rumours got a rather nasty comment the other night, and now the whole thing's gone.
@Fire: No, sorry, no screencaps here. I haven't been back since the original day of dissent purge where even the whitest of knights had blemishes on their gleaming armor albeit temporarily.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AndrewGPaul wrote: Ironically, slogging through 71 pages of why DP9 is rubbish, and Warboss' blog thread has inspired me to take some more photos of my minis:
warboss wrote: @Fire: No, sorry, no screencaps here. I haven't been back since the original day of dissent purge where even the whitest of knights had blemishes on their gleaming armor albeit temporarily.
Aw well. In the grand scheme of things it's probably not going to be worth remembering, anyway.
"Hey remember that time when you didn't pay your employees?"
I may have missed the boat on this, but where in any of the codex or rules books GW has released for 40K has it ever said what edition it is for?
I just got up and looked at a couple of my older edition Space Wolf Codexii- the ones from RT days all the ways up to the most current, and no where in the Codex does it say "This Codex is for Warhammer 40,000 X edition".
Looking at the rules book (both the mini and bigger white book), they also say "Warhammer 40,000" and nowhere do they make a reference to an edition.
So while we, the consumer/player/whatever and maybe the occasional GW employee might refer to "7th edition Warhammer 40,000", it's actually nowhere listed as such in the products itself. Even the GW online store makes no mention of an edition of 40K.
Forge World is HUGELY notorious for this. They keep reprinting books for later "editions" without editing the title or making any kind of mention that the book has been re-written, re-printed, whatever. Imagine my surprise when I ordered "Imperial Armor Volume Eleven- The Doom of Mymeara" and received the "older" edition and not the latest one! Yeah, I made a fuss about it, and for the low, low cost of Forge World's International Shipping Rates, I could have returned it and got the new book instead. Thus, spending twice the amount on IA 11 (enough to buy two of them!).
For Dream Pod 9, I made a huge stink about this several years ago on the website- basically saying the game is unplayable for a newbie because he has no clue which rule book is current, which one requires another book, where to find information, and oh, throw out all the stuff on army building and use this army builder a player built that we endorse (but don't pay for!). When the new edition was announced, I thought for sure they would just call it "Heavy Gear: A Tactical Miniatures Game of Mecha Combat" or some such. But oh no! "Heavy Gear Blitz!- not to be confused with Heavy Gear Blitz that we just released a year ago, and not to be confused with the subset rules called Heavy Gear Blitz that we released the year before that, and definitely NOT the same Heavy Gear Blitz that we released before that either!"
And even though Robert, John, and the head of the Pod Squad at the time all sent me separate e-mails about it, the title still remains Heavy Gear Blitz. I pretty much stopped talking to them after that. It was pretty obvious they were not listening to anything I said.
40k never references the edition because the codex aren't lock and step with the editions but instead frequently straddle multiple. The common sense regarding it is that you only consider the most recent version as valid for pickup games. It's gotten worse in the past two years/two editions as books that previously would have lasted 4+ years are being rehashed/replaced after 1-2 years. I had several trades in the swap shop and bartertown fall apart because folks didn't pay attention to the names, the cover art, and the edition description I included in my ads.
So the older Mymaera book was sold/shipped to you AFTER they came out with the new one? As soon as the new book is released, they need to stop selling the previous one (ideally they should stop months before). If so, that was a douche move on the part of FW especially if they wanted to charge you twice or thrice (return shipping?) for their mistake.
I agree about the nomenclature for HG as well and have stated so multiple times here as well as initially with the public release of the rules when it was announced that it would still be called "blitz" (which wasn't the case during the concept phase testing).
It wasn't the edition changes that confused me with HGB!. It was the fact that they kept bundling the 1.0 rulebook with all the supplements (and with the 1.1 rulebook!) on Drive Thru RPG.
As for FW, Tamwulf, they may be allowed to require that you post the book back (as opposed to sending you a return shipping label (à la Amazon), but I'm sure they should then reimburse you for the costs.
The relevant legislation would be the Consumer Rights Act 2015, the EU Consumer Rights Directive and the Consumer Contracts Regulations 2014.
Samuli Aura, Today at 06:52 AM, wrote:I'm tinkering with the layout for datacards. The idea being that although DP9 are skipping datacards for this edition of the game, some people are used to having them for in-game reference, and also a an analog army building method: Simply print datacards for all models in your collection and choose your force by picking cards from the pack. Although the optional updates mix this stuff up a little, I think the basis is solid.
(Note that I'm still planning to support complete "army building", including options, etc. hopefully by the time the KS delivers.) [..]
Leaving aside the continuation of a non-official program as the ''official'' army builder program for NuBlitz, I must have completely missed that there will be no Pod-generated datacards for the LRB.
I had seen mentions before on the forums during the past year or so of folks coming up with their own until the rules were more or less hashed out in the version to only be updated every six months, but not that there won't be datacards period?
Guess another quick dive through the rules PDF is needed here this weekend; if true, rather a strange decision after so many years of specifically making a point to use this kind of game aid.
warboss wrote: @Smilodon: Thanks for the recap/reminder. It took me a little over a year but I ended up circling back to where I started.
lol, yeah, another milestone reached in the great holding pattern that is liking Heavy Gear.
Firebreak wrote: Ah, Heavy Gear Assault's deleting threads they don't like, in the grand Heavy Gear tradition. The one asking for an official response to the rumours got a rather nasty comment the other night, and now the whole thing's gone.
Anybody get a screencap for posterity?
Tamwulf wrote: [..] And even though Robert, John, and the head of the Pod Squad at the time all sent me separate e-mails about it, the title still remains Heavy Gear Blitz. I pretty much stopped talking to them after that. It was pretty obvious they were not listening to anything I said.
warboss wrote: [..] I agree about the nomenclature for HG as well and have stated so multiple times here as well as initially with the public release of the rules when it was announced that it would still be called "blitz" (which wasn't the case during the concept phase testing).
All I can figure on this one is that TPTB at the Pod are of the point of view they can achieve some kind of brand recognition by reusing the name as well as not having to simply throw away all of their legacy advertising materials, templates, and the like.
Or they licensed off the rights to the simple "Heavy Gear" name without any further suffixes to the RPG or video game. I'd guess the latter since the video game got the url "www.heavygear.com" instead of "www.heavygearassault.com" which is the actual name of the game supposedly.
warboss wrote: Or they licensed off the rights to the simple "Heavy Gear" name without any further suffixes to the RPG or video game. I'd guess the latter since the video game got the url "www.heavygear.com" instead of "www.heavygearassault.com" which is the actual name of the game supposedly.
warboss wrote: Or they licensed off the rights to the simple "Heavy Gear" name without any further suffixes to the RPG or video game. I'd guess the latter since the video game got the url "www.heavygear.com" instead of "www.heavygearassault.com" which is the actual name of the game supposedly.
That... surely not... oh my god. SURELY not.
I can only guess given the "ownership" of the URLs. It seemed monumentally stupid for a video game company of Stompy's calibre to "get" the main IP's name as a url. YMMV.
Firebreak wrote:Arkrite's Heavy Gear page doesn't exist anymore. Anybody got any news about them?
We had errors and broken pages a few months back surrounded by even more months of silence and complete lack of progress (I believe we talked about it here in the thread in 2015). The page went up back after that albeit apparently temporarily. I don't know if that worries you or comforts you but it's been a thing previously.
warboss wrote: You can put me in as an absentee vote for 30-40... but just barely!
yoiks - where do the years go? I mean, c'mon, just yesterday, er, only a few years back back, I was, ...so not 40-odd with a niece & nephew already in high school who're soon to be begging for actual vehicles ....
Gawd.
Is it too late to try and hide out by building a fort with the sofa cushions?
Hey all. I've been following along in this and a few of the other threads for awhile, decided to make a profile and join in properly.
I'm getting to the stage that "official" releases are not meaningful to me, and I don't care about keeping current with rules etc. I just want a solid rule set that I can throw some minis and terrain down and have a fun evening with friends.
I have a sizeable collection of Northern figures, and I'm into the Kickstarter fairly deep. I've taken a few runs at getting involved with Heavy Gear, but have yet to play at all. I'd like to ask some of the guys that have run through various iterations of the game:
What is the version you found most playable and balanced? What comprises a complete rule set from that version?
Is there another rules system that these figures can easily be adapted to that you prefer?
I'm looking at Horizon Wars and Polyversal, even though the scale is a bit off.
Smilodon_UP wrote: yoiks - where do the years go? I mean, c'mon, just yesterday, er, only a few years back back, I was, ...so not 40-odd with a niece & nephew already in high school who're soon to be begging for actual vehicles ....
Gawd.
Is it too late to try and hide out by building a fort with the sofa cushions?
_ _
It's never too late. Just don't try to rulelawyer that having one foot in the pillow fort is enough to claim cover! HG rules do not apply!
I took a peek at the poll. Admittedly the number of respondents is low but it seems that the average HG player is about as close to the start of retirement and he/she is to the start of puberty. While I was there, I found this interesting nugget from Dave in the kickstarter thread:
There have been quite the flurry of last minute observations and comments. Good stuff but It's caused some things liek UAs to get a bit of an overhaul (simplification - same system but way less variety in UAs). I taking this whole week getting in the changes. Lots of small things. Checking it thrice and more. That takes time.
-Dave
I'm glad they're making that change. Of course, I wouldn't be posting over here (instead of over there) if I didn't also point out that I warned them about UA spam multiple times both privately (in closed playtesting) and later publicly on the official forums years ago only to be ignored. Better late then never I guess. I'll have to download the next version to see just how much was trimmed off.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
brettness37 wrote: Hey all. I've been following along in this and a few of the other threads for awhile, decided to make a profile and join in properly.
I'm getting to the stage that "official" releases are not meaningful to me, and I don't care about keeping current with rules etc. I just want a solid rule set that I can throw some minis and terrain down and have a fun evening with friends.
I have a sizeable collection of Northern figures, and I'm into the Kickstarter fairly deep. I've taken a few runs at getting involved with Heavy Gear, but have yet to play at all. I'd like to ask some of the guys that have run through various iterations of the game:
What is the version you found most playable and balanced? What comprises a complete rule set from that version? Is there another rules system that these figures can easily be adapted to that you prefer?
I'm looking at Horizon Wars and Polyversal, even though the scale is a bit off.
Welcome! And nice chibi scope dog on the avatar. I'd say give the official rules a try. They're (currently) free to download and they are different from all the previous rules so worth a shot. I can't personally comment on them with any authority as I haven't tried them out (no opponents) or even read the last few versions due to a "wait and see" approach that is currently best for me. As for which Blitz era rules were best, I'd say stick with the Field Manual for the most part. The rules did get marginally better overall with each iteration but the problem is that each step was too small yet fans were charged full price. My personal very biased opinion is that they needed even more simplification beyond the field manual and that the Blitz rules were best for smaller scale (<10 figures per side) skirmish gameplay. I've got a series of house rules meant to simplify the Blitz rules (my previously mentioned bias!); if you're interested, click on my banner to get to the blog and just look for the FLASH! link on the right border.
warboss wrote: [..] I took a peek at the poll. Admittedly the number of respondents is low but it seems that the average HG player is about as close to the start of retirement and he/she is to the start of puberty. While I was there, I found this interesting nugget from Dave in the kickstarter thread:
There have been quite the flurry of last minute observations and comments. Good stuff but It's caused some things liek UAs to get a bit of an overhaul (simplification - same system but way less variety in UAs). I taking this whole week getting in the changes. Lots of small things. Checking it thrice and more. That takes time.
-Dave
I'm glad they're making that change.
Of course, I wouldn't be posting over here (instead of over there) if I didn't also point out that I warned them about UA spam multiple times both privately (in closed playtesting) and later publicly on the official forums years ago only to be ignored. Better late then never I guess. I'll have to download the next version to see just how much was trimmed off.
TPTB in Pod-land keep saying the words (as in the latest interview quoted below), but yeah, two years now into the latest attempt and everything is still just business as per usual.
I'd be curious as to if the MP cadre finally gets dropped, because ever since FiF it does truly seem those models are not wanted by the company given how the combat group keeps getting a worse and worse implementation.
Maybe all that still has to do with a pre-FiF meta / state of thinking? ... /shrug The ease of conversion, and the $$$ DP9 can or does make on the bits due to the ''mecha'' aspect of Gear-police, is totally at odds with how they keep nerf-hammering the MP models and associated squads.
The average age poll did turn out noticeably, markedly, skewed even given how few responded.
brettness37 wrote: [..] What is the version you found most playable and balanced? What comprises a complete rule set from that version?
Is there another rules system that these figures can easily be adapted to that you prefer?
I'm currently working my way through Starships Troopers, which was kind of discussed over here along with a few not on my list.
What I've read so far of Dirtside 2, which is a vehicles rather than an infantry oriented ruleset, seems very similar to a lot of concepts used throughout HG:Blitz! - no opinion yet on if the ''flow'' is better or not.
Tomorrow's War, despite the layout which is so-so but not terribly bad, approaches being all but unreadable though given how the color pages were printed.
So this is really one to read in a PDF format where folks can possibly turn off the background or use select to highlight the text.
Hopefully either of these previous posts might also be of use to you;
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.
jedi76 wrote: I think I'm gonna start looking for an alternate rule set. Anyone recommend a generic sci fi war game that will handle heavy gear style battles.
The general consensus seems to be that there really isn't one at the moment, as most focus on either complex gameplay, skirmish-oriented figures, or complete mecha bash without much in between.
Another problem is that many games take a WW2-style or Cold War approach that either doesn't factor in high technology or else makes some very poor interpretations of how the tactics should evolve.
The whole point of tanks, APCs, improved infantry armor, and then finally power armor or practical [Walker] vehicles is to allow maneuver under fire. Yet almost always a ruleset still incorporates some kind of suppression or pinning element.
There is a big difference between suppression and overwatch; most games get it wrong. Revealing your position on a computerized battlefield by blazing away without a target should be a very bad thing.
So far, as research into the question, I've been looking at elements of;
Hammer's Slammers
- (The Crucible; $200-400USD for the book is just a mite steep to bother with though.)
Infinity (No Table of Contents, really?) There is an ongoing attempt to port HG into this ruleset, but there is a considerable divide on it working all that well.
Robert Dubois, in an interview released on Monday, February 15th 2016, wrote:[..] But with Jovian Chronicles we tried to have the physics working, which is also true of course, for Heavy Gear. We wanted to have the hard science as that was the background of the guys in our company.
[..] I think we’ll try and remove as many counters and tokens from the tabletop as possible in a new ruleset as they tend to slow down the game. ... New rules will have to go through alpha and beta versions, where we get feedback from the players before they are locked down.
[..] We can't really have them to exact scale as even with 15mm exos the ships would become very big and too expensive for the regular player. Having players shill out $50 for one ship just to have it in scale isn't worth it, sometimes you have to abstract it.
[..] Our main focus has been Heavy Gear as that is our main product line. There's a new computer game in the works for Heavy Gear as well...
[..] As game designers you can have this idea in your head and you think it'll work perfectly and then someone out there goes and says "but what if you do this?" and you realize it completely breaks the game.
[..] Compared to the moulds for the plastic models in the Heavy Gear kickstarter where each one is about $15,000!
[..] With the plastics we're having a company just north of Indianapolis who are going to run the plastics for us. That way we can control the chain of command much better.
[..] Now we're focused on fulfilling our kickstarter for Heavy Gear. We're getting the moulds back from China some time in April and they'll get run late April or early May and when we get all the plastics we'll be packing up orders for the next month and a half. We want to have all the stuff out for backers by the end of June and then we'll have one month to prepare all the stuff we want to take to Gencon. The plan is to have the retail version of Heavy Gear ready until then.
[..] If we go and say that you have to represent your miniature 100% WYSIWYG like we do with Heavy Gear we limit ourselves, because we force people to buy an insane amount of different models.
So, it would seem about $15K (plus whatever $$$ was no longer necessary for those ''pops'') was saved by cutting (2) models.
AndrewGPaul wrote: Still, I hope there is a JC revival, if only so I can get some more minis.
I think DP9 is still doing an annual run of JC miniatures once a year. It looks like the JC miniatures are currently up for pre-order in the DP9 online store, with a shipping date of "early March" if you want to jump in on this year's production run.
AndrewGPaul wrote: I've got almost all the current range. I'd like some new ones, though. There's some cool-looking Venusian designs in the sourcebook, for example.
If you read the full interview with Robert Dubois I've posted to Fire Broadside you'll see that there are indeed NEW stuff on the way. The new fleetscale fighters (shown way back in 2006) are already released and the first four packs of fleet scale exo-armors are up for pre-order and will ship in March. Of course, if you are not interested in fleetscale (about 15mm tall) exos you are pretty much out of luck. DP9 won't produce any more in the old 1/500 scale, although they'll continue selling the ones they have until further notice.
New ships, especially the one from the fleet books, are a very real possibility, but would most likely be part of some kind of crowd funding campaign next year. More details in the interview.
EDIT: 12 bucks (before shipping or customs) for two bases? Heh... maybe not, after all.
