You'll probably find the "newest" ones in the battle report subforum of the official forums. Given that my several years old blitz comic book style "Tales from Terra Nova!" report is still on their front page, it's not a particularly busy place. For living rulebook game report videos, you've pretty much just got Ash. The civilian gamer channel has a ton of old blitz ones but they seem to be waiting out what shakes out the other end just like the rest of us. Ease of play and popularity are two important things out of many that this multiyear project is supposed to address.
Hopefully! If not, that would explain the "accuracy" of some of my FO's in the past.
And on a personal hobby note, my RAFM fire support squad is converted and complete (minus the bases and possibly a non-grizzly model depending on what I do with the Kodiak).
I have to say I thought the Kodiak would have been bigger than the others. I guess I'm used to the blitz era relative class sizes whereas the RAFM stuff is from the old RPG stats.
JohnHwangDD wrote:They do look rather nice after all these years, but I'm going to stick with my 1/144 stuff.
It was definitely a nostalgia fueled spur of the moment (if you can call something that took two weeks to do that) purchase without much reason. You're probably better off with the current scale metals in any case fora variety of reasons. As I detailed on my blog and over on the dp9 forums, the QA on some of the rafm minis was pretty bad. The rabid grizzly had a variant armored hunter head because a USED old yellow superglued head is what was in the sealed blister instead of the proper grizzly head sprue. Also, the grizzly family (as well as cobras) were some of the best translated designs. The others look kind of squat TBH (see my ID these minis pic from a few weeks back). It is nice though that the variants were individually sculpted unlike alot of ones in current blitz. I thought I had a weird miscast for instance as the Kodiak Destroyer didn't have any chevrons on his waist/groin plates unlike most pics of Kodiaks I've seen as well as current blitz ones. When I took a look in the RPG compendium, they were specifically absent as well and the whole model was a complete resculpt and not just a weapon swap like currently.
Firebreak wrote:Just the mass of them. Those are some solid (-looking) damn minis!
That they are although they're not as big as my 15 year old memories made them out to be. The cheetahs and troopers are relatively huge though compared to their modern scale counterparts but also a bit too squat in appearance.
Yeah, truth be told getting RAFM Gears is mostly a nostalgia-filled endeavour, as even though the stuff is cool, they are not really top quality.
OTOH, an actual Heavy Gear Skirmish game (Gear squad-on-squad, with combined arms support) on that scale or even a tad bigger could be really cool, and the RAFM stuff proves that well done they could be magnificent minis.
Speaking of combined arms and infantry (earlier), which of the various HG infantry flavors looks the most like current ~2016 US / Russian / German military troops?
I'm thinking I need to buy a platoon of HG infantry for my stuff. or maybe just regular 1/144 modern infantry.
Albertorius wrote:Yeah, truth be told getting RAFM Gears is mostly a nostalgia-filled endeavour, as even though the stuff is cool, they are not really top quality.
OTOH, an actual Heavy Gear Skirmish game (Gear squad-on-squad, with combined arms support) on that scale or even a tad bigger could be really cool, and the RAFM stuff proves that well done they could be magnificent minis.
That's true. I'm curious to see if the new rules actually get folks to play with a bigger fig count on average or if they'll play with the same 6-12 on average figs and just actually finish the game in a reasonable time. If the model count doesn't bump, I might actually be able to use RAFM figs. I suppose I could use the RAFM figs with my existing DZC city terrain as well or alternately with anything 15mm (although they'll look big in both). The 15mm should be fine (even though the infantry is a bit closer when I measured them to 20mm to the top of the head, 18mm to the eyes) but the 10mm stuff will definitely make them look much more like mecha than the oversized power armor they are. It might be fine though to have the gears be titanfall videogame sized/scale rather than votom anime sized.
JohnHwangDD wrote:Speaking of combined arms and infantry (earlier), which of the various HG infantry flavors looks the most like current ~2016 US / Russian / German military troops?
I'm thinking I need to buy a platoon of HG infantry for my stuff. or maybe just regular 1/144 modern infantry.
Honestly, neither polar force looks particularly historical.
The larger scale rafm stuff looks even more scifi.