Armada sound like a good idea. As for the price, I'd have to peek over at the Dropzone Commander site to see what their prices are like for the smallest minis in that line for comparison.
AndrewGPaul wrote: I've got almost all the current range. I'd like some new ones, though. There's some cool-looking Venusian designs in the sourcebook, for example.
Oh, yeah! I've got good size fleets (ships and mecha) for both Jovan Confederation and CEGA, but I was always disappointed they were never able to finish fleshing out the forces for Mars or Venus. There really were some cool looking mecha in the sourcebooks for those two factions.
EDIT: 12 bucks (before shipping or customs) for two bases? Heh... maybe not, after all.
Armada sound like a good idea. As for the price, I'd have to peek over at the Dropzone Commander site to see what their prices are like for the smallest minis in that line for comparison.
Well, in this case the point of comparison is with these ones:
Eight squadrons for 20 bucks, not even taking into account cards, dials and stuff. Also, I could just go down to the FLGS and, you know, actually buy them, right now.
Albertorius wrote: It is good that they finally could be arsed to do that.
Like, 10 years too late, maybe, but... good.
Albertorius wrote: [..] Eight squadrons for 20 bucks, not even taking into account cards, dials and stuff. Also, I could just go down to the FLGS and, you know, actually buy them, right now.
They definitely seem to be doing any little thing they can with the other Pod titles (JC & GK) the past year or two, I guess even if it's only to help keep the lights on.
Although having a steady release schedule and products to sell would probably do wonders for that situation too.
Pricing that is actually, competitive on some level I guess with what folks can buy most any time they choose, would indeed probably help a lot more.
On a related note I'm wondering, especially given how fast Robert steps in for anything he feels is negative over in the KS comments or etc etc, if we're supposed to consider Wunji Lau as a company mouthpiece nowadays instead of some kind of old guard member.
This though.... DP9 already has (and has spent the ''majority'' of) the KS money, everything is (supposed to be, anyways) payed for and any future sales are complete profit - yet nobody over in Pod-land seems to get that.
Wunji Lau, on Thursday, February 18thth 2016 at 12:55 PM, wrote:More importantly, consider the amounts and returns in question. In the Heavy Gear bin, the deleted molds would have cost tens of thousands of dollars to complete; that's money that's not made back until many, many boxed sets are sold, months or years down the line.
I just found that whole (official?) response to be a completely nonsensical reply to Firebreak questioning why the sudden focus on JC and where did the $$$ come from - because as recently as the Fall of '14 the Pod couldn't afford to self-publish their NuBlitz! rulebook, nor pay for any staff additions.
Not to mention that as I pointed out in the start of this post product(s) haven't exactly been forthcoming with any regularity nor in any great quantity since then, so either it costs almost nothing to keep the lights on and/or it costs almost nothing to start up a new scale focus for a neglected title.
Likewise, Dave and Robert are certainly getting paid some portion of a living wage as I don't honestly see them trying to live solely on product offered in place of cash.
After all, RD is the ''Presdient'' of DP9, especially with working ''so hard'' during his 120+ hour weeks (gee, where have most folks heard that line before).... And yes, as a relative pointed out to me, his title really is misspelled on his very own FB page.
So I definitely feel it was a fair question to ask of the Pod, as in just where is this money suddenly coming from, and in addition maybe how long will the company interest last this time.
Spoiler:
Firebreak, on Thursday, February 18thth 2016 at 10:47 AM, wrote:Sorry if this sounds indelicate, but, well, where is the money for this coming from? You've made it very clear, in a respectable show of honesty, that you don't have enough money to do Heavy Gear the way you said you were going to. So... now you're starting a whole new project for a totally separate game?
Wunji Lau, on Thursday, February 18thth 2016 at 12:55 PM, wrote:To add to Doug's observations, project funding is often separated within a company. X money goes here, Y money goes there, and Peter does not get robbed to pay Paul. This is important in any business, because you need to be able to relate costs to eventual income for specific projects. Just because one big product line is the moneymaker doesn't mean that you can use that to justify shifting assigned funding from other, smaller projects (especially R&D projects like JC, since those are your potential future big products).
More importantly, consider the amounts and returns in question. In the Heavy Gear bin, the deleted molds would have cost tens of thousands of dollars to complete; that's money that's not made back until many, many boxed sets are sold, months or years down the line.
Over in the other projects, which aren't Kickstarter backed, and thus run at DP9's usual budget level, there was the time and funding to make a few new pewter sculpts, which run a few hundred dollars for the lot, and which can be put into immediate production (because the spin caster is on site) for a faster return on a much smaller investment; even if the minis don't sell well, the initial investment is quickly paid back, and if no one is buying, then they just don't run those molds on the caster. The potential return is much, much smaller than that for HG, but that's the nature of the pewter minis business as opposed to the injection molded minis business.
TLDR: The money likely comes from existing funds assigned to Jovian Chronicles, and is a pittance compared to the costs involved with the Heavy Gear project.
I'm just not super interested in the "how dare you question you must be a troll" thing happening YET AGAIN so I'm gonna let that one go, but I just... People understand why I asked, right?
Bill's going to the store. He asks Bob if he needs anything.
"Hey that'd be great," Bob says. "Can you pick me up some bread, milk, and butter?"
"Uhhh..." Bill thinks that will cost a lot and doesn't really have the money right now for it all.
"Oh, here's $20," Bob says, putting Bill's fears to rest. "That should get me everything I want."
Bill goes to the store. It turns out bread, milk, and butter would be $25, so he doesn't buy the butter. Then he goes over to the pet store and buys some cat toys. He comes back and shows Bob, who's a little upset about not getting everything he thought he'd be getting.
"Well, I guess I didn't really need the butter," Bob says. "Can I have my change?"
"Oh, there's no change," Bill says. He notices Bob looking at the cat toys. "Oh, no, I didn't spend your money on these, that was different money. The milk and bread was just too expensive."
Do you see why Bob's not hugely thrilled about the cat toys?
EDIT: 12 bucks (before shipping or customs) for two bases? Heh... maybe not, after all.
Armada sound like a good idea. As for the price, I'd have to peek over at the Dropzone Commander site to see what their prices are like for the smallest minis in that line for comparison.
Well, in this case the point of comparison is with these ones:
Eight squadrons for 20 bucks, not even taking into account cards, dials and stuff. Also, I could just go down to the FLGS and, you know, actually buy them, right now.
While it's been a few months, I think the armada fighters are about the same size as the JC fighters so smaller than the gears (roughly half size?) . The price evens out somewhat when you take that into account but the amount of cards, dials, and paper bits pushes the value back over towards the FFG side. That of course ignores the baked in utility of actually having a possibility of using the SWA stuff in real life compared with JC.
On a related note I'm wondering, especially given how fast Robert steps in for anything he feels in negative over in the KS comments or etc etc, if we're supposed to consider Wunji Lau as a company mouthpiece nowadays instead of some kind of old guard member.
_
Thanks for the link. It is interesting that the KS funds can be used to pay salaries and overhead for the whole company (whether in part or full) that allow those less profitable lines that don't pay for themselves to exist but funds are still earmarked from general sales back into them instead of making up for DP9's mistakes during the KS. I guess the whole not robbing peter to pay paul thing only goes one way. Eh, it's no shock though. What I did find surprising is that they're using shapeways to print the masters instead of a higher res professional company (at a much greater cost) like other companies do. I was somewhat disappointed with the crispness of detail on my 28mm custom designed Scifi fig that I did a few years back with their Frosted Ultra Detail level and that's not even taking into account the "fuzz" I got on half the fig from poor orientation in the matrix on their part. While I admittedly haven't tried out their new since then Extreme detail level, my 28mm (roughly star wars prepainted minis height) model didn't live up to my expectations (especially at $25+ including shipping for one model). I imagine the effect is even more noticeable on figs 1/3-1/8 the volume.
brettness37 wrote: [..] What is the version you found most playable and balanced? What comprises a complete rule set from that version?
Is there another rules system that these figures can easily be adapted to that you prefer?
I'm currently working my way through Starships Troopers, which was kind of discussed over here along with a few not on my list.
What I've read so far of Dirtside 2, which is a vehicles rather than an infantry oriented ruleset, seems very similar to a lot of concepts used throughout HG:Blitz! - no opinion yet on if the ''flow'' is better or not.
I'm starting to think I might have to recommend against porting Heavy Gear over into Dirtside 2, as playing under that system without a number of tweaks means folks might as well be playing using the HGB! rules anyways.
DS2 is a threshold-based, opposed to-hit roll system, and very much a product of 90's era simulation gaming (albeit with a lot more streamlining) alongside a construction system to accommodate any 6mm (1/285) model players may want to use.
It's not bad idea-wise, but without having played I can see a few areas that in all likelihood replicate a lot of what folks dislike in either Blitz! or similar rulesets.
Threshold-based means that whether a roll is opposed or not you'll need to exceed the generated target number for whatever test roll(s) rather than equal or exceed a target number.
This makes Mos 0, where nothing happens (basically being swung in favor of the defender), a definite thing in DS2.
The damage system is also a bit strange.
Provided they hit something, a player then draws from (100+) chits out of a container equal to the size class of the weapon that got used (1-5), which are variously numbered ([11x] 0, [40x] 1, [29x] 2, [20x] 3) and those numbers variously colored (50 red, 25 yellow, 25 green).
Players check a chart to see if certain colors for certain types of weapons are ''valid'' for the range, target type, and target special protection (if any).
If the numbers on the chits after any are eliminated equal the targets armor rating (typically up to ~7) it is ''damaged''; if the armor rating is exceeded it is ''knocked-out'' for the remainder of a game.
There are also some specialty damage chits that take affect even if the target is not destroyed:
[7x] mobility (permanently immobilized),
[5x] systems down - target model (may not take combat actions until repaired),
[2x] systems down - firing model (shot did not not occur, may not take combat actions until repaired),
[5x] BOOM (catastrophic destruction of target).
Just seems like an awful lot of ''you did nothing on your turn'' potential, which is never a good thing in a set of rules, not to mention a number of terms not fully explained in case a player did not already know or understand it.
The cover rules are a bit sparse and open to some interpretation as well.
All that being said however, the morale and area defense/point defense rules don't seem too bad, and there are a few other concepts of interest.
I've taken a few runs at getting involved with Heavy Gear, but have yet to play at all.
Is there another rules system that these figures can easily be adapted to that you prefer?
The metal minis are pretty nice.
I've brought out Blitz a number of times, and it's never really worked for my group.
I am currently in process of writing "KOG light," an ultralight set of rules for my collection of Southern Gear minis. When it's finally "ready", I'll announce to the group.
=======
Question!
I have a number of Southern Gears, and am thinking to spend a few bucks on an opposition force. I am currently leaning toward CEF, due to the clear visual difference.
1) Would a handful of CEF F2 & F6 Frames be a good OpFor? 2) How big are the metal F2 and F6 compared to the old 1/44 Jaeger & Black Mamba models? 3) Are Flails and/or Grel infantry "iconic" in the sense that I should grab a platoon to complement the Frames?
The GRELs are pretty iconic for CEF. GRELs and Hovertanks are the bread and butter.
I only have the older Frames though, so I can't tell you size. Depending on ruleset, they're mostly terrible. Blitz they were overpriced, fragile and not very effective. NuBlitz, I haven't played, so I have no idea, but I'd pretty much expect the same since no one really cheerleads for them. (Instead we tend to get moar PRDF overpowered stupidity)
That said, it sounds like you're doing your own ruleset, so a set of fast but fragile frames armed with high tech weapons could be made to compete with slower, sturdier gears.
JohnHwangDD wrote: [..] 2) How big are the metal F2 and F6 compared to the old 1/44 Jaeger & Black Mamba models?
3) Are Flails and/or Grel infantry "iconic" in the sense that I should grab a platoon to complement the Frames?
AndrewGPaul's CEF model thread here on dakka is the most current that I know of in any relatively active HG venue, although he doesn't have size comparison pictures up (as yet?).
Not sure about the FLAIL infantry minis - like Pilum armor they seem to bring something to the HG setting that dilutes what Gears and their non-Terra Nova derivatives are supposed to offer, and replicates/outright replaces APES out of the already bare-bones offerings from the two allied factions.
ferrous wrote: [..] Depending on ruleset, they're mostly terrible. Blitz they were overpriced, fragile and not very effective. NuBlitz, I haven't played, so I have no idea, but I'd pretty much expect the same since no one really cheerleads for them. (Instead we tend to get moar PRDF overpowered stupidity)
Heavy Gear Blitz [Aug 2006]
- Heavy Gear Blitz! Hammers of Faith (North) [Dec 2006]
- Heavy Gear Blitz! Swords of Pride (South) [Mar 2007]
- Heavy Gear Blitz! Shields of Freedom (Peace River) [Dec 2007]
Heavy Gear Blitz Locked and Loaded [May 2008]
- Black Talon: Return to Cat's Eye (Caprice, CEF, Black Talons) [May 2009]
- Shattered Peace: The War for Terra Nova Book 1 (Eden) [2010]
- Terra Nova Gambit: The War for Terra Nova Book 2 (Utopia) [2010]
- Gear Up (Utopian rules primer & template, Field Testing: Defense Modifiers, Errata) [Issue 1 - Spring 2010] pdf
- Gear Up (Field Testing: HHT-90 Combat Group & Multi-Component Vehicle Rules, Field Testing: New Overkill Rules, Revisions & Errata, Southern Medical Support Section, PRDF Medical Section, PAK/CEF Medical Section) [Issue 3 - Winter 2010] pdf
- Gear Up (Combat Engineering Companies, Official Rules: New Heavy Hover Tank combat group) [Issue 4 - Summer 2011] pdf
Heavy Gear Blitz! Field Support Guide (Consolidation of Gear Up material & unsupported factions to Field Manual rules) [2014] pdf
ferrous wrote: The GRELs are pretty iconic for CEF. GRELs and Hovertanks are the bread and butter.
I only have the older Frames though, so I can't tell you size. Depending on ruleset, they're mostly terrible. Blitz they were overpriced, fragile and not very effective.
That said, it sounds like you're doing your own ruleset, so a set of fast but fragile frames armed with high tech weapons could be made to compete with slower, sturdier gears.
Thanks! Hovertanks are expensive, so GREL infantry and Frames it is!
Amusing that the rules for Frames are nothing like what little fluff I can find...
Yeah, I'm doing my own thing, so fast and hard hitting for sure. ____
JohnHwangDD wrote: [..] 2) How big are the metal F2 and F6 compared to the old 1/44 Jaeger & Black Mamba models?
3) Are Flails and/or Grel infantry "iconic" in the sense that I should grab a platoon to complement the Frames?
AndrewGPaul's CEF model thread here on dakka is the most current that I know of in any relatively active HG venue, although he doesn't have size comparison pictures up (as yet?).
Not sure about the FLAIL infantry minis - like Pilum armor they seem to bring something to the HG setting that dilutes what Gears and their non-Terra Nova derivatives are supposed to offer, and replicates/outright replaces APES out of the already bare-bones offerings from the two allied factions.
Thanks much for the link to the gallery - much appreciated. I'm hoping that they'd be Black Mamba-sized, but as they're different to be different, it'll be OK.
Thanks for the comment on FLAILs - I'm thinking that "ordinary" infantry would be better for my game.
brettness37 wrote: I have a sizeable collection of Northern figures,
I've taken a few runs at getting involved with Heavy Gear, but have yet to play at all.
Is there another rules system that these figures can easily be adapted to that you prefer?
I am currently in process of writing "KOG light," an ultralight set of rules for my collection of Southern Gear minis. When it's finally "ready", I'll announce to the group.
The basic Type 6-16 and Type 2-21 (same machine, really, except for the head) are about the same height as a Jaeger or Hunter. They're much bulkier, though - wider, deeper front-to-back and chunkier overall.
The Type 2-21 towers over both of those.
I've added a couple of quick side-by-side comparisons of the Type 6-16, 2-21 and 2-19, as well as the metal light hovertank and resin tank. The hover APC uses the same chassis as the metal light tank.
The only Terranovan Gears I own are the resin wrecks, so I've put a quick shot of those next to a Battle Frame.
The FLAILS haven't been in the game long enough, in my somewhat grognardy opinion, to be "iconic". Plus, they're fairly boring miniatures. Stick to GREL infantry. If I were wanting an opposing force to be different, I'd think about making it entirely "conventional"; HT-68s and GRELs in APCs, and no Battle Frames at all. Another option, if you're doing your own thing, is mixed formations; the old 2nd edition CEF sourcebook had mixed squads of GREL infantry in APCs and Battle Frames.
Yeah, the hovertanks are expensive, but definitely the most iconic of CEF forces. And they're kind of why the Frames exist as they are, as they are supposed to be fast enough to keep up with the hovertanks. That said, they are visually different, not like some of the polar forces, where you can hardly tell the difference. (I'm looking at you Chassuer)
FLAILs were definitely a fail as far as minis go, they're really ugly, I don't know if it's because they are so small, or because DP9 isn't very good at small scale stuff. They've gotten a little better, the redesigns for infantry they have now are definitely better than they were.
I'm in the same boat, I should sell/give away my minis, my odds of going back to tabletop gaming is pretty low these days. And it's even lower odds that I'd find a Heavy Gear gaming group.
JohnHwangDD wrote: I am currently in process of writing "KOG light," an ultralight set of rules for my collection of Southern Gear minis. When it's finally "ready", I'll announce to the group.
Thanks very much for the link - hugely appreciated. Kinda wish I'd have seen it before I started writing KOG light. ____
AndrewGPaul wrote: The basic Type 6-16 and Type 2-21 (same machine, really, except for the head) are about the same height as a Jaeger or Hunter. They're much bulkier, though - wider, deeper front-to-back and chunkier overall. The Type 2-21 towers over both of those. I've added a couple of quick side-by-side comparisons of the Type 6-16, 2-21 and 2-19, as well as the metal light hovertank and resin tank. The hover APC uses the same chassis as the metal light tank. The only Terranovan Gears I own are the resin wrecks, so I've put a quick shot of those next to a Battle Frame.
The FLAILS haven't been in the game long enough, in my somewhat grognardy opinion, to be "iconic". Plus, they're fairly boring miniatures. Stick to GREL infantry. If I were wanting an opposing force to be different, I'd think about making it entirely "conventional"; HT-68s and GRELs in APCs, and no Battle Frames at all. Another option, if you're doing your own thing, is mixed formations; the old 2nd edition CEF sourcebook had mixed squads of GREL infantry in APCs and Battle Frames.
Thanks very much for the info on Frame vs Gear size / bulk. I really appreciate it!
I wasn't really sold on the FLAIL models, which is why I was asking; I'm going to ignore the FLAILS entirely.
I get the "conventional" OpFor being Tanks & Infantry, and it's a good idea; however, it's a *LOT* more spendy than what I'd budgeted for OpFor. The big difference in Frame proportion and style vs Gears is really good for how I want to use them. I gotta say, the heavy hovertank is pretty darn impressive... Maybe as a 3rd option. Hm.
Speaking of 3rd forces, it's nuts how many flavors of forces are in HG, now that I started looking after what's probably been a 10-year absence. North / South / Black Talon / PRDF / ... Gears. Caprice / Utopia / CEF / PAK stuff. It's like there was no editorial control over faction design, something that GW does pretty well. Though it's nice that the Caprice / Utopia / CEF/PAK stuff looks different from the N/S stuff. ____
ferrous wrote: Yeah, the hovertanks are expensive, but definitely the most iconic of CEF forces. And they're kind of why the Frames exist as they are, as they are supposed to be fast enough to keep up with the hovertanks. That said, they are visually different, not like some of the polar forces, where you can hardly tell the difference. (I'm looking at you Chassuer)
FLAILs were definitely a fail as far as minis go, they're really ugly, I don't know if it's because they are so small, or because DP9 isn't very good at small scale stuff. They've gotten a little better, the redesigns for infantry they have now are definitely better than they were.
I'm in the same boat, I should sell/give away my minis, my odds of going back to tabletop gaming is pretty low these days. And it's even lower odds that I'd find a Heavy Gear gaming group.
Thanks for explaining why the Frames are the way they are. I guess I need to try to find a way to get some hovertanks down the road. And you hit the nail on the head as to why I was looking at OpFor Frames over Gears - to the novice, the Gears start to all look the same, but the Frames are clearly different.
Flail proportions are awful if there's supposed to be a "person" inside them. OTOH, if that person is hardwired in, why is the model so ugly?
The Infantry definitely look better. I think I'll want to get some after all.
AndrewGPaul wrote: There isn't a person inside a FLAILS suit - or an F2-xx Frame. Just a GREL brain in a jar.
Problem with that logic, of course, is that they were supposed to fool spectators into believing they were upgraded GRELs with some kind of powered suits...
You might want to go for some hover APCs, or the quads/bikes/hoverbikes, though I don't think they ever made actual GREL versions of those, even if they had the option to use them. The CEF was all about Blitzing, and infantry without some sort of mobility tended to be only useful for defending their starting location. Which was fine for mortar teams, but not so great for others.
GRELS were fun, because unlike human infantry which sort of disappear if a gear looks at them funny, the GRELs took concentrated effort to remove, which always annoyed my opponent.
ferrous wrote: GRELS were fun, because unlike human infantry which sort of disappear if a gear looks at them funny, the GRELs took concentrated effort to remove, which always annoyed my opponent.
Weren't they over the (xDM) break-point for pretty much all of the anti-infantry weapons, or something like that, and you could still buy armor upgrades for some of the platoons/teams.....
To the point where a Gear grenade was the only reliable way to deal with a group of GRELs.
AndrewGPaul wrote: The basic Type 6-16 and Type 2-21 (same machine, really, except for the head) are about the same height as a Jaeger or Hunter. They're much bulkier, though - wider, deeper front-to-back and chunkier overall. The Type 2-21 towers over both of those. I've added a couple of quick side-by-side comparisons of the Type 6-16, 2-21 and 2-19, as well as the metal light hovertank and resin tank. The hover APC uses the same chassis as the metal light tank.
ferrous wrote: Yeah, the hovertanks are expensive, but definitely the most iconic of CEF forces. And they're kind of why the Frames exist as they are, as they are supposed to be fast enough to keep up with the hovertanks. That said, they are visually different, not like some of the polar forces, where you can hardly tell the difference. (I'm looking at you Chassuer)
I guess I need to try to find a way to get some hovertanks down the road. And you hit the nail on the head as to why I was looking at OpFor Frames over Gears - to the novice, the Gears start to all look the same, but the Frames are clearly different.
And a short thread about what could be done differently for the Kodiak & King Cobra as in-game/background (fluff) Gears.
Sounds like you're getting a lot of work done with your ruleset, any interest happening in your locale for the change?
Albertorius wrote: Hm, this reminds me that I should probably unload a lot of my HG minis to someone who actually plays...
I had one person ask, and thought about it a few other times, but I think so many Tactical-era and now HGB!-era minis are available on ebay or the like for next to nothing it's probably better to not go through the hassle of attempting a private sale.
Or entrusting to the mail; here of late even the tougher white outside/grey inside unpadded plastic envelopes are arriving with tears, if not all but torn open, from handling somewhere along the way.
ferrous wrote: GRELS were fun, because unlike human infantry which sort of disappear if a gear looks at them funny, the GRELs took concentrated effort to remove, which always annoyed my opponent.
Weren't they over the (xDM) break-point for pretty much all of the anti-infantry weapons, or something like that, and you could still buy armor upgrades for some of the platoons/teams.....
To the point where a Gear grenade was the only reliable way to deal with a group of GRELs.
JohnHwangDD wrote: I guess I need to try to find a way to get some hovertanks down the road. And you hit the nail on the head as to why I was looking at OpFor Frames over Gears - to the novice, the Gears start to all look the same, but the Frames are clearly different.
And a short thread about what could be done differently for the Kodiak & King Cobra as in-game/background (fluff) Gears.
Sounds like you're getting a lot of work done with your ruleset, any interest happening in your locale for the change?
Albertorius wrote: Hm, this reminds me that I should probably unload a lot of my HG minis to someone who actually plays...
I had one person ask, and thought about it a few other times, but I think so many Tactical-era and now HGB!-era minis are available on ebay or the like for next to nothing it's probably better to not go through the hassle of attempting a private sale.
Or entrusting to the mail; here of late even the tougher white outside/grey inside unpadded plastic envelopes are arriving with tears, if not all but torn open, from handling somewhere along the way.
Duly noted on GRELs needing to be as tough as a Light Gear - I can do that!
Thanks for the thread pointers - I'll check them out!
It's just my small playgroup dinking around, driven almost entirely by my interest in getting my HG minis quickly & easily playable, along with formally writing a tabletop miniatures game ruleset. Once it's "ready", I'll release for others to muck about. My intent is to finalize my version, and create simple "count as" rules for various HG units, perhaps a dozen per side. I've done a lot of abstraction in my ruleset, so Gears are Gears. A Jaeger is going to be the same as a Hunter, same as any other basic Gear. As I don't intend to own any, I'll leave the Utopian & Caprice conversions to someone else.
For me, if I know I'm not going to play something, I'm not afraid to sell it or trade it. I find that some (but not all) HG minis can be relatively affordable on both eBay and Amazon. I got my frames for a decent price, and will likely trawl eBay for a bit longer. Too bad the Tanks are still kinda expensive... I should probably update my Swap Shop post to clarify what I'd want.
Yeah, a lot of the really basic infantry / anti-infantry weaponry was just not good enough to put much of a dent in them. Anti-personnel charges in particular were ineffective, which are normally the bane of infantry, since they can be put on drones and don't cost an action to fire. Having that AP charge go off and do nothing, and then have the GRELs launch rockets in return was a good shock the first time =)
I actually don't mind the look of the Frames, they sort of look like angular fighter planes crossed with a robot.
I got NuCoal force and a Southern force to battle it out. Was wondering if a platoon for each would be good?
I wanted to give them some protection for APCs but most for each seem to be APC 1. I'm guessing the 1 is how many stands can go in it for transporting.
Pack of 40 guys so you get 6 bases plus some extra. Not very $ cost effective if I can only transport 1 base, 2 in rare cases. (Caiman for south is 25$ for 2)
JohnHwangDD wrote: Thematically, Infantry are made obsolete by Gears, so I wouldn't get a lot of them.
OTOH, a small number of Infantry will show scale, so that it's clear how big a Gear is.
The Platoons seem priced OK; maybe paint one set tan and the other green?
Infantry being made obsolete by Gears is only partially true. In-setting, Gears are one-man IFVs, and cheap enough to be deployed in large numbers, so yes, they certainly have replaced infantry in many respects, particularly for stuff that needs speed and firepower, and they also make decent armor bodyguards. Still, there are many jobs that infantry is particularly adept (and boots in the ground are still boots in the ground) and combined with mobility options (bikes/trikes, jump packs, jeeps and the like) they can be quite effective.
Game wise... it will depend a lot on the particular edition of the rules you're using. Current beta they are mostly a speed bump, if that (ranges on their weapons coupled with speed make them mostly irrelevant except when the enemy absolutely must go where they are, and even then, they usually can pick them from afar first). Don't bother with them unless you want to garrison a place on the cheap or if (as JHDD says) you want your game to show some scale (which I love to do, btw: HG games of only Gears without infantry are virtually indistinguishable from SM on SM action).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
str00dles1 wrote: Thanks. I saw they dont do awhole lot. But wanted to check.
Another question i had while reading is armor piercing ammo. Says it does damaged based on the margin of sucess.
For example if a 8 armor gear gets hit by a weapon that is ap and strength 6 but fails to get higher it takes 2 damage still?
New beta? Hm, let's see. MoS 0+ is a success, so the shot hits. It has Pen 6 and the AP trait, and has hit a unit with 8 Armor. AP is now a rated trait, so it will be AP:X. Rules say that "A Target with an Armor Rating higher than the Penetration Rating of the attack will suffer damage equal to the Margin of Success up to the rating of the trait, or normal damage, whichever is greater".
So, let's say AP:2. Regular damage would be MoS (0) + Pen (6) - Armor (8), for a total -2 Damage, so no regular damage, and MoS is 0, so AP damage will also be 0. So, no damage.
str00dles1 wrote: Thanks. I saw they dont do awhole lot. But wanted to check.
Another question i had while reading is armor piercing ammo. Says it does damaged based on the margin of sucess.
For example if a 8 armor gear gets hit by a weapon that is ap and strength 6 but fails to get higher it takes 2 damage still?
New beta? Hm, let's see. MoS 0+ is a success, so the shot hits. It has Pen 6 and the AP trait, and has hit a unit with 8 Armor. AP is now a rated trait, so it will be AP:X. Rules say that "A Target with an Armor Rating higher than the Penetration Rating of the attack will suffer damage equal to the Margin of Success up to the rating of the trait, or normal damage, whichever is greater".
So, let's say AP:2. Regular damage would be MoS (0) + Pen (6) - Armor (8), for a total -2 Damage, so no regular damage, and MoS is 0, so AP damage will also be 0. So, no damage.
Yea, new Beta. Printed off the book and getting ready for a demo game tonight.
Sorry, but I think that confused me more haha. I think it always causes damage?
Target has armor 8, your pen is 6, with AP of 2. So you deal 2 damage to the gear cause you failed to pen normally but your AP of the weapon is 2.
If your margin is 8 also and their armor is 8, you just hope your margin roll is 4+ to still cause 1 yea?
And in the same instance, if your pen total is 9, and their armor 8, you deal just 1 damage cause the AP is ignored because you were successful?
Yea, new Beta. Printed off the book and getting ready for a demo game tonight.
Sorry, but I think that confused me more haha. I think it always causes damage?
The trait says that it either does the regular damage or an amount of damage equal to the MoS and up to the AP rating. So no, going by that, it doesn't always cause damage.
Target has armor 8, your pen is 6, with AP of 2. So you deal 2 damage to the gear cause you failed to pen normally but your AP of the weapon is 2.
See above. If you'r PEN is 6, have AP 2 and hit with a MoS 0 to an Armor 8 unit, you wouldn't do any damage regularly. And as your MoS is 0, and when you hit with an AP weapon you do as many damage as your MoS, you'd do no damage from that, either.
If your margin is 8 also and their armor is 8, you just hope your margin roll is 4+ to still cause 1 yea?
AFAIK, yes.
And in the same instance, if your pen total is 9, and their armor 8, you deal just 1 damage cause the AP is ignored because you were successful?
Again, AFAIK, yes.
Sorry tis is going way over my head :/
Hey, no problem. The rule is not the clearest ever.
Heh, so much for streamlining with the new rules =) (though to be fair, the old rules have quite a bit of jank in them)
I preferred having some sort of other vehicles/infantry in my games to get a better sense of scale. Though the only good tank models in the game are CEF, the Pod has always been a bit lackluster when it comes to their vehicle models otherwise, though some of the newer redesigns are at least better than the old ones.
Infantry in the old rules were good for holding ground in rough or urban terrain, and their infantry mortars were overpowered, and could plink at anything with decent chance of success. One good thing I think the new rules did was not let you field infantry without a weapon upgrade, as vanilla infantry with nothing but assault rifles was really pointless. Though I think they still only have nerfed versions of ATM/AGMs for holdover reasons. It's been ages since I checked the new rulebook out, I suppose I ought to do that at some point.
I think if I were you John, I'd think about requiring infantry to come with APCs or be mounted on trikes/orvs/lizards/monowheels/etc. Maybe skip that requirement for the faction that has the super dirt cheap conscript infantry. I think it would make for better gameplay to save people from themselves during army construction. That has always been one of Heavy Gear's big failings, letting people construct armies that will just fall apart against even the most basic of opponents, and is not at all fun to play.
@ferrous - I like the rectangular CEF HoverTanks - they look more like tanks than the wedged-nose versions.
I agree that Infantry should have anti-Gear firepower of some sort.
My game is very barebones, so there won't be that many variants. Or options. Or sides. Very simple. And really, the only reason for HTs and Infantry is to scale it back to what people already know.
Infantry platoons might be my next purchase. As 20$ for 6-7 40mm bases of guys isn't to bad.
Most do have a sort of anti Gear weapon. Usually the light/medium anti tank/vehicle rocket. Which on average is enough to punch through your standard gear with minimal effort. Only caviate is you can only take 2 bases of them in a squad.
So barebones 2 infantry bases 2 anti vehicle bases is about 16 points or so. As mentioned terrain will really be what makes them worth taking or not. I plan to use Dropzone city terrain for some games so figure they can garrison in buildings/behind car rubble.
If you can hide them to avoid being shotting up to pieces and can make the enemy go to them instead of ignoring them directly, they probably will do well enough for the points.
Latest KS Update shows off the test sprue CEF stuff. Frames look good, hovertank is OK, but the Grel Infantry...! Yuck.
They bulked up the frames a bit, and they show a nice contrast image from the white metal frames to the new plastic stuff.
DP9 showed a similar image of the Caprice mounts as well.
Overall, it looks like the scale of the plastic stuff is either more true to the '28mm heroic' scale, or stuff is just getting bigger in plastic. I know it's supposed to be like 128mm scale or some such, but I don't think any miniature company is true to the scale of their game.
Yeah, Flails, well, sadly no improvement, but yeah, the pewter ones were ugly as hell, so, that's a bummer they didn't just redo the design -- no one would have minded. The frames look mostly okay to me, probably some minor size differences, kind of hard to tell too much from that overhead shot. Is that the BF-18 in the back? It looks really big now.
That new hovertank is awful, but that's just the design, not the plastics. It just looks like a lazy design where they just repeat the same pattern over and over instead of making it interesting to the eye like either the HT-68 or 72 are. I get that some tanks are like that these days, but its kind of annoying that every model of Hovertank looks nothing like the others.
I hate the arrowhead tanks. It's boring, unlike the 68 and 72. Too bad they didn't do the big 68 as part of the KS.