Grel are all angry and bald, Caprice have the big bug eye space helmets, and nucoal have a scifi video game look with a voltron helmet (but with a "beak" over the nose for the visor) in the art.. I don't know how much translated over to 12mm figs though. I can't comment about PRDF as I don't recall what they look like... but I'm sure they're better looking than everyone else and cost less for the faction to dress to keep with the their theme.
warboss wrote: nucoal have a scifi video game look with a voltron helmet (but with a "beak" over the nose for the visor) in the art..
I can't comment about PRDF as I don't recall what they look like... but I'm sure they're better than everyone else and cost less for the faction to equip.
Wait, Voltron??? Not Science Ninja Team Gatchaman? The gold standard of beaked helmets? And it got made as live action!
You gatchame, man! IIRC the nucoal ones ended at the nose but with a similar beak. At first I was going to compare them to silverhawks but then I googled the images and it didn't match (must be some other cartoon I'm thinking of). Those are close though but they need more gas grenade ammo belts on the chest.
Well, as warboss says, as a general rule HG troopers look kind of sci fi and don't really go much for historical.
Northern troopers usually look like this:
...with also more esoteric uniforms, like paratroopers, engineers or spec ops:
Southern ones look like these:
...although they have plenty of weird uniforms and scifi thingies for specialized troopers like forward observers, drone operators, engineers, PMs. Spec Ops might look downright bizarre, too.
Paxton troopers' helmets are quite characteristic:
Desert Raiders (Koreshi) and the like have gear adapted to the desert, obviously:
Likewise jungle troopers:
Hell, even police SWATs might look very scifi:
Other than being purple, GRELs have a very distinct look:
You might say that capricians are the most "regular" looking of the lot :
@Albertorious as well as anyone else in the thread with Rafm gears:
Out of curiosity, does anyone have a bunch of jaguars handy to look at? I'm not sure if I got another mispack or what but every Jag blister I opened had a different head. The fire jag I expected thanks to Albertorious' earlier clarification but the jag predator had the more modern angular head whereas the stock Jag had a curvy hunter head (excctly a hunter head) with the hunter v-engine sprue in the pack (along with two bunny ears). Was that a cost saving measure by Rafm to reuse sculpted bits or is that yet another sealed blister mispack? I'll try and post some pics tomorrow of the parts in question.
warboss wrote: @Albertorious as well as anyone else in the thread with Rafm gears:
Out of curiosity, does anyone have a bunch of jaguars handy to look at? I'm not sure if I got another mispack or what but every Jag blister I opened had a different head. The fire jag I expected thanks to Albertorious' earlier clarification but the jag predator had the more modern angular head whereas the stock Jag had a curvy hunter head (excctly a hunter head) with the hunter v-engine sprue in the pack (along with two bunny ears). Was that a cost saving measure by Rafm to reuse sculpted bits or is that yet another sealed blister mispack? I'll try and post some pics tomorrow of the parts in question.
I don't have any handy right now, but...
That's the original pic of the Pred Jaguar, which was used for the RAFM mini, so it should have an old style Jaguar head.
Thanks. I took a look at my 1st ed core book as well as a few others and that's how I came to realize that angular head is probably the modern head but the curvy one is literally the same sprues in a tiny bag (same head, same engine, same bunny ears, same apgl) as I can see in my hunter blisters. The other two I have are fire jaguars which have their own unique head and aren't a great comparison.
I just don't know if that was a shortcut for the original stock jaguar to save RAFM some money originally or they mistakenly took a hunter plastic bits bag and put it in the jaguar mispack. If you (or anyone) have a stock jaguar (curvy head type) and almost any hunter and can compare the heads and engines, that should solve the question.
edit: I remembered about this image. I'm pretty sure I have yet another major mispack. So far, it's one issue with every 3 blisters. My head and smaller engine is definitely the hunter's and not the stock Jaguar's.
The angular head though is correct as it matches John Prin's pic from his predator Jaguar (the basis for my conversion).
FWIW, KOG light no longer intends to be a Heavy Gear game. Instead, it is its own, different game set here on Earth in the near future. It still uses HG miniatures "count as", and I'm stealing certain stats for now, but those will change as I rebalance. Check it out for grins if you haven't already done so!