Pretty much all Gears should be on 30mm rounds, and the big Gears like the King Cobra and 2-29 should really be on 40mm rounds.
Also, the top-down view is great for showing how the Jump Jets attach to the Frames, because it was not obvious from the single front-on shot that the model is packaged with.
My distaste over the small bases used for HG is pretty large. I think just about all my gears have had their toes chipped. When I bought my NuCoal, I put all my gears on 40mm sized bases. The new GW 32mm bases are just about perfect for many of the gears.
I really don't understand why they continue to use those horrible, hex slotted bases.
Tamwulf wrote: The new GW 32mm bases are just about perfect for many of the gears.
I really don't understand why they continue to use those horrible, hex slotted bases.
Thanks, GW 32mm it is!
Those bases are the Pod in a nutshell, clinging on to something desperately old and obsolete, because that's what they did way back when they were relevant.
Tamwulf wrote: My distaste over the small bases used for HG is pretty large.
I really don't understand why they continue to use those horrible, hex slotted bases.
Consider who is putting the models together for the blurb.
And, as John pointed out, you also have to factor in a primary Pod characteristic; it's the cheapest option, and any dislike of it isn't ''significant'' enough to be worth noticing by the company.
On another note, I've read through most of the Starship Troopers Miniatures Game (2005) rulebook, which appears to be the inspiration/progenitor for the original (pre-NuBlitz) HGB! scenario and upgrade option (force construction) concepts.
Otherwise, it's pretty much a retread of some 40K edition.
JohnHwangDD wrote: SST was written by Andy Chambers, who may have been involved in writing some 40k-like games prior to writing SST.
Back in the day (back when I was a redshirt, actually), I was told that Andy wrote the SST system to be the new 40k ruleset, but that the powers that be in GW didn't like it, so he went outside.
The 25mm hex slotted bases had a use way, way back when arcs mattered and the models were cast in white metal with the tab at the bottom. The new plastic liberates the models from that metal tab, and allows for much more customization and posing options for the models. I just really, really hope my KS package doesn't come with a bunch of hex slotted bases. Any new player will look at the plastic models and those way too small 25mm hex slotted bases and say "Did they send me the wrong bases? WTF?!"
Tamwulf wrote: I just really, really hope my KS package doesn't come with a bunch of hex slotted bases. Any new player will look at the plastic models and those way too small 25mm hex slotted bases and say "Did they send me the wrong bases? WTF?!"
Well, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but you should expect those awful 25mm hex bases. I specifically asked the Pod about moving to larger round bases during the KS and they disdainfully dismissed the question like I was a crazy person.
If you go to the KS Q&A, I think they made it pretty clear that most models will ship with laughably undersized 25mm bases.
They are kind of weirdly proportioned, but they don't look that bad, you say? Well...
If this is the level of detail is what's to be expected, that is... underwhelming. Angular northern gears look better (at least from the distance), but the southern ones look very underwhelming indeed.
EDIT: Also, if the southern Gear on the bottom left is a Jäger, it is fething tiny, assuming the hex bases are still the same as always have been:
The Caprice minis looked nice enough (then again, we haven`t seen any closeup). That Cobra's details are waay too soft (which might be fixable, maybe) and shallow (which probably can't). Just look at the various handle bars, they are almost not even there. The inversed shoulder details doesn't look particularly good either.
Yeah, one of the things the Pod noted when posting these images in the kickstarter was that many pieces suffered shrinking and holes. Part of the issue seems that they're using a test material rather than the actual plastic to be used in the molds, and part of it seems to be that the molds aren't being heated up in the same way as they would be in production. Needless to say the issues have been identified with the test pops (that's kind of the point, to see what needs polishing), and we have a dated when we'll see the final product.
Personally I would have washed off the release agent, primed and inked the models to make the details pop, but then that's for highlighting a final product rather than tests.
Yeah, the lack of detail on these models is very disheartening. These are just the test models though- and it's a test to see if the molds actually work. I hope that's not the actual plastic they are using- that stuff like more like industrial style PVC used in... well, industrial applications.
I'm not too worried. I'm glad they showed the test models, but I totally realize these will not be the final product. At least DP9 is showing progress! Good on them!
ByzantineFalcon wrote:I am not sure if it is the photo, but the plastic itself looks a little off to me. Kind of like the plastic they use for Zvezda miniatures. It needs a plastic cement, super glue just pools on it, for whatever reason. Its something in the color, and the sheen, but it might just be me.
Also, does it look like they are all looking down to anyone else? The northern figures, anyway. Rather than looking across the field, they seem to be focusing on a spot on the ground in front of them.
Yes, these are made of styrene, which is a hard plastic that can be glue together with model cement or super glue. This is what we promised during the Kickstarter for the type of plastic we would get them made in. I see what you mean about the heads, I just glued them on fast, before gluing the torsos onto the hips and legs, I should have glued the heads on last, as they all have ball joints and I could have glued them looking across the field. Taking photos of these is not easy as you need a lot of lighting to get the depth of field for all the models to be in focus and when you put a lot of light on the grey plastic it washes out the details.
Well, then this is impossible I guess:
Just taken with my phone's crappy camera, 10cm directly below an halogen lamp.
Nomeny wrote: Remember that these are the test pops. Sucks that you aren't happy with it. I'm pleased with them.
No, it's awesome that I dodged the bullet, and bought metal instead.
I might have paid 2x as much per model for the King Cobra and Spitting Cobra that I just bought, but they're easily 5x better quality. I'm beyond elated with my recent purchase vs waiting for the Pod to send out these gakky low grade plastic knock-offs. ____
The Pod's response is amusing. As if tilting the head at a funny angle would change the impression of the mini...
Henshini wrote: I really hope people share these images as an example of why you shouldn't back a kickstarter based on renders.
To be fair, it's not that the renders were that good in the first place...
Tamwulf wrote: Yeah, the lack of detail on these models is very disheartening. I hope that's not the actual plastic they are using- that stuff like more like industrial style PVC used in... well, industrial applications.
All that work of going with new lowest-bid artists, pushing things back by nearly a year (7-8 months timeframe), and now in the flesh so to speak the minis may actually look worse than I imagined they would.
Given how Robert responded about the plastic, and how Dave responded to a nearly two months old KS comment (in which a mold seems to cost $24K instead of $15K....), they both seem perfectly fine with how everything turned out.
Likewise, commenters asking about dynamic poses or finer details clearly do not understand that what they are seeing is it for the KS, finis, all done as far as the Pod is concerned; the molds may be ''corrected'' but there is no way they will ever be changed from what was ''approved''.
Rdubois wrote:Taking photos of these is not easy as you need a lot of lighting to get the depth of field for all the models to be in focus and when you put a lot of light on the grey plastic it washes out the details.
Well, then this is impossible I guess: [images]
Just taken with my phone's crappy camera, 10cm directly below an halogen lamp.
Well yeah, because: Robert.
Nomeny wrote: Sucks that you aren't happy with it. I'm pleased with them.
Dave, on 13 July 2015 at 07:48 PM wrote:[..] Two to three years down the road once all the factions have their core plastics is when we get to start looking at advancing the story line again [..]
Quality & detail like this ought to really bring folks running to spend their $$$ on still in development four years later NuBlitz instead of on Infinity, DZC, or Gates.
Not to mention how well all of the ''absolutely badass'' concept art and faction ideas have fit the HG setting starting back around 2011 with NuCoal in the Perfect Storm field guide.
Now, its been awhile since I would in the plastics industry, and we were doing parts mainly for the auto industry and Xerox, but the way we did test runs and samples was to use the material you actually want the parts in, and to set the tool up the same way you would in production.
That is how you get accurate tests and samples.
Test pops in a 'test material' without the molds 'being heated up' gives you worthless samples, in my opinion. You STILL don't know how it will run because your 'test pops' aren't being run at the parameters that your production will be.
Don't know what their manufacturer is thinking, really, except to soak some more money from the newbs.
RJVF wrote: Now, its been awhile since I would in the plastics industry, and we were doing parts mainly for the auto industry and Xerox, but the way we did test runs and samples was to use the material you actually want the parts in, and to set the tool up the same way you would in production.
That is how you get accurate tests and samples.
Test pops in a 'test material' without the molds 'being heated up' gives you worthless samples, in my opinion. You STILL don't know how it will run because your 'test pops' aren't being run at the parameters that your production will be.
Don't know what their manufacturer is thinking, really, except to soak some more money from the newbs.
Isn't it sort of like, "We need to know what the top speed of our new car is, so take it up to 30 and hold it there for a while."
RJVF: Re-reading the updates on the Kickstarter I may have misrepresented what they said about test materials/temperatures. I had thought they said something to that effect, but I can't find anything looking back.
On a non-KS note, did Arkrite go radio silent again after the 10 March update?
RJVF wrote: Now, its been awhile since I would in the plastics industry, and we were doing parts mainly for the auto industry and Xerox, but the way we did test runs and samples was to use the material you actually want the parts in, and to set the tool up the same way you would in production.
That is how you get accurate tests and samples.
Test pops in a 'test material' without the molds 'being heated up' gives you worthless samples, in my opinion. You STILL don't know how it will run because your 'test pops' aren't being run at the parameters that your production will be.
Don't know what their manufacturer is thinking, really, except to soak some more money from the newbs.
Not sure either way to be honest, although this could just as easily be a Pod misunderstanding and typically poorly done passing on of what information was given to them thing (not to mention as professional as always editing).
But yes, there are definitely some huh?, why? moments in the updates.
Update #115 on Mar 18, 2016 wrote:Post Kickstarter Update #49: First Plastic Test Pops of the Caprice Sprues [..]The company making our plastic injection molds finished up the mold for the Caprice Mounts last Friday and was able to run a few test pops in grey styrene hard plastic and get them expressed to us at the show on Monday.
[..] These are test pops made to see what needs to be tweaked in the molds, some of the parts broke off the sprues because the gates connecting them to the sprue were to small, and a few of the parts had shrinkage, as the molds could not get up to normal running temperature with just few tests pops they ran to send us for the show. They turned out pretty good for test pops and the mold manufacturer will get gate size to the parts increased and do more tests until everything is working perfectly.
[..] lets us know if you like this update by clinking the "Like" button above.
Dream Pod 9 on March 18 wrote:We are using the hard styrene plastic that most high grade model kits are made of, which you can glue together with model cement or super glue. This is what our players asked for and what we promised during the Kickerstarter.
Update #116 on Mar 25, 2016 wrote:Post Kickstarter Update #50: First Plastic Test Pops of the C.E.F. Sprues [..] The test plastic sprue pops show them where additional spruing, ejector pins, and/or increased gate sizes to the parts are needed.
[..] As you will see there is some shrinkage and dimpling on some of the larger parts, the molds will need to be tweaked so that more molten plastic makes it into those parts cavities.
Update #117 on Mar 30, 2016 wrote:Post Kickstarter Update #51: New Northern and Southern Test Pop Plastic Models [..] These were all assembled from the test plastic pop sprues we received from the mold manufacturer last week to test where problems are in the molds, they still have some holes and shrinkage on the parts.
[..] The mold manufacturer has informed us that they should have all the molds fixed up by April 10th and then send us final test pops to approve the molds.
Dream Pod 9 on March 28 wrote:These are models made with the test pop sprues, they have holes and shrinkage on them, the final production plastic sprues will look better.
This is still promising a lot by a company that has never done plastic molding who themselves contracted out that manufacture to a pair of companies who both have no presented experience in the molding of plastic miniatures.
Nomeny wrote: Personally I would have washed off the release agent, primed and inked the models to make the details pop, but then that's for highlighting a final product rather than tests.
Tamwulf wrote: Yeah, the lack of detail on these models is very disheartening.
There doesn't seem to be any surface detail in the first place that could even be highlighted.
BTW, looking at the pictures, are we sure that The Pod put the right heads on the right models? Some of the head-body proportions are bizzare peanut head / pumpkin head pairings.
I got to see the models in person this weekend as Robert came and ran demos at a small con here in ottawa. The blockier models do look better in person than the pictures imply but a lot of the gears heads lost all the little sensor bits the metal ones had. The Jager and hunter are tiny now, they look almost fragile. I am curious to see what the actual release versions will look like once the molds get to NA form china.
Being damned by faint praise only works if something is otherwise widely and loudly praised. Given how you and others have been going on I'm inclined to regard such praise indicative of an incredible success. It hasn't been perfect, but as gaming Kickstarters go it's fantastic. I'm really looking forward to getting stuff, and buying the stuff they'll be able to put on shelves as a result of this kickstarter.
Nomeny wrote: Being damned by faint praise only works if something is otherwise widely and loudly praised.
Er... no.
From Wikipedia: Damning with faint praise is an English idiom for words that effectively condemn by seeming to offer praise which is too moderate or marginal to be considered praise at all.[1] In other words, this phrase identifies the act of expressing a compliment so feeble that it amounts to no compliment at all, or even implies a kind of condemnation.[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damning_with_faint_praise
Urban Dictionary:
To imply condemnation of someone by praising them for utterly unimportant details. From Alexander Pope's Epistle to Doctor Arbuthnot (1733): "Damn with faint praise, assent with civil leer, and, without sneering, teach the rest to sneer." http://es.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=damn+with+faint+praise
Free Dictionary:
Compliment so feebly that it amounts to no compliment at all, or even implies condemnation. For example, The reviewer damned the singer with faint praise, admiring her dress but not mentioning her voice . http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/damn+with+faint+praise
TVTropes:
To damn something with faint praise is to point out that something is mediocre or worse by praising it in ways that make its weaknesses clear. To say that a computer "looks sleek" as the primary point of praise would indicate that it is not that amazing as a computer, for example. To describe a person as punctual when asked about how they perform at work carries the heavy implication that this is their one valuable trait.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DamnedByFaintPraise
In this case, the aforementioned faint praise is "well, at least it exists".
Given how you and others have been going on I'm inclined to regard such praise indicative of an incredible success. It hasn't been perfect, but as gaming Kickstarters go it's fantastic. I'm really looking forward to getting stuff, and buying the stuff they'll be able to put on shelves as a result of this kickstarter.
Well, at least it exists, and that's way better by itself than Robotech's Wave 2.
So far, the Caprice stuff looks nice enough, CEF looks mildly presentable, and North/South look to me deformed and without any kind of detail. If that's due to it being not final "sprue pops", only time will tell. Proportions are probably there to stay, though.
Nomeny wrote: Given how you and others have been going on I'm inclined to regard such praise indicative of an incredible success.
That has kind of been one of the points of the controversy since the start of this thread, what standards TPTB in Pod-land consider to be successful.
The last post(s) from the Pod on dakka (in the KS thread) was to take focus away from Robert going off about the company being trolled because folks questioned the company's decision to cut two models from the promised rewards with no equivalent compensation beyond a token offering.
There has been no mention of any of the new models or other KS news on G+ for quite a while now, let alone other trafficked sites, which to me is not indicative of something popular enough that folks are talking about it independently of existing players/fans.
Currently vocal people are not universal in their liking of the end product, or the sculpts in the first place, and that is not going to change no matter how much you might wish it otherwise.
It is what it is; talking it up as being something more exposed than the reality has been a large part of the problem in the past.
Nomeny wrote: and buying the stuff they'll be able to put on shelves as a result of this kickstarter.
That would be just a bit of an assumption considering how few retailers existent right now are willing to stock DP9 products.
Doubly so since the stuff they'll primarily be trying to put on store shelves is the KS ''funded'' retail boxes, which unless something changes will contain less miniatures than was promised.
Smilodon_UP wrote: That would be just a bit of an assumption considering how few retailers existent right now are willing to stock DP9 products.
I'm sure all the retailers around here are just enthusiastic to add plastic HG miniatures next to their pile of metal and resin HG miniatures they bought years ago and cannot sell, even with deep discounts.
I just bought a bunch of NEW CEF Frames for half off + S&H. And a NEW King Cobra for <$10 shipped. There's clearly a market for metal Gears run priced around $5-7 before S&H.
If the price is low enough, I'm willing to at least consider some of the other models. For example, I'd pay another $10 shipped for a Spitting Cobra with the Support Cobra bitz included. Tactical-era Recon Cadre? Yeah, I'd probably buy that at half original MSRP.
But yeah, neither of my local hobby stores carry new product from the Pod. Last I checked, I think there's one Exo-Armor from ages ago in one of the clearance bins. I wonder why that is...
Tac era (and older) Iggies were almost the same size as Jägers (as they are in the setting), but they shrinked them for Blitz. Maybe they're doubling back?
IMHO from the pics I've seen, the Hunters/Jägers look just too small.
I just bought a bunch of NEW CEF Frames for half off + S&H. And a NEW King Cobra for <$10 shipped. There's clearly a market for metal Gears run priced around $5-7 before S&H.
If the price is low enough, I'm willing to at least consider some of the other models. For example, I'd pay another $10 shipped for a Spitting Cobra with the Support Cobra bitz included. Tactical-era Recon Cadre? Yeah, I'd probably buy that at half original MSRP.
But yeah, neither of my local hobby stores carry new product from the Pod. Last I checked, I think there's one Exo-Armor from ages ago in one of the clearance bins. I wonder why that is...
Oh, totally. If I could find some new Gears locally for $5 a pop, I'd gobble those up, even if I never intended to play a game. They are fun models, they look like I would enjoy painting them and, frankly, there's a lot of nostalgic value in them for me. But of course, there aren't any such stores.
I just bought a bunch of NEW CEF Frames for half off + S&H. And a NEW King Cobra for <$10 shipped. There's clearly a market for metal Gears run priced around $5-7 before S&H.
If the price is low enough, I'm willing to at least consider some of the other models. For example, I'd pay another $10 shipped for a Spitting Cobra with the Support Cobra bitz included. Tactical-era Recon Cadre? Yeah, I'd probably buy that at half original MSRP.
But yeah, neither of my local hobby stores carry new product from the Pod. Last I checked, I think there's one Exo-Armor from ages ago in one of the clearance bins. I wonder why that is...
Oh, totally. If I could find some new Gears locally for $5 a pop, I'd gobble those up, even if I never intended to play a game. They are fun models, they look like I would enjoy painting them and, frankly, there's a lot of nostalgic value in them for me. But of course, there aren't any such stores.
Given that I have seen the same unsold pile of stuff in local stores, and that I have seen the pile of the store were I usually play being discounted quite a low, well, I think that the number of people interested in metal gear around Montréal is rather low.
Low enough that I don't see the stores interested in putting plastic gears on their shelves.
I think that's part of what this kickstarter is intended to Remedy. Having boxes of relatively high quality (I'm looking at you, Ral Partha) styrene plastic miniatures could do some wonders to growing Heavy Gear.
I just bought a bunch of NEW CEF Frames for half off + S&H. And a NEW King Cobra for <$10 shipped. There's clearly a market for metal Gears run priced around $5-7 before S&H.
If the price is low enough, I'm willing to at least consider some of the other models. For example, I'd pay another $10 shipped for a Spitting Cobra with the Support Cobra bitz included. Tactical-era Recon Cadre? Yeah, I'd probably buy that at half original MSRP.
But yeah, neither of my local hobby stores carry new product from the Pod. Last I checked, I think there's one Exo-Armor from ages ago in one of the clearance bins. I wonder why that is...
Oh, totally. If I could find some new Gears locally for $5 a pop, I'd gobble those up, even if I never intended to play a game. They are fun models, they look like I would enjoy painting them and, frankly, there's a lot of nostalgic value in them for me. But of course, there aren't any such stores.
Given that I have seen the same unsold pile of stuff in local stores, and that I have seen the pile of the store were I usually play being discounted quite a low, well, I think that the number of people interested in metal gear around Montréal is rather low.
Low enough that I don't see the stores interested in putting plastic gears on their shelves.
Were they below $5 CAD each? Maybe they haven't yet discounted deep enough to clear the stuff out of clearance bin. .
Nomeny wrote: I think that's part of what this kickstarter is intended to Remedy. Having boxes of relatively high quality (I'm looking at you, Ral Partha) styrene plastic miniatures could do some wonders to growing Heavy Gear.
And that will entirely depend on reputation and reception.
Store manager: "Oh, Heavy Gear?" *glances in back* "Yeah, I got a bunch. Doesn't move."
DP9: "But these are plastic!"
SM: "How many players you got? Is there a tournament scene? How many boxes can you even make a month? How many other stores are working with you?"
DP9: "???"
Who knows? We don't know, yet.
All that said, I'm not super concerned about stores in my area immediately loading up on Heavy Gear. If I want it, I'll get it online. Stores shouldn't be the priority, not just yet anyway. If the relaunch is actually successful and gets any attention, then sure, it's absolutely necessary to try and re-engingeer some kind of distribution. But not immediately doing so is not, in my book, any kind of mark against the Pod, not right now, anyway.
@Firebreak, the Pod can tell the Store Manager that they got 1,000 backers on KS paying $125k.
What the Pod won't want to say is that the KS delivered late, and short, and less-detailed. Nor that the 1,000 backers have already purchased 80% of the potential future sales on discount via the KS.
It's a kickstarter. Expecting them to just be a pre-order misses the point. And those backers are now going to have a product they can share with their friends to increase the number of people playing Heavy Gear and hence the number of fans. I'm looking forward to introducing people in my area (Halifax) to it.
No way they'll get traction in Montréal, unless it's a new store that doesn't know DP9 yet.
Most gaming stores in Montréal know DP9 (aka Robert & Dave) personally, and can tell you stories... Usually of the "not stocking them again ever" kind.
This isn't hearsay or rumors, that's first hand experience.
"We did a kickstarter (that barely made enough money)" is not something to inspire confidence. MOST kickstarters are failures. Apparently better than 60% of them failed last year, if my incredibly brief googling is to be trusted.
And you're going to take that to a store, and tell them that, no, this company that's slowly died over 20 years is TOTALLY the exception to the rule and this KS for a game no one plays is TOTALLY going to hit it big time? That's not going to be worth much to anybody.
But again. This isn't the time to be getting it on shelves, anyway.
On the other hand, perfect is the enemy of good. The latest test pops came back better, the molds still need gates to be enlarged, and it's last call for add-ons before the mold is shipped to the US for production.
Nomeny wrote: On the other hand, perfect is the enemy of good. The latest test pops came back better, the molds still need gates to be enlarged, and it's last call for add-ons before the mold is shipped to the US for production.
Hoping now to see the new pops and the improvements.
I'll probably add the Cheat Sheets for each faction as they are fairly cheap ($1 a piece). I was thinking of getting counters for one of the factions, just not sure if I should get North or South.
I would have like them to have shown a closer up picture of the sprues though. In the pictures I was emailed it was too difficult to see if the detail on the heads had been improved.
If you can't bother checking on the latest new releases, Stompy, producer of AAA e-sport wannabe Heavy Gear Assault can't afford their yearly audit, and their share price has dropped further as a consequence (From 0.120 to 0.010 in 8 months).
Time to go "Game over man !" ?
If you can't bother checking on the latest new releases, Stompy, producer of AAA e-sport wannabe Heavy Gear Assault can't afford their yearly audit, and their share price has dropped further as a consequence (From 0.120 to 0.010 in 8 months).
Time to go "Game over man !" ?
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean; it comes across as either gibberish from a bot or is about the video game which isn't being discussed here that I have seen. Clarification might help.
If you can't bother checking on the latest new releases, Stompy, producer of AAA e-sport wannabe Heavy Gear Assault can't afford their yearly audit, and their share price has dropped further as a consequence (From 0.120 to 0.010 in 8 months).
Time to go "Game over man !" ?
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean; it comes across as either gibberish from a bot or is about the video game which isn't being discussed here that I have seen. Clarification might help.
Did you take a look at the link? On the right side under news, there are two recent press releases (the new one correcting a single line from the other). The publisher of the AAA esports Unreal 4 arena FPS that no one asked for which failed to crowdfund multiple times after missing its own annoucement countdown and has since changed directions and scope more times than an expert difficulty mario kart course doesn't have enough money to pay an accountant to properly examine their books and publish a report. If you're looking for a risky tech investment, it appears their stock is available for the low low price of a Canadian penny each. If you do buy end up buying stock, pm me for info on an exciting investment opportunity for a new tech venture I'm starting called Super Hyper Global Meganet.
I don't know. When I look at all the video games that I just can't bring myself to care about.. what with their shallow multiplayer modes which clearly have e-Sport aspirations, a setting where arena duelling has been a thing for a long time coupled with the room for customisation and personalisation.. well, that's a competitive online game I would actually play.
Indeed I backed it; Twice, you could say. So this is worrying news. I'm having flashbacks to Mechwarrior Tactics here :(
Indeed I backed it; Twice, you could say. So this is worrying news. I'm having flashbacks to Mechwarrior Tactics here :(
While I'm not sure what went on with MW tactics (was that the Xbox game or was that assault?), I'd say you have definite reason to be worried when the company comes out with a press release titled "Stompy Bot Corporation provides notice of default".
The short version of MWT is.. development was contracted out to a 3rd party, things were going well with the beta and then they weren't. Developer then reveals they ended their relationship with the MWT owners a while ago. Awkward questions get asked. Founders Packs keep getting sold. One day, the servers are shut down and the website is 'temporarily' offline. The end.
I was disappointed but I wasn't as invested in the universe as I am with Heavy Gear. So, I'm tentatively braced for more because putting in the time to become a good pilot with my own Gear.. good enough to put on a good show..is a heck of a lot more palatable to me than running up and down a three lane map in LoL.
Still, I never put into these things more than I am prepared to lose.
warboss wrote: On the right side under news, there are two recent press releases
Gosh I can't believe I didn't download stuff from an unsolicited link that came in from a rambling post about a video game in a ttg thread.
Which comes back to it being about the video game and lacked anything to say that the discussion was veering wildly away from what it was. What it did was go like this:
ttg post
ttg post
ttg post
ttg post
ttg post
ttg post
OMGz like vidya game stocks wat? no down!
Albertorius wrote: Well, it's not exactly as if this was the first time the videogame has been alluded to or discussed in this very thread. Quite the contrary, in fact.
The issue isn't that a Heavy Gear video game being discussed in a Heavy Gear thread, it was the non-sequitur nature of it and lack of explanation.
Edit: We are veering wildly off topic. There really isn't anymore to say about it.
They look better quality than the last batch of photos, but the pic's quite small, and they are the CEF models, so I may not be proved correct in the long run.
Gaaaaaaaaaaasp Assault has yet another roadbump. Maybe there's only so much karmic goodwill out there for Heavy Gear and only one property can have it at one time.
Quick question - in the current beta rules, how widely available are the under-barrel attachments? Are they limited to the LAC / MAC / HAC weapons or available for rifles too? Perhaps the attachments increase a weapons size, thus limiting which gears can use them?
I ask because I just saw a picture of the Leopard and I really like the look of the MAC with under-barrel frag cannon. I'd love to model my other gears with them, but in the event that I ever play HG again, I'd prefer to avoid having 'illegal' weapon setups.
Is there actual support for "under barrel" weapons in the current rules as opposed to just a second weapon? In blitz it was just another weapon (maybe occasionally with limitied ammo) and no different than if you had one of each in each hand.
warboss wrote: Is there actual support for "under barrel" weapons in the current rules as opposed to just a second weapon? In blitz it was just another weapon (maybe occasionally with limitied ammo) and no different than if you had one of each in each hand.
Not in any version of HGB, no. They're just additional weapons. Back in older editions, the Size of your Arms Perk limited the Max Size of the weapons you could carry.
warboss wrote: Is there actual support for "under barrel" weapons in the current rules as opposed to just a second weapon? In blitz it was just another weapon (maybe occasionally with limitied ammo) and no different than if you had one of each in each hand.
Not in any version of HGB, no. They're just additional weapons. Back in older editions, the Size of your Arms Perk limited the Max Size of the weapons you could carry.
Ah, ok. And I think I was mispoke about the LA trait above as it should be a lack of the reloadable trait instead for the underbarrel weapons.
On an unrelated note, in this day and age of impending plastic HG, is there a use/market for the old Rafm scale minis? Someone locally is selling some and I'm considering buying them for nostalgia only apparently as I have had no practical use for more gears or even my current gears for years. God help me but I'm considering getting some of those old lead bricks.
I suppose if you get enough of both sides, you could use the old RPG rules for a more detailed skirmish game.
Or paint 'em up appropriately and use them as walkers in a "superscience WW2" game. The Northern and Southern designs would work well as British and German vehicles, respectively (or perhaps German and American).
warboss wrote: On an unrelated note, in this day and age of impending plastic HG, is there a use/market for the old Rafm scale minis? Someone locally is selling some and I'm considering buying them for nostalgia only apparently as I have had no practical use for more gears or even my current gears for years. God help me but I'm considering getting some of those old lead bricks.
Heh. I have some. In case you're interested to know, those are more or less the same size as Tau Battle Suits, so count-as would certainly be doable.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JohnHwangDD wrote: He could use the original Blitz rules for a more detailed skirmish game.
Honestly speaking, in most cases if you want a detailed skirmish game with few minis (say, 5 per side) you're probably better off with 2nd edition Tactical and cherry picking the Blitz rules that are actual improvements over those.
AndrewGPaul wrote:I suppose if you get enough of both sides, you could use the old RPG rules for a more detailed skirmish game.
Or paint 'em up appropriately and use them as walkers in a "superscience WW2" game. The Northern and Southern designs would work well as British and German vehicles, respectively (or perhaps German and American).
Ironically, I did play in a few demo playtest games of exactly that at Gencon that later became Gear Krieg. They iirc used Rafm HG minis with little toy model WW2 soldier helmets over the heads along with 15mm traditional minis like t-34's and tigers.
JohnHwangDD wrote:He could use the original Blitz rules for a more detailed skirmish game.
I'm not sure I could anymore. I'd probably get bored with the complexity.
Albertorius wrote: Heh. I have some. In case you're interested to know, those are more or less the same size as Tau Battle Suits, so count-as would certainly be doable.
Yup, I've seen Aegis' famous (at least in our little circle) pic of the kodiak next to a crisis suit. The scale is a bit of a novelty factor as is the idea of seeing the old proportions and the little bit of asymmetry in those old sculpts (the rocket pods and their decidedly not even spaced divots being a good example). It might be a moot point as the seller seems to have stopped responding which frankly is probably better for my wallet. I've still got a couple of northern gears NIB that I eventually hope to build and another dozen that I admit I probably wont ever unless a magical HG gaming group sprouts in my area.
JohnHwangDD wrote: He could use the original Blitz rules for a more detailed skirmish game.
Honestly speaking, in most cases if you want a detailed skirmish game with few minis (say, 5 per side) you're probably better off with 2nd edition Tactical and cherry picking the Blitz rules that are actual improvements over those.
Sure. Just noting that 1st Blitz isn't nearly as streamlined as one would expect of a similar game for 2016.
JohnHwangDD wrote: He could use the original Blitz rules for a more detailed skirmish game.
Honestly speaking, in most cases if you want a detailed skirmish game with few minis (say, 5 per side) you're probably better off with 2nd edition Tactical and cherry picking the Blitz rules that are actual improvements over those.
Sure. Just noting that 1st Blitz isn't nearly as streamlined as one would expect of a similar game for 2016.
Oh, agreed. Hindsight 20/20 and all that ^_^.
The Pod has updated the KS with pics of the last batch of CEF test pops assembled.
They look decent enough to me, particularly as gaming pieces, and some of the detail looks very crisp.
Two notes on assembly, though:
1) A lot of the "cuts" made to separate the pieces from the sprue look positively enormous. That's not ideal.
2) You guys should probably do some cleaning and mold line removal before sending them to paint, you know
Albertorius wrote: The Pod has updated the KS with pics of the last batch of CEF test pops assembled.
They look decent enough to me, particularly as gaming pieces, and some of the detail looks very crisp.
Two notes on assembly, though:
1) A lot of the "cuts" made to separate the pieces from the sprue look positively enormous. That's not ideal.
2) You guys should probably do some cleaning and mold line removal before sending them to paint, you know
Better or worse than when Palladium assembled their first batch of Robotech minis?
...
Actually better, aside from failure to clean the model.
But OMG, the hands!
Still, smart to lead with the CEF, which is all angular stuff and not popular. The South stuff is going to look pretty bad, I think.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Better or worse than when Palladium assembled their first batch of Robotech minis?
...
Actually better, aside from failure to clean the model.
Heh, heah, there's no contest, really.
But OMG, the hands!
First thing I noticed, yeah. The hands are basically blocks of plastic without any kind of detail. that's one of the reasons I said that they looked nice enough as gaming pieces.
Still, smart to lead with the CEF, which is all angular stuff and not popular. The South stuff is going to look pretty bad, I think.
If the original pics of the southern stuff are anything to go by (and they are: the final pops are from the same mould after all) they will look quite poor besides the current metal minis.
It remains to be seen if that will be good enough for new players.
The final price going forward for the next 10 years will likely be the key. I'm not impressed with the plastic gears (although strangely the caprice stuff looks nice) but the ease of assembly, conversion, and the price could easily overcome the bland static mannequin poses and softer details. It's odd but they've swung full circle back to the old Rafm days in which the gears were also almost universally legs spread appart arms at each side with one or both bent. I guess we were spoiled during the blitz era with things like kneeling, running, and across the chest arms. Some of those admittedly can be done with conversion though which is relatively easy in plastic.
@warboss - if it's broken up in to $25 single-faction starters, it might work. When you compare with GW's simplified models the new HG plastics are a large, clear step backward in design and execution. I mean, just look at the Dark Vengeance Chaos Dreadnought, and you'll see what I mean. These minis are pretty awful.
Conversion and posing is possible, sure, but that's for people who have so many minis that they need more pose variety than what's possible in the box. I don't see that being a major problem when the game itself isn't particularly compelling in the modern era. I mean, if you're playing X-Wing, and you see a HG starter, are you going to be impressed to buy it? How about after you download the rulebook?
Putting my money where my mouth is, I bought more CEF Frames. At 70% off, which I consider to be a fair price for the higher quality of the minis. And yet, I still held back, because those 6-16s and 2-21s are just awful looking.