JohnHwangDD wrote: FWIW, KOG light no longer intends to be a Heavy Gear game. Instead, it is its own, different game set here on Earth in the near future. It still uses HG miniatures "count as", and I'm stealing certain stats for now, but those will change as I rebalance. Check it out for grins if you haven't already done so!
JohnHwangDD wrote: Getting back to my CEF Frames, I own:
1x CF6-16 command
1x F6-16 basic
2x F2-21 tactical
2x F2-25 recon
3x F2-19 support
Is there a reason why I wouldn't fit everything with Jump Jets?
For Frame loadouts:
The CF6-16, I assume best build is with more sensors?
Regular F6-16 gets the support mortar?
F2-21s go 1 Assault & 1 Anti-Tank? Or should the assault swap to support mortar?
F2-25 recon don't need sensor upgrade so also go 1 Assault & 1 Anti-Tank?
The F2-19 heavies go 1 of each weapon flavor (assault, anti-tank, and support) for variety.
If I build as above, are these "OK", or am I doing something stupid?
How come the default pictures always seem to show as Anti-Tank? And the 2-21 is Anti-Tank plus shield?
I assume you're talking current beta rules, here:
Jump Jets: Frames don't have access to actual jump jets, but jumpacks, which are a lot less useful except because they can jump higher. Instead of being an addition to the regular movemen like jumpjets, a unit equipped with a jumpack can do a jump move instead of a regular one, which means basically that the additional cost of the jumpacks won't make them move any faster (actually, the jetpack movement is slower), but give them more movement options. So I'd say it's kind of situational.
CF6-16: Sensors are not that important, but Comms are.
Regular F6-16 only gets a mortar with the Support Pack.
BF2-21: For the cost I'd say that the Assault pack is more generally useful (good damage value, decent range, Split), plus it has a Shield. The AT pack has only 2 ATMs and are light ones. Still, the AT value coupled with Haywire makes them very nice against big targets, so I'd say one of each. Also, if you want mortars, pick GRELs, and use the Frames to advance with their high mobility.
BF2-25: You'd probably be able to use the improved Comms and the TD to paint targets for your HT's ATMs, so there's that. Otherwise... see if you prefer to have a Shield or 2 LATMs.
I think that the default pictures are of the AT packages because painting big red dots help greak the monotony of the paint scheme.
If the Jets only allow the model to negate some vertical terrain, that's not really worth 2 points per model on an 8- or 10-point model. OTOH, if you know you're in an urban setting with buildings of just the right height, yeah, I can see that. I'm assuming this is some sort of sore point from days long gone by.
Thanks very much for the input on the various frames. Much appreciated!
A lot of that is on the level with "what do you mean Imperial ships travel through an alternate daemonic dimension to go FTL? That's stupid, I'll change it".
Albertorius wrote: [
A lot of that is on the level with "what do you mean Imperial ships travel through an alternate daemonic dimension to go FTL? That's stupid, I'll change it".
Yeah I see what you mean, changing one of the fundamental assumptions of the setting. Maybe someone liked Homeworld Deserts of Kharak a lot >.>
Albertorius wrote: [
A lot of that is on the level with "what do you mean Imperial ships travel through an alternate daemonic dimension to go FTL? That's stupid, I'll change it".
Yeah I see what you mean, changing one of the fundamental assumptions of the setting. Maybe someone liked Homeworld Deserts of Kharak a lot >.>
Yep, that was my first thought too ^_^. My second was "...and if that is the case, why didn't they do the same and made them run on tracks? Srsly".
FWIW, the idea of shipping desert aircraft carriers through space made me cringe (but because it's expensive... didn't remember about the impossibility of using them outside TN) but the change/expansion of the fluff focusing on vectored thrust rather than just electromagnetic forces doesn't bother me. About the only way I could see that possibly working in the setting would be if the actual landship was also the spaceship as well (instead of being transported in it). I'm not too ingrained in the fluff but rather focused more on the gratuitous cool robot shooty porn and the rules back in the day.
warboss wrote: FWIW, the idea of shipping desert aircraft carriers through space made me cringe (but because it's expensive... didn't remember about the impossibility of using them outside TN) but the change/expansion of the fluff focusing on vectored thrust rather than just electromagnetic forces doesn't bother me. About the only way I could see that possibly working in the setting would be if the actual landship was also the spaceship as well (instead of being transported in it). I'm not too ingrained in the fluff but rather focused more on the gratuitous cool robot shooty porn and the rules back in the day.