Well, that's because the Pod still has the same marketing geniuses that have been driving the game itself into the ground since forever.
If they had half a brain, these would be packed and sold as faction starters like Warmachine did when it first came out. An inexpensive impulse buy, with everything a new player needed to get started.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Well, that's because the Pod still has the same marketing geniuses that have been driving the game itself into the ground since forever.
If they had half a brain, these would be packed and sold as faction starters like Warmachine did when it first came out. An inexpensive impulse buy, with everything a new player needed to get started.
But we all know the Pod thinks they know best.
Oh, no, that's not what I meant. There will be faction starters, that's for sure. They'll just cost $65, just like in the KS. Or more, if they actually think of including physical books, rules and the like, instead of a link to the beta book.
I don't think they ever understood the value of a loss-leader (take a look at the prices of their old Blitz core books, for an example).
Oh, no, that's not what I meant. There will be faction starters, that's for sure. They'll just cost $65, just like in the KS. Or more, if they actually think of including physical books, rules and the like, instead of a link to the beta book.
I don't think they ever understood the value of a loss-leader (take a look at the prices of their old Blitz core books, for an example).
My guess from watching various kickstarters (although admittedly not backing many) is that the price will go up regardless even if the contents stay the same when it reaches retail. It'll be two years of increasing prices and with whatever variables the Canadian dollar has had since the precipitous drop late last year might affect their bottom line to the point where they'd want a bigger buffer. They might be fine with the margin when dealing direct now prior to the release (and needing cash up front) but the price may change even if the contents don't when they put another two levels of the traditional retail chain into the mix.
I don't think they need a loss leader. But they do need a cheap and easy way into the game. $65 is awfully high for a single player starter. That's really more like a 2-player intro set.
I wonder if this is just going to be at the same prices as the metal stuff, but with cheaper, lower-quality minis.
That's actually a quite probable development, yes. Even then, I suspect that at least Caprice will end up cheaper... because, really, trying to sell it at the current price hasn't worked out so well.
I see that NuCoal has these really weird (and possibly HUGE!) beast cavalry units, culminating in "Armadillo" beasts the size of a Southern Cobra.
Are these actually any good? Or are they just for funsies? Why do the models even exist?
It's very strange.
IIRC an armadillo beast was around the size of a Gear, yeah. Back in Blitz, when they were first released, Barnaby mounted infantry was Size 5 and used a Walker 6/12 Movement with Imp. Off Road, which gives them interesting options compared with most other movement improvements infantry has acces too. They also had the equivalent to Ram Plates, which make then able to actually charge Gears and other vehicles.
Armadillo Beasts are even bigger (Size 6, the size of a regular Gear), with the same movement options but a tad slower (5/10). They also had Ram Plate equivalents, but theirs were Armor Piercing.
So... yeah, they still are infantry in HGB, so mainly for funsies (infantry in HGB has been historically sidelined a lot, unless they carry mortars, and from the looks of it, they won't be getting better in the new ruleset).
As to why do they even exists, I suspect someone though it would be fun.
Thanks for the info. Not sure if I should be getting either of them, as I'm not sure how I'd use them. HG's got some very strange stuff, that's for sure!
Well, the other shoe dropped. Pics of the assembled final northern sprues:
IMHO, they look serviceable as plastic counters for the game. But, having already HG minis of the other three metal variants (original RAFM, Tactical, Blitz), I would not pay money for those, as the proportions and the details look way off (they look like SD "almost chibi" [actually, uncanny valley] versions of the "true" ones).
But if they manage to sell them cheap, they could serve to kindle some new players' interest, so that's good?
Man, the hex bases are so dated. Especially being slotted for minis that have no tabs. The background is also curious, why they wouldn't go with something more neutral.
As I don't own any Northern minis, I'm not sure, but the head sizes seem overlarge or oversmall - the proportions are not pleasing. Esp with the oversized guns and fat knives.
Also, the molding seems obviously crude and especially toylike - hope they're cheap enough.
____
Okay, so you don't like them. That's nice. Don't buy them if you don't like them. I do like them, although I think I'm going to pick up some extra 32mm round bases to put them on. I'm pretty jazzed to have these delivered this summer!
The hex bases will have to go. To still have slotted hex bases like that makes me wonder if the PoD has a warehouse full of them somewhere and that's why they continue to push them onto us.
The mini's themselves... they look serviceable. The proportions look odd compared to the white metal models. Not bad, mind you, just different. Not a big fan of the "fists", though I understand why they were modeled that way.
The true test will be when I actually get my models and I start to put them together. What kind of glue will I be able to use? How about getting rid of the mold lines? Will an emery board be good enough, or will I have to break out my diamond metal files? How well will they go together? How easy will they be to modify into different poses? That will pretty much be the make or break on these models. Painting shouldn't be an issue.
The breakdown: The models look different from the white metal. Those bases belong in the 90's. The material and how easy it is to work with will be a big factor in the success or failure of converting to plastic. Painting is irrelevant; The best model is ruined by a bad paint job, and the worst model is raised up by a great paint job.
They look ok.. not great but ok. They're serviceable as a cheap plastic entry point into the game which is why they were made. I personally prefer the added flare and more natural styling of the Minimaniak/Xactoboy blitz era metals (NOT the tacticals) personally though. I can never get the pics on KS (whether the email or the actual update url) to open up to a good size but it looks like bigger pics were posted on the dp9 forums (clickable to get even bigger).
The poses are stiff as I previously commented on, the proportions are a bit off (they look like the gears went on a pre-wedding diet and suddenly lost weight), and there are some stylistic changes (like MAC's losing the shoulder stock). All in all, it still comes down IMO to the price. If they're cheap enough, some folks will try it that otherwise would have stayed away. It's tempered praise for sure but it is an achievement for DP9 nonetheless (when they actually start shipping to backers obviously).
Nomeny wrote: Okay, so you don't like them. That's nice.
Don't buy them if you don't like them.
I do like them, although I think I'm going to pick up some extra 32mm round bases to put them on. I'm pretty jazzed to have these delivered this summer!
No, I do not like them; they are objectively bad.
Don't worry, I didn't and I won't.
Bully for you on liking bad minis. But don't count those chickens just yet.
You know some people think the Mantic mini's look cool?
No need to dump on the man just because your taste in mini is different than his.
As an alternate question: How many different ways can you tell us that you're not buying a particular item (KS stuff in this case)? Granted you've only used one way about 30 times so far...
TL;DR: Don't care if you critique them, but we got it, you're not going to buy them. Get off the dead horse.
Considering that most of the pics and discussion are by the game's detractors what group are you trying to lump me in with?
There's plenty of accounting for taste: the man likes the models, let him like them. Doesn't invalidate any technical issues in the models.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nomeny wrote: Given that they're the final test-pops and the Southern gears were the first test-pops, they're supposed to look better.
Likewise, given that they're the same styrene plastic as GW miniatures (and so many others) it's just a case of a sharp knife and some plastic cement.
Took another look at the north picture. They should be fairly easy to convert, which is a plus over the metal models. In theory, a decent modeler should be able to get a fairly diverse army out of it.
For a beginner, the fixed poses would make it easier to get the force assembled.
Mmmpi wrote: Considering that most of the pics and discussion are by the game's detractors what group are you trying to lump me in with?
There's plenty of accounting for taste: the man likes the models, let him like them. Doesn't invalidate any technical issues in the models.
Game detractor... still a fun epithet. I always get encyclopedical knowledge of the games I despise, and form part of the inner playtest circles of every game I hate.
Took another look at the north picture. They should be fairly easy to convert, which is a plus over the metal models. In theory, a decent modeler should be able to get a fairly diverse army out of it.
For a beginner, the fixed poses would make it easier to get the force assembled.
The picture doesn't really show it, but they are supposed to have "ball a,d peg" connections in at least head and shoulders.
I also seem to remember reading that the arms (and maybe legs) were also supposed to have ball joints. Don't know if that's the case here, assuming I'm not remembering wrong.
Mmmpi wrote: Detractor seemed to fit better than "Hater".
I also seem to remember reading that the arms (and maybe legs) were also supposed to have ball joints. Don't know if that's the case here, assuming I'm not remembering wrong.
I...
detractor - one who disparages or belittles the worth of something
Mmmpi wrote: Detractor seemed to fit better than "Hater".
I also seem to remember reading that the arms (and maybe legs) were also supposed to have ball joints. Don't know if that's the case here, assuming I'm not remembering wrong.
I...
detractor - one who disparages or belittles the worth of something
hate
hāt/
verb
verb: hate; 3rd person present: hates; past tense: hated; past participle: hated; gerund or present participle: hating
1.
feel intense or passionate dislike for (someone).
"the boys hate each other"
synonyms: loathe, detest, despise, dislike, abhor, execrate; be repelled by, be unable to bear/stand, find intolerable, recoil from, shrink from;
formalabominate
noun
noun: hate
1.
intense or passionate dislike.
"feelings of hate and revenge"
synonyms: hatred, loathing, detestation, dislike, distaste, abhorrence, abomination, execration, aversion; hostility, enmity, animosity, antipathy, revulsion, disgust, contempt, odium
"feelings of hate"
Let's just say no insult intended, and that I'm far more familiar with the definition of Hate than is probably healthy.
It's not "slandering" or "belittling" something's value, when the comment is accurate.
Those minis are lame. The detail is lacking, the proportions are off, the poses are stiff. This is fact.
They're not "good" or "awesome", or even "bad". They're "serviceable". I don't think anyone in this thread will pretend in good faith that those minis are improved over the metal ones, the most praise I've seen so far is that they're "acceptable as a cheaper substitute". That's some praise there...
I guess the Pod should be praised for delivering, within somewhat reasonnable delays, what they promised to deliver. Yeah, I suppose.
Those minis could have been as good as the metal ones, but that was never DP9's intent. For DP9, "quality" has always taken a back-seat to "cheap" and their dreadful "good enough for the fans", and that's what they've done again.
Every aspect of the final models, the detailing, the proportions, the poses, etc... can be directly traced to that lazy attitude, keep that in mind whenever you believe those minis could have been better made.
The one thing I'm not certain of, is what DP9 wants to do with their plastic line.
I think hoping those plastic gears will serve as a cheap entry is wishful-thinking, I can't see DP9 spending 2 years of effort on what would just be beginner models. That's the line they want to push ahead, not the metal ones.
Why would they want to push an inferior line ? Because it's cheaper. For them, that is.
The KS backers will get their stuff. Well, save for the stuff DP9 decided to cancel, of course. Then we see what DP9 wants for the future...
No, not fact, those are your opinions. Facts would include things like the dimensions of the miniatures, their number, or some other quantifiable thing. Whatever adjectives you choose to use instead of quantifiable facts are strictly subjective.
Now it sucks that these aren't 'awesome' to you. It would be great if we could both enjoy these models, and not only because it would mean that we could both support and enjoy Heavy Gear, but because enjoying things is by definition a good thing.
Maybe you have other things in your life you can enjoy.
Nomeny wrote: No, not fact, those are your opinions. Facts would include things like the dimensions of the miniatures, their number, or some other quantifiable thing. Whatever adjectives you choose to use instead of quantifiable facts are strictly subjective.
Well, not completely. The shown plastic miniatures are objectively worse than the current crop of metal minis: the new minis have less and shallower detailing, stiffer poses, less posing options out of the box, and it looks like they are split in more pieces. All of those are objective, factual statements, absolutely quantifiable. They also happen to be some of the statements Hundson has used.
Of course, opposing those facts are other ones, like the material being plastic instead of metal, the comparative easeness of cutting them up and reposing them and, hopefully, the monetarial cost of the two different versions.
What would be subjective would be choosing which of those facts have more weight for every person.
Yes, completely. For example, you say that the plastics are "objectively worse than the current crop of metal minis" and give some physical characteristics and your opinion of those characteristics. I might, for instance, either prefer or be neutral to the fewer and shallower details. In fact I rather prefer that. I have several companies of Space Marines that I have carefully (and not so carefully) trimmed of all the extraneous skulls and other detailing cruft. I like smooth and sleek.
"Stiffer poses" is just subjective. I'm sorry.
Fewer posing options out the box can be quantified, but I think if you actually count these options you'll find they vary depending on whatever metric you assign per pose.
Likewise that these miniatures are split into more pieces is both objective, and served up with no particular proof (although I agree it's certainly easier to find a metric for pieces than 'poses'), and that is a good thing in my book. Going back to Space Marines again, one of the reasons I like them is that they come in approximately 8-12 pieces.
But hey, let's suppose that these poses are 'stiffer,' that's good because they're plastic, and stiff poses are considerably easier to repose than so-called dynamic poses. It's a reason why GW reversed course from trying to make all their miniatures modular, multi-part miniatures like Space Marines, because reposing miniatures that were sculpted in multiple parts to be posed dynamically only have a few poses they'll actually look good* and the fans generally didn't assemble their miniatures in those poses, lowering their perceived value for onlookers. I'm happy to have those poses rather than more dynamic poses, particularly for both playing pieces and converting. Likewise I agree with M. Dubois' comment about the hands, that they're too small to see comfortably for what are playing pieces. As mentioned, there's a level of detail that's not only superfluous to specifications, but the kind I'd cut off anyways.
*And here 'good' was GW's subjectivity.
Here's the tl;dr: You're still mixing up your facts and values.
Nomeny wrote: Yes, completely. For example, you say that the plastics are "objectively worse than the current crop of metal minis" and give some physical characteristics and your opinion of those characteristics. I might, for instance, either prefer or be neutral to the fewer and shallower details. In fact I rather prefer that. I have several companies of Space Marines that I have carefully (and not so carefully) trimmed of all the extraneous skulls and other detailing cruft. I like smooth and sleek.
Your preference is of no relevance here. You wanted objective, and the detail is objectively shallower and it has less of it in the plastic miniatures shown. Shallower detail is objectively worse detail than crisper detail. Please, stop fiddling with the posts. It's not nice.
"Stiffer poses" is just subjective. I'm sorry.
Still is not. Sorry. The poses are stiffer because the thights are a single piece instead of separate, so the range of motions is shallower, which provokes the stiffness.
Fewer posing options out the box can be quantified, but I think if you actually count these options you'll find they vary depending on whatever metric you assign per pose.
I'll leave the burden of proof to you on that, then.
Likewise that these miniatures are split into more pieces is both objective, and served up with no particular proof (although I agree it's certainly easier to find a metric for pieces than 'poses'), and that is a good thing in my book. Going back to Space Marines again, one of the reasons I like them is that they come in approximately 8-12 pieces.
My opinions on the matter are documented in the Robotech thread.
But hey, let's suppose that these poses are 'stiffer,' that's good because they're plastic, and stiff poses are considerably easier to repose than so-called dynamic poses.
Opinion. Need more proof.
Here's the tl;dr: You're still mixing up your facts and values.
I'd like to keep company that was as enthusiastic as I am about the new Heavy Gear KS stuff. I mean, why spend time discussing it if it's not your thing? Surely there's something you enjoy that you could spend your time and attention on.
Nomeny wrote: I'd like to keep company that was as enthusiastic as I am about the new Heavy Gear KS stuff. I mean, why spend time discussing it if it's not your thing? Surely there's something you enjoy that you could spend your time and attention on.
You're in luck then, such a place exist, I'm sure you'll like it there :
http://dp9forum.com/
Normandy, less detail is worse than more detail; if only because it's easier to cover/remove it than to add it.
In general the amount they put into these models is about the minimum I'd accept as a non-intro figure. The lack of crispness on those details however is a bit more of an issue.
I don't care about the slight differences in proportion. They're all still close enough that I can easily tell what each is supposed to be. If anyone asks, I'll tell them that they're Mk II hunters (ect)
Like my conversation earlier, I prefer objective: not "good" or "bad", but "like and dislike". But when someone points out the undeniable fact about something, something that can be easily shown (difference in proportion), you really can't argue against it.
Nomeny wrote: No, not fact, those are your opinions. Facts would include things like the dimensions of the miniatures, their number, or some other quantifiable thing. Whatever adjectives you choose to use instead of quantifiable facts are strictly subjective.
Now it sucks that these aren't 'awesome' to you. It would be great if we could both enjoy these models, and not only because it would mean that we could both support and enjoy Heavy Gear, but because enjoying things is by definition a good thing.
Maybe you have other things in your life you can enjoy.
It sucks that your life is spent white knighting for the Pod.
The fact is that the plastic models are worse. If you took off your rose-tinted glasses and looked at the hands, you would have to conclude it an absolute objective fact that the metal hands look more like "hands" than the plastic ones. Similarly, it is an absolute fact that the metal models are a better match to the reference art than the plastic models. It is absolute fact that the metal models reproduce details (with undercuts!) far better than the plastic ones. It is absolute fact that the plastic models were sculpted with very stiff poses to simplify tooling, and that it impacts posing compared to the metal models.
If you want to enjoy badly-done models, that's fine for you. But pretending that the plastics are anywhere near as good as the metals is untrue. The plastics are a clear step downward in accuracy compared to the reference art, and they are a clear step back in terms of detailing and design. They are flat out not as good. And if you want to quantify it, we can look at the amount of undercutting that is present on each model. We can count the number of planes that form each surface. From a numerical quantitiative standpoint, the metals are unquestionably superior. Again, it's fine for you to like bad things. But don't weasel around the fact that the models are objectively worse by any measurement.
While I disagree about the number of planes = quality measuring stick, the rest is on the money.
A decently skilled converter/painter should be able to do well with these regardless, but that leaves the more casual hobbyists in the lurch.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Granted, at 2.05 a model, (basic price per model for a four army "starter set"), I'm not really feeling that big of a pinch.
For me, my preference depends on my mood, activity level, and if I'm eating something with it. If I'm sitting down for a large meal, I can definitely do with a heavy beer like a stout but if I'm just sipping then I prefer something lighter like a pale lager (Corona for instance). Was that a mobile phone autocorrect or a Freudian slip?
I think the main problem I'm going to have with these (apart from the lego-like hands) is that they will look serviceable enough on their own but are going to look super weird next to any of the metals I purchased previously.
Maybe that's their cunning plan - get you to buy the plastics, then replace the plastics with metals..
Siygess wrote: I think the main problem I'm going to have with these (apart from the lego-like hands) is that they will look serviceable enough on their own but are going to look super weird next to any of the metals I purchased previously.
Maybe that's their cunning plan - get you to buy the plastics, then replace the plastics with metals..
If you wanna avoid that, just go for CEF and Caprice and go all plastics plus resin HTs. Plastics are mostly good enough, and particularly in the case of Caprice it's not like you can afford the metals anyways
Siygess wrote: I think the main problem I'm going to have with these (apart from the lego-like hands) is that they will look serviceable enough on their own but are going to look super weird next to any of the metals I purchased previously.
Super weird may be a touch strong as a description. I'd say they're closer to the blitz metals than the old tacticals and even those old tacticals don't look super weird next to them (but do admittedly look a bit off). The plastics seem like a midway point between the two due to the compromises necessary to get them into plastic using the mould tech DP9 chose.
Siygess wrote: I think the main problem I'm going to have with these (apart from the lego-like hands) is that they will look serviceable enough on their own but are going to look super weird next to any of the metals I purchased previously.
Maybe that's their cunning plan - get you to buy the plastics, then replace the plastics with metals..
If you wanna avoid that, just go for CEF and Caprice and go all plastics plus resin HTs. Plastics are mostly good enough, and particularly in the case of Caprice it's not like you can afford the metals anyways
Yeah, I can see a lot of people wanting Caprice out of this, as they won't have them and the Caprice models were the easiest to convert over.
But CEF? What if you already have a number of CEF models?!? The uncanny valley effect isn't as pronounced as North, to say nothing of South, but I think it's still there.
Definitely, the plastics are for new players. No issue with previous models or gear/weapon scale. What's not clear is whether the metals will still be available after the KS. I'm thinking the metals get clearanced and disappear in favor of the plastics going forward. The timeline for that is not clear, but it's what every other conversion from metal to plastic has done. This is why I've been buying clearance metal lately.
Oh, hey, this is neat: Apparently there's an opponent-finding app getting released called Rumbl, and you can sign up for the beta before the June 1st soft release. It's got Heavy Gear listed as one of the games for finding and challenging opponents.
The metals should disappear, at some point. That's just the way the industry is going. Hell, even plastics are probably going to disappear, at least once we've all got a 3D printer in our basement. The thing is, the metals should disappear because they're being replaced by better (in every way!) alternatives, not just because of an arbitrary sales push.
These plastics - and thus the game - will live or die on the price. Same price as metal? Heavy Gear dies. Actually cheaper? Game's got a chance of coming back, if things are handled properly going forward. And let's not kid ourselves that it doesn't require a comeback. There is no Heavy Gear right now. Right now, there's old fans who remember it fondly. These plastics COULD bring the game back. Could. Might. Dare I say hopefully without getting branded a troll again?
After price, the next hurdle will be being able to buy the damn things.
Quite frankly, I think it's more than just price. I see the same HG stuff at clearance prices of $5 per Gear just sitting on eBay and Amazon. Some of the stuff is even lower, than when I bought, and it's still sitting. If you think price is the key, just how cheap do you think the per-model prices need to be? $4 per Gear? $3? Can't be $2, because that's a breakeven number.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Quite frankly, I think it's more than just price. I see the same HG stuff at clearance prices of $5 per Gear just sitting on eBay and Amazon. Some of the stuff is even lower, than when I bought, and it's still sitting. If you think price is the key, just how cheap do you think the per-model prices need to be? $4 per Gear? $3? Can't be $2, because that's a breakeven number.
While I don't dispute your quoted prices (most everything I bought during the post L&L era when I came back to HG was 40-75% off MSRP), I would point out that the new material, easier to assemble and convert models, and new first time in 20 years not just tweaked rules are supposed to increase demand. I think $5 per plastic gear is a very reasonable MSRP for plastics sold in squads of 4 per box (little less for each scout, more for fire support gears) but I suspect the real MSRP will probably be about 30% higher and that will be the online discount price. If I wasn't a jaded malcontent (or whatever the term earlier in the thread being bandied about was), either one would be fair for what you're getting assuming the rules stay a free pdf.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Quite frankly, I think it's more than just price. I see the same HG stuff at clearance prices of $5 per Gear just sitting on eBay and Amazon. Some of the stuff is even lower, than when I bought, and it's still sitting. If you think price is the key, just how cheap do you think the per-model prices need to be? $4 per Gear? $3? Can't be $2, because that's a breakeven number.
I suppose that's the entire crux of this thread, or at least was originally. "Why aren't you playing this game? Money? Distribution? Rules? Do you even know what Heavy Gear is?"
$3 a gear (more in Canada, I bet! ) isn't a magic cure-all. But the plastics aren't stellar. As molds, they're not going to win awards, they don't look nearly as good as the competition out there these days, so they do need to be cheap. And I mean actually cheap, not "this price is because of...." cheap, and just cost the same as the metals.
Maybe it's grandiose to say cheap plastics will save the game - but expensive ones WILL be the coffin nail. Good rules don't really matter, not when they make you no money anyway and can be played with the vast collections that already exist. (Or, frankly, any kind of counter you want.) I don't know if they're ever going to make a proper rulebook again, even GW seems to be going away from that. (They should, HG books were always amazing.) But for the moment, the rules, I feel (perhaps incorrectly) are secondary to getting people to actually give the company their money.
If the prices stay as high as they are today, yeah, the game is dead. No new customer is going to pay $10 per plastic Gear that is markedly inferior to the 40k3E Space Marines that were produced nearly 2 decades ago. They might pay $5, but my sense is that is still too high based on what I see in the market today. I think the starter bundle needs to be cheap enough that it becomes an impulse buy, something that nobody would regret if it turned out badly.
Assuming you can get the product in people's hands, at that point it depends on the rules. Based on experiences with prior rules by the Pod, well, that's not particularly encouraging.
So yeah, a "cheap enough" model price will be a necessary condition, but it won't be sufficient one to guarantee success.
It's not about "cheap enough" but whether people feel like they're getting value. People will pay any amount if they feel like they're getting value for their money, and reducing the price without considering value is pointless; if there's no value then no price is cheap enough.
I think that Heavy Gear has a considerable value-proposition, especially with all those former Battletech players and whatnot out there. I personally prefer the way it plays t BT or CAV. So the issue isn't going to be whether the game is being sold at a sufficiently low price, but whether people can be exposed to it, both the fluff and the gameplay. That's going to be the tricky part, but I think GW has proven that there's no short-cuts to good old fashioned gaming evangelism and playing demo games to move a product.
Hm. Value may in fact be a better way of looking at it. But the way I see it, that value has to come from cheapness.
Fifteen years ago, these plastics would have been competitive. Twenty years ago, they would have been, if not revolutionary, at least extremely competitive. Today though, they really aren't. They are certainly serviceable and I personally believe exactly what Heavy Gear needs at the moment, but they won't ever get held up as great designs or molds. Maybe great production, that remains to be seen. But they're not impressive, plunked down next to what's out there these days.
And that's okay! They don't need to be. But since they aren't, they do have to be cheaper than the other guys. The rules are free. They can be bulletproof and revolutionize tabletop wargaming - but they won't save Heavy Gear or help the Pod at all. The fluff and worldbuilding can help, but it all comes down to how much money they can make.
I agree. While people will buy anything they see value in, that value has to outweigh the cost involved.
Personally I prefer the simplified miniatures, as there's plenty of overly busy or fancy miniatures out there, and not having to trim all the fancy cruft off them is great (currently drilling out suckers on Shadows of Brimstone tentacles and I have to keep reminding myself I chose them because they were cheap) so there's a cost-savings on time there. I feel like they'll paint up nicely with a bright, anime-style paint-job.
The value, I think, will come from the mixture of the game, the miniatures, and the people bringing new blood into the game. I think that third part tends to be ignored by TTG makers despite these games being, at their most essential, about the people you're playing with more than the knick-knacks or imaginary worlds involved. Having the knick-knacks available helps though, because they're something people can own. They're the 'buy-in.'
The quality/price brings another problem. From what I understand, HG is a rather low model game. More than infinity, but less than Warmachine, or 40K. If the models are priced at, say $20 for a box of 5 with all the trimmings (weapons, upgrade options, ect.), and the average player only needs three boxes to make a competitive army, than pod only made 30ish dollars off the deal. And that's before their expenses.
Assuming that the old guard aren't going to be buying these (they already have 1+ armies TYVM), and assuming the Pod *ONLY* needs 1,000,000 US to keep the doors open each year, it means that they need to attract over 33,000 new players a year, or have factions likeable enough to inspire people to buy a combined total of 33,000 *ARMIES* (not boxes).
*This assumes that Pod only needs 1,000,000 and that people are buying their starter gears from someone other than the Pod. Also, that the Pod makes 50% of the sticker price on each box before expenses.
Honestly, I think the Pod is going to live, or die on the rules. They need to be simple enough to attract people, and deep enough to keep them interested. If the rules work, people will stay for the minis. The current ones are about "starter box" quality, and the metals are really good. They should keep the KS box as a starter, aka a North/South 2-player box, and starter army boxes for each faction, and keep the metals for everything else, until they get enough exp. with plastics to make competitive models.
Use the cheaper plastics to lure people to what will hopefully be good rules. Once in, the more expensive higher detailed metals will be more interesting, and will get more sales.
But it all depends on the rules.
Kinda got off on a side tangent from my main point. Pod needs good rules to get people in, because cheap models by themselves won't help. AKA good rules keep players.
Assuming that the old guard aren't going to be buying these (they already have 1+ armies TYVM), and assuming the Pod *ONLY* needs 1,000,000 US to keep the doors open each year, it means that they need to attract over 33,000 new players a year, or have factions likeable enough to inspire people to buy a combined total of 33,000 *ARMIES* (not boxes).
Your overall point is correct but I'm quite certain you are vastly overestimating DP9's expenses.
The Pod is what? 2 guys? $200k USD would be enough to keep them fed.
Plus, it's not like they don't have boatloads of revenue coming in from Jovian Chronicles, Tribe 8, Gear Krieg and other stuff to keep them fat and happy.
JohnHwangDD wrote: The Pod is what? 2 guys? $200k USD would be enough to keep them fed.
Plus, it's not like they don't have boatloads of revenue coming in from Jovian Chronicles, Tribe 8, Gear Krieg and other stuff to keep them fat and happy.
While I agree with the first part, I'm not sure if you're serious about the last part. Could you clarify that?
Assuming that the old guard aren't going to be buying these (they already have 1+ armies TYVM), and assuming the Pod *ONLY* needs 1,000,000 US to keep the doors open each year, it means that they need to attract over 33,000 new players a year, or have factions likeable enough to inspire people to buy a combined total of 33,000 *ARMIES* (not boxes).
Your overall point is correct but I'm quite certain you are vastly overestimating DP9's expenses.
Agreed. Two owner/operators plus a small office/manufacturing facility isn't a million dollar budget operation.
Read somewhere that the average small business makes one million before expenses, with the owner taking home something like 30-60k of it as profit.
Even assuming $500,000 (200K feels WAY too low), they still have to break 17K new customers a year to break even. How much do they even sell each year?
From the sounds of things, they don't have ANY revenue coming in from JC, T8, or GK. Those games are functionally dead. It's the main reason I didn't buy any of the figs when the JC stuff was put back on the market. I can't get HG games, and it's supported. When the hell am I going to find a JC player?
Actually, it would be more than 33K/17k. I forgot taxes...
Mmmpi wrote: From the sounds of things, they don't have ANY revenue coming in from JC, T8, or GK. Those games are functionally dead.
Not so! Did not the Pod just relaunch JC in some flavor? They had money to develop those things for JC, so JC must be a successful and self-sustaining line not to require KS funding. Really, I don't know why the Pod even bothers with HG when their other games are so successful.
Mmmpi wrote: From the sounds of things, they don't have ANY revenue coming in from JC, T8, or GK. Those games are functionally dead.
Not so! Did not the Pod just relaunch JC in some flavor? They had money to develop those things for JC, so JC must be a successful and self-sustaining line not to require KS funding. Really, I don't know why the Pod even bothers with HG when their other games are so successful.
Again... are you joking or serious? I'd give both equal odds so I'm hesitant to respond by guessing.
I think he's being sarcastic. The last time the Pod release JC stuff a few months ago, they said it was a limited release, which they would do occasionally. Seems demand was high enough for them to put back into production, bot not high enough to keep in constant circulation.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Forget I said anything. Just took another look at the online store, and the have Non-HG stuff for sale.
Again... are you joking or serious? I'd give both equal odds so I'm hesitant to respond by guessing.
I'm assuming sarcasm in this case.
The Pod's yearly gross income is unknown at this point, but I'd put my guess at around 150-200k, and that's the generous estimation.
Memory is hazy, since it's been literally years, but I've been told their best year, at the height of Blitz, sometimes around NuCoal's release, was 350-400k. Their income and activity has dropped significantly since.
Mmmpi wrote: I think he's being sarcastic. The last time the Pod release JC stuff a few months ago, they said it was a limited release, which they would do occasionally. Seems demand was high enough for them to put back into production, bot not high enough to keep in constant circulation.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Forget I said anything. Just took another look at the online store, and the have Non-HG stuff for sale.
He might be... but he occasionally posts some whoppers as well. They only trot out the non-HGB stuff once every season or two on a rotating schedule because the lines haven't had any new products for years (decade+) and weren't profitable enough to keep in stock year round... so they just make just what is preordered when it is trotted out plus maybe a few extra/leftovers. This has recently changed a bit though as I've seen some new JC stuff.
Mmmpi wrote: From the sounds of things, they don't have ANY revenue coming in from JC, T8, or GK. Those games are functionally dead.
Not so! Did not the Pod just relaunch JC in some flavor? They had money to develop those things for JC, so JC must be a successful and self-sustaining line not to require KS funding. Really, I don't know why the Pod even bothers with HG when their other games are so successful.
Again... are you joking or serious?
Yes, I am.
As an aside, in my experience, different people may have wildly different definition of "success", and thus, may be held to wildly different standards. We praise a 1-year-old for not pooping their pants, and look askance at an adult when they do so. It is my belief that certain companies may exist at a level of "success" akin to that not-poopy toddler.
Well, Heavy Gear's in an oddly good position to compare to, er, pants.
Heavy Gear Assault we can praise for being able to pay their workers, and success will be defined by the game existing at all. Likewise the RPG is in an "it exists or it doesn't" metric at the moment.
The tabletopgame proper has the dubious glory of higher expectations.
To your point, Mmmpi, I agree totally, and I think that's what makes this an interesting situation. If the models are too expensive, the rules don't matter. If the rules suck, the price doesn't matter. And then if the rules are good and the price is right, STILL neither of those will matter if enough new people don't stay with the game to make a new community. Because once you take away from the KS the veterans who bought dozens of cases, the people who were vaguely interested but will never make another purchase, the KS-fans who back everything, people who ONLY play this game, and probably some more odds and ends, the number of people who are using the KS as an avenue to start a "career" in the hobby is probably not that large. That is, people who will make more purchases. The vets don't need anything new, and if gamers aren't in any other circles, they can't get their X-Wing buddies to try Heavy Gear - because they don't have any. So even once the price and the rules - whichever is the more important, they are both going to work together - even once those things are sorted and all perfect, it's still an uphill battle.
But hopefully the price and rules will reduce the grade of that hill.
The King has a different torso completely - notice the huge blocks in front of the armpits? And the arms are different - notice the different spike arrangement?
Thanks for the pointers. I'll have to take a close look at the sprues as well since I forgot they were posted. It's just that the King doesn't look that much bigger compared with the normal Cobra whereas the blitz versions are noticeably bigger (I have 4 and 10 to compare respectively in my collection).
I mentioned last week that I might be getting some Rafm HG minis. That purchase went through but to quote a particular famous newscaster...