Thing is, if you limit yourself to vectored thrust and ground effect to lift multiple meters a knocked down building (only usually heavier), you'll have a knocked down building aloft directly above a mega tornado. Think about the strength that a tornado would need to have to lift a building... why do you even have weapons, again, if you're able to do that?
True...but my comment was based on the mistaken premise that the fan lift stuff was in the original post by DP9 and you quoted it. I was wrong as you seem to have quoted older fluff. Sorry but I just skimmed the threads on my phone. I thought you were opposed to that older fluff of the vectored thrust/fan lift being used to steer the ship in addition to the main electromagnetic properties and instead you preferred pure electromagnetic propulsion. Is your issue that they're replacing that electromagnetic propulsion with grav tech? Ymmv but I don't take issue with that but rather the idea of shipping aircraft carriers through space in HG. Earth and its interstellar empire has a hard enough time doing that let alone a backwater like TN. I see the change in propulsion for a new environment more akin to a switch from props to jet engines in the early 1940s (ours...not the TN calendar).
Also, just for the record... Tzeentch has long filled the warp with rainbows and I'd be more shocked if Slaneeshi followers didn't populate the aether with unicorns for various twisted carnal purposes than if they did.
Edit: stupid autocorrect...Which just turned the word autocorrect into WordPerfect and incorrect sequentially for the ultimate irony!
I have issues with both, TBH. The shipping landships through space is completely bonkers and would drive insane all their logistics people, but the grav tech is unobtanium in a setting that up to this point tried to be somewhat believable. At least the electromags were plausibly explained: they use them just for lift and they actually move via ground effect and vectored thrust, and it's only possible due to the particular magnetic properties of Terra Nova.
I'd much prefer if they simply switched to tracks: at leasts the mobile bases from Deserts of Kharak looked cool.
sqir666 wrote: Hooray my ebay order finally arrived today,
Southern GP Cadre
Southern Recon Cadre
Southern Fire Support Cadre
Southern Army Starter
King Cobra Sagittarius
Hey! I wasn't aware you were the guy who outbid me on the King Cobra. Not mad, you just saved me some money I didn't need to spend.
Anyhow, that's an awesome collection with a good mix of stuff. I look forward to seeing your P&M blog building it.
Congrats on the purchase, Sqir666. As for your suprise connection with John, awkward!
I had something similar a few years back when I got into HG blitz again with a massive ebay purchase of southern minis after missing out on the north. When I started my P&M blog, the guy who won the north lot I wanted messaged me to gloat. Dirty Northern Dog!
It was funny, because I was eyeing that 25-gear pile that he bought (Starter w/ GP, Recon & FS cadres). The price was super attractive, but then reality smacked me in the back of my head asking: "Stop! WTF are you doing? Don't you already have enough South? For a game that you hardly play at all?" And that kept me from pulling the trigger.
For a while, I was thinking to maybe pick up a 4-frame CEF Interdiction Squad on the cheap. The extra bulk would even out the numbers at a baker's dozen per faction. But I'm already roughly equal on points, so I don't need more stuff at the half-dozen to a dozen minis I'm going to play.
Albertorius wrote: I have issues with both, TBH. The shipping landships through space is completely bonkers and would drive insane all their logistics people, but the grav tech is unobtanium in a setting that up to this point tried to be somewhat believable. At least the electromags were plausibly explained: they use them just for lift and they actually move via ground effect and vectored thrust, and it's only possible due to the particular magnetic properties of Terra Nova.
I'd much prefer if they simply switched to tracks: at leasts the mobile bases from Deserts of Kharak looked cool.
If they switched to tracks or, even worse, rails then I'd probably be the one who is livid. I'm fine with one quasi science being replaced with another even if the latter is even further away from the practical into the theoretical.