I'm pretty sure I now have roughly double what I had in the 90's... and I have no clue what possessed me into getting them besides nostalgia! lol. I might be able to play the new rules in 1/87 scale with that amount. There were a couple though that I need help with identifying.
From L to R: Armored Jager, Blitz Jager? (not sure about the dohicky on his left shoulder mount), ???, Sniper Chameleon (can't recall the variant's name at the moment), ????, Cheetah
Sorry about the Palladium Robotech Once a Year Update quality pics but I'll take better ones latter tonight hopefully.
Anyhow, nice expansion to the collection there. I look forward to seeing it all together.
I'm still planning on selling my Southern blitz scale army.. when I get around to photographing it all for sale. The above is all the original bigger Rafm scale... and I have no legitimate reason as to why I bought the latter given the plans for the former. Not my pic but here's a comparison of the two scales.
warboss wrote: I'm pretty sure I now have roughly double what I had in the 90's... and I have no clue what possessed me into getting them besides nostalgia! lol. I might be able to play the new rules in 1/87 scale with that amount. There were a couple though that I need help with identifying.
From L to R: Armored Jager, Blitz Jager? (not sure about the dohicky on his left shoulder mount), ???, Sniper Chameleon (can't recall the variant's name at the moment), ????, Cheetah
Armored Jäger, Blitz Jäger (but yes, the shoulder ATM looks like "aftermarket"), Spitting Mamba, Black Claw (It's actually the laser sniper variant of the Black Cat), Fire Jaguar, Cheetah.
Hope that helps!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
warboss wrote: I'm still planning on selling my Southern blitz scale army.. when I get around to photographing it all for sale. The above is all the original bigger Rafm scale... and I have no legitimate reason as to why I bought the latter given the plans for the former. Not my pic but here's a comparison of the two scales.[/img]
Hey, if you end up not wanting it after all, call me (although I'm planning on unloading a lot of Blitz stuff, too XD).
From L to R: Armored Jager, Blitz Jager? (not sure about the dohicky on his left shoulder mount), ???, Sniper Chameleon (can't recall the variant's name at the moment), ????, Cheetah
Armored Jäger, Blitz Jäger (but yes, the shoulder ATM looks like "aftermarket"), Spitting Mamba, Black Claw (It's actually the laser sniper variant of the Black Cat), Fire Jaguar, Cheetah.
Hope that helps!
It does! I mistyped when I said chameleon (damn southern army on my mind!) but I didn't know the others. The fire jaguar has an odd variant head. I'll have to see if that is in the rpg recognition manuals I have; it's kind of like an MP style head with a glass window in front instead of the typical lens cluster.
Hey, if you end up not wanting it after all, call me (although I'm planning on unloading a lot of Blitz stuff, too XD).
Also, I love Warmaster minis ^_^
I might end up selling some of them but likely US international shipping may make them horribly expensive to get to you. I'm just not sure what I'll do. When I got back into blitz, it was in a similar type of "holy gak! what did I just buy because of the discount?!?" situation.
I don't unfortuantely have a hunter commando in the lot and that was one of my favorites from the era. Pretty much all the rest of my favs are in there though.
warboss wrote: It does! I mistyped when I said chameleon (damn southern army on my mind!) but I didn't know the others. The fire jaguar has an odd variant head. I'll have to see if that is in the rpg recognition manuals I have; it's kind of like an MP style head with a glass window in front instead of the typical lens cluster.
Yeah, it's on the northern vehicles compendium (although with the regular northern square RPs, because that's 2nd edition). In the fluff it was a field refit done due to a lack of fast close support units for Jaguar teams during the WotA. The face shield was added to protect the head's sensors from the RPs backblast.
I might end up selling some of them but likely US international shipping may make them horribly expensive to get to you. I'm just not sure what I'll do. When I got back into blitz, it was in a similar type of "holy gak! what did I just buy because of the discount?!?" situation.
I don't unfortuantely have a hunter commando in the lot and that was one of my favorites from the era. Pretty much all the rest of my favs are in there though.
Anyhow, nice expansion to the collection there. I look forward to seeing it all together.
I'm still planning on selling my Southern blitz scale army.. when I get around to photographing it all for sale.
The above is all the original bigger Rafm scale... and I have no legitimate reason as to why I bought the latter given the plans for the former.
OK, fair enough.
Earlier, I thought I was a bit nuts for spending as much as I did on an effectively dead game. You win. In spades.
Not that one needs a "legitimate reason" for this stuff - it's for fun. And if you like 1/87 RAFM over 1/144 Blitz, far be it for anyone to say otherwise.
Well I've caught up with 40 pages of thread and was rewarded with the picture of a big stash of RAFM 1/87th scale Gears that made me very envious, but then I remembered I have no investment in 1/87th, and let out a sigh of relief.
As an outside observer, being largely an Old BattleTech grognard and Ogre/GEV fan, I can see both sides of the debate that has been going on here between those who have been burned from being over involved emotionally with an IP they don't own. Been there myself as a former FASA free-lance. I got better.
So, while I hope DP9 do well with the Heavy Gear Kickstarter, I'll be honest and say I'm only in it for the miniatures I want: Caprice and CEF mostly, as everything else is destined for my bits box as conversion fodder.
Paint it Pink wrote: Well I've caught up with 40 pages of thread and was rewarded with the picture of a big stash of RAFM 1/87th scale Gears that made me very envious, but then I remembered I have no investment in 1/87th, and let out a sigh of relief.
As an outside observer, being largely an Old BattleTech grognard and Ogre/GEV fan, I can see both sides of the debate that has been going on here between those who have been burned from being over involved emotionally with an IP they don't own. Been there myself as a former FASA free-lance. I got better.
So, while I hope DP9 do well with the Heavy Gear Kickstarter, I'll be honest and say I'm only in it for the miniatures I want: Caprice and CEF mostly, as everything else is destined for my bits box as conversion fodder.
Thank you for an entertaining thread.
Hey, welcome back! And, yeah, that's probably the best attitude to take with regards to all this (especially given that IMO the Caprice stuff transitioned the best over into plastic). The 1/87 stuff is nice but nostalgia definitely plays into it. I think I like the slightly more chibi Blitz Xactoboy sculpts the most out of all the various ranges (RAFM, Tacticals, Blitz, Plastic).
Earlier, I thought I was a bit nuts for spending as much as I did on an effectively dead game. You win. In spades.
Not that one needs a "legitimate reason" for this stuff - it's for fun. And if you like 1/87 RAFM over 1/144 Blitz, far be it for anyone to say otherwise.
I'm not sure if that last part is the case. As I mentioned above in response to Ashley's post, I actually prefer the Blitz era styling more and this purchase really was out of nostalgia. There definitely is some rose colored glasses tinting effect going on as my recent daily gallery searches of RAFM stuff that I haven't looked at much in 20 years reveals some very static poses, odd proportions for those used to blitz now, and some classic minor asymetry typical of 1990's hand sculpted minis. It's certainly not as bad/jarring as looking at Rogue Trader era 40k stuff from 4-8 earlier though. I'm a bit torn in the sense that I want to crack open all those blisters to examine the parts up close in person at different angles but doing so will devalue them if I decide to resell parts of the lot. It's 1980's Star Wars toys conundrum all over again!
I won't flood the thread with more somewhat off topic posts about my RAFM stuff after this post but will instead put some better pics and thoughts over on my long dead HG painting/modelling thread and my zombie blog later today.
RAFM's HG stuff is definitely on topic here, so go ahead and post. Heck, you could even talk about Tactical, if others were so inclined. About the only thing that doesn't really belong in this thread is KS-related stuff... because there's a separate KS-specific thread for that.
Also, nothing wrong with a nostalgia purchase. It's all good.
Considering posting in the KS specific thread is akin to thread necro after all those months, I'd say that a single catch all thread for all aspects of Heavy Gear from the KS to the OOP works to the video game is probably fine. It's not like there are too many folks posting in the thread. I am updating my previous thread though a bit over in P&M linked above.
I'd say the War for Terra Nova kick-started is relevant to a thread about why more people aren't aware of Heavy Gear. I'd think the lack of a plastic starter set has held Heavy Gear back in past years.
warboss wrote: Considering posting in the KS specific thread is akin to thread necro after all those months,
I'd say that a single catch all thread for all aspects of Heavy Gear from the KS to the OOP works to the video game is probably fine.
It's not like there are too many folks posting in the thread. I am updating my previous thread though a bit over in P&M linked above.
Well, I just posted in it, so it's not buried anymore, and people can move the KS-specific talk over there.
I'd agree a single thread would be fine, except that the KS-specific sub-thread already exists and is the "correct" place for such discussion. At least, until such time that the KS thread should be locked. If you guys want that thread locked to focus on this one, please alert the Mods accordingly and request that the KS thread be permanently closed. Thanks.
New gameplay video from pretty much the only channel covering the game on youtube so far. The DP9 staff painter visited the GMG stuidos and they played an interpolar war game using the current version of the living rulebook.
Some striders, vehicles, and infantry instead of just the typical pure gears.
Because they're both according to the name but only one is allowed by the rules? They probably chose strider's because they better fit the silhouette profile mechanic they're using for the models and it also allows them more hit points. Iirc gears are limited to 6(aka 4/2 for the hunter iirc) whereas striders get more. This is without looking at the rules in a long time so salt as needed in case that changed last year. Let's be realistic... they functionally are striders but they shoehorned the gundams into the game as gear evolutions for a sales boost.
For those in the know, is that Mason in the GMG video I posted above? He's the only staff painter that I recall (other than a short stint with Angel Giraldez for the southern book) but I'm not really current with possible changes.
Albertorius wrote: I don't think so. IIRC, they got a local painter for the latest north stuff, like the northern gearstrider.
Ah, ok, thanks. For those interested, there is a kickstarter going on with some sort of connection with DP9 that looks to potentially have some nice 10mm terrain. The $75 buy in for each set of terrain seems a bit too good to be true and not sustainable at retail but here's the link regardless. Caveat Emptor.
If you sucker... I mean recruit! a third person to check it out you could recoup some of your money back by selling off the third faction (north, south, cef). The last price of the plastic starter is a good value for the number of models you get (even accounting for some shallower detail and on or two less gears than initially promised). If you try it out later this year, don't forgot to post your thoughts here in thread or (better yet) as a full battle report thread.
edit: that is assuming you're talking about the upcoming plastic one as John pointed out below
sqir666 wrote: I've been eyeing Heavy Gear Blitz for a few years and thanks to a friend, I got talked into getting the 2 player set.
Sadly, though it seems that mecha games in my area don't seem to have a large following so people to play against are gonna be few and far between.
Which "2-player set" did you get? The current Blitz North v South set of metal models? Or the Kickstarter preorder of plastic stuff to be delivered at some future date? Really, you can get some killer deals with a couple of starters if you are patient on eBay.
Mecha games are definitely down, but it's not like you and your friend won't have fun with what you've got. I prefer to look at these small skirmish games as akin to a board game, where you buy a little stuff and just play with it.
It was the metal North vs. South set, as I lacked the funds when the KS was live.
Sadly the friend that talked me into it HGB is a state away, but I'm currently trying to recruit a local friend into playing.
I personally love most skirmish games as I play them almost exclusively these days, as I found that I just don't have time to play a game that lasts for 4 hours and devolves into kill 'em all missions.
sqir666 wrote: It was the metal North vs. South set, as I lacked the funds when the KS was live.
Sadly the friend that talked me into it HGB is a state away, but I'm currently trying to recruit a local friend into playing.
I personally love most skirmish games as I play them almost exclusively these days, as I found that I just don't have time to play a game that lasts for 4 hours and devolves into kill 'em all missions.
Ironically, the mission variety is one thing HG has traditionally been quite good at with good possibilites of games being won by maneuver and electronic warfare instead of just killing. As for the metal minis, you can at least take solace in that you've probably got the better quality minis (albeit at a higher price) compared with the plastics. Hopefully someone locally will pick up the starter at retail and you'll have someone to try out the rules with. I think most of us (I know I am) are in that same boat. For nostalgia, I decided to pick up some original larger scale RAFM minis and I'm working on another set of small armies in a different scale for a game I can't get anyone to play using the normal scale. YMMV.
I sincerely hope that this was your eBay buy, because that would be an awesome start. Both North & South Starter sets giving 20-ish gears for only $60 total.
JohnHwangDD wrote: I sincerely hope that this was your eBay buy, because that would be an awesome start. Both North & South Starter sets giving 20-ish gears for only $60 total.
Man, I didn't even see that at all.
Instead I found this and ended up getting it.http://www.ebay.com/itm/162086789778 But I am a sucker for metal models.
If there is a ton of mission variety that will make me very happy, as I need mission variety to keep me interested in a game.
You did just fine. That Southern force is a great start, with a full range of General, Recon, Strike & double Support. And you've got the rules in the big box. Sure, it's slightly more, but it's also more models.
Did you get a Northern Starter force as well? Or you're going to split that big pile roughly in half to count as Northern?
Naw, I didn't get anything Northern except what came in the 2 player set as my local friend I'm trying to recruit into this game said he wanted to get Black Talons.
Yeah, it hope it does work as I'm pretty excited to play this game as it looks like it will be a neat distraction from Infinity. That and I miss mecha games as Battletech and another kickstarter which shall not named have died off in my area.
Indeed. Speaking of HG, and talking about "future-proofing" and such, I could use advice on how to configure my CEF Frames. The Southern stuff appears to be largely mono-build, based on iconic standard weapon loadouts. But the CEF stuff has a lot more options, such as whether to equip with Jump Jets and so forth.
I currently own:
2x 6-16 basic frame
2x 2-21 basic frame
2x 2-25 recon frame
3x 2-19 heavy frame
That I can't help you with. I've never even faced the CEF in any game ever let alone tried to build a force of them.
On a similar note, if anyone knows the purpose of infantry in the new rules (whether normal human or GREL), feel free to share some ideas as I'm not sure. In previous editions, they were cheap and easy spotters/FO'ers which helped you cinch some mission objectives for cheap points. I'm not sure they can do that now with the new rules and 12" spotting distance standard and such but admittedly I just quickly skimmed the rules for the first time in over a year.
Honestly, I would assemble most of those frames as Recon Frames as they are the only spotters that CEF seems to get in it's force list. But take my advice with a huge grain of salt.
Warboss, I've been wondering the exact same thing from the LRB. They don't seem able to really do much at all, at least on paper, except for the fact that they're super cheap compared to everything else.
I'll have to take a look on the official forums to see if that was brought up as well as take a bit closer look at the rules to see what they can do. I've got infantry both in my RAFM scale stuff as well as in Blitz scale that I'm curious if are worth using anymore.
Regarding infantry, it's like Epic Armageddon where unless you're shooting them with dedicated Anti-Infantry weapons you're not going to do much damage. Likewise their ability to enter buildings, fit through small gaps in terrain, and always take shots to their front arc means they're going to do what Infantry do, which is hold ground.
Nomeny wrote: Regarding infantry, it's like Epic Armageddon where unless you're shooting them with dedicated Anti-Infantry weapons you're not going to do much damage. Likewise their ability to enter buildings, fit through small gaps in terrain, and always take shots to their front arc means they're going to do what Infantry do, which is hold ground.
They're a bit tougher than I first imagined due to the 1 damage max per shot rule if the weapon doesn't have AI. I did reread the spotting rules and it doesn't look as bad as I initially thought either. From my reading, even simple low tech infantry can spot and FO targets across the map as the 12" default sensor lock rule only applies to targets behind cover. So even if something is all the way across the table partially behind some cover, they can get spotted and FO'ed on the cheap by infantry. I'm trying to figure out if adding a small recon gear support option is better for a FS squad or if adding some much cheaper (but admittedly more limited) recon infantry support is.
Automatically Appended Next Post: On a side note, folks (notably Albertorius whose anime and manga shelves I'm now familiar with!) have helped me in the past with scale comparison pics so I figured I'd post this size comparison between similar Rafm and current metal Blitz scale models here. From L to R: cheetah scout, jager/hunter trooper, jaguar elite, and grizzly fire support gears. I don't own any gearstriders though nor any normal striders unfortunately.
It turns out my initial opinion on infantry being relatively useless for FO's was correct. I latter read the "lock" rules that said you didn't have to be within sensor range to have a lock and extended that to FO's mistakenly like in previous blitz. Unfortunately:
14.3 FORWARD OBSERVATION (ACTION): To Forward Observe, the model must be either Braced or at Combat speed. The target of the Forward Observation action must be within the Sensor Range of the Observer.
That pretty much kills the usefulness of recon infantry that isn't parachuting in for FO'ing since they have to be within 12" optimal everything that kills infantry weapon range to FO. I suppose you parachute them in on a suicide mission but that seems a waste of 5pts per base. I suppose you can use active sensors to boost that to a more reasonable 24" (but I'll have to double check that since it seems odd... "boosting sensors" for a bunch of eyes... I suppose that means they took out binoculars?) and have them lit up for shooting from most of the enemy army. I suppose a 4pt "bait" unit that keeps flipping on giant "shoot me!" signs might be an alternate use as well to suck up enemy actions.
)