For a while, I was thinking to maybe pick up a 4-frame CEF Interdiction Squad on the cheap. The extra bulk would even out the numbers at a baker's dozen per faction. But I'm already roughly equal on points, so I don't need more stuff at the half-dozen to a dozen minis I'm going to play.
For me, I'm just going to hold at what I've got.
Remember that even Earth scum like yourself don't have to get the full minimum squad size of four (assuming they're one action each) as you can just get one or two to fill out existing squads or just add as a support unit. I'm considering that type of addition to my squads in order to add a single model recon element to squads of big guns (so it can TD/FO or do some ECM as neeed).
On an unrelated note, now that I'm at least temporarily done with my Northern RAFM gears, I might move onto my southern RAFM ones. Recently, I've been considering building them as a squad or two of dark series southern variant Black Talons instead of just the usual SRA.
Albertorius wrote: I have issues with both, TBH. The shipping landships through space is completely bonkers and would drive insane all their logistics people,
If they could stealthily send landships into other systems, they would not have to do it; they could just stealthily send large (and fast) rocks onto CEF fleets and strongpoints.
Albertorius wrote: I have issues with both, TBH. The shipping landships through space is completely bonkers and would drive insane all their logistics people,
If they could stealthily send landships into other systems, they would not have to do it; they could just stealthily send large (and fast) rocks onto CEF fleets and strongpoints.
Or well, you know, spaceships.
That said, I'm pretty sure that making a rock stealthy in space would be much easier than making a huge ass transport ship stealthy, what with a rock not releasing emissions and all.
The gearstridering of the setting continues. So be it. Just don't bother posting constructive anything, Albertorius, including typos and obvious mistakes. If they don't want your feedback, then don't give it. It's why I left their forums completely for two years until just a few weeks ago. Ironically, in coming back, I noticed some (obvious) suggestionss I made both privately and publicly through the appropriate channels were apparently proven right as they were taken up or being taken up. The most recent was a thread where Dave talked about lowering the number of different squad types, something I suggested with the very first document release.
ps. I also wouldn't have minded a complete reboot of the setting ala Battlestar as well instead of the having their cake and eating it too approach. If they wanted to allow crazy gak that shouldn't exist according to the in-universe rules, then they should have done a reboot. Instead, they want that refresh while at the same time still not risking missing out on the money from long time fans of the in-universe ruels (at least initially until they notice but it'll be too late by then).
warboss wrote: The most recent was a thread where Dave talked about lowering the number of different squad types, something I suggested with the very first document release.
FWIW, I only recognize 4 types: standard, strike, recon & fire support that correspond to 40k's troops, elite, fast & heavy.
As I'm getting back to finalizing unit selection / force creation, I suppose I need to give it another look.
The last HGBTTWGLRB was 2015, still nothing released this year?
When I last checked, there were almost 20 different gear squads for the various factions that used gears... with the core ones you listed repeated in each faction leading to about 30 "different" squads. Too much... When I looked again to try and figure out a force for my Rafm Gears, it hadn't changed. Dave posted that the next update would get some sort of UA number reduction/simplification. We just don't know how many unnecessary special snowflakes will be culled. For instance, there isn't really any reason for the Talons to have 4-6 different gear squads that are unique to them when they could just use the strike/fire support/recon/strider templates instead with one or two unique ones.
I actually asked Robert about the next update of the rules which should be the print version sent out with KS and retail starter sets and he said he's working on it and it should hopefully be up last week. Not so....
There's better ways of registering your disagreement Albertorius. You could have said the same thing without being so rude, and you probably would have got a much better response from Robert. If you'd like you can post what you're planning on post here, and I'll show you the edited version you should post to get a positive response.
Nomeny wrote: There's better ways of registering your disagreement Albertorius. You could have said the same thing without being so rude, and you probably would have got a much better response from Robert. If you'd like you can post what you're planning on post here, and I'll show you the edited version you should post to get a positive response.
Been there, done that, also got PMed by him and accused of trolling, and personally got quite fed up of tippy toeing around him for fear of hurting his ego. So no. He can do whatever the feth he wants, and time will tell if it ever gets out of his walled community.
A time jump would've been fine. Bring it up to say TN1980, ignore/rewrite completely everything about the WfTN and the 1940/50s (for the third time!) and say that thanks to the Prime Knights/microgate weaponry/NuCoal's mere presence Earth was beaten off again and now Terra Nova is taking the fight to them. Easy peasy. And then just throw in some historical scenarios at the back of the book for the skipped decades.
Nomeny wrote: There's better ways of registering your disagreement Albertorius. You could have said the same thing without being so rude, and you probably would have got a much better response from Robert. If you'd like you can post what you're planning on post here, and I'll show you the edited version you should post to get a positive response.
Been there, done that, also got PMed by him and accused of trolling, and personally got quite fed up of tippy toeing around him for fear of hurting his ego. So no. He can do whatever the feth he wants, and time will tell if it ever gets out of his walled community.
Just be glad he threaten to shame you (again!) for pledging $1.00 to the kickstarter... after you had already stated it publicly yourself.
On an unrelated note, Stompy Bot is now in the final countdown (queue the song!) towards their possible delisting from the Canadian Stock Exchange. They've got less than a week before the two month deadline is up to publish their 2015 financials. I'm curious to see how many folks signed up during their premiere year.
warboss wrote:Just be glad he threaten to shame you (again!) for pledging $1.00 to the kickstarter... after you had already stated it publicly yourself.
Heh, yeah, that was a fun one ^_^. Still don't know how did he think that would "shame" me. Or anyone, for that matter. But hey, the test painted plastic models look half decent, so there's that.
HudsonD wrote:No such thing as "polite disagreement" with DP9. If you're not towing the party line, you're a troll.
I guess Robert is looking up to Kevin these days.
That was the first thing that came to mind, yes. That or NMI I guess.
warboss wrote:On an unrelated note, Stompy Bot is now in the final countdown (queue the song!) towards their possible delisting from the Canadian Stock Exchange. They've got less than a week before the two month deadline is up to publish their 2015 financials. I'm curious to see how many folks signed up during their premiere year.
Nah, they're still around scrounging for new money however they can (besides of course coming out with a game that fans actually want like a smaller turn based strategy title!). On their official forums, a company rep (owner?) said they'd just delist from the stock exchange and continue business as usual if they had to. The dozen or so fanboys of course applauded the situation. Eh, whatever. I didn't even throw in $1.00 to follow that so no risk for me at all no matter what happens.
Does anyone btw who reads this thread happen to own a pic of the Northern Gearstrider, the Scimitar? I'm trying to see if I can use my Rafm Kodiak as a stand in for it but am not sure of the size differences. The original preview said it's 68mm tall but I don't know if they're measuring that to the tippytop of the turret or the engines, whether that includes the base or not, etc.
Does anyone btw who reads this thread happen to own a pic of the Northern Gearstrider, the Scimitar? I'm trying to see if I can use my Rafm Kodiak as a stand in for it but am not sure of the size differences. The original preview said it's 68mm tall but I don't know if they're measuring that to the tippytop of the turret or the engines, whether that includes the base or not, etc.
The Scimitar is way bigger than the Rafm Kodiak. I'll see if I can take a comparison pic as I've got like 2 huge boxes of beat up rafms just sitting in storage somewhere
I don't even know why I keep collecting Heavy Gear Minis since nobody I know plays the game anymore due to the general lack of interest in the game. I just picked up a few PRDF FS squads off Amazon because they were only 10 bucks O_o
Thanks! A comparison pic of the two side by side (or even next to a ruler) would be great. Strictly speaking, it doesn't matter if they're not exactly the same with the profile LOS system they're using. You can use a walnut glued to the top of a milk gallon jug cap since the rules mandate the use of the profile the model whenever an opponent asks similar to infinity. I'm just hoping that visually the Rafm Kodiak conveys the greater sense of size of a gearstrider compared to gears.
As for that last part, I think almost everyone here is a collector by necessity as opposed to a player. I can't recall the last time I heard someone say in the thread they were actually playing the game outside of vassal. You're definitely not alone in that regard.
Duymon wrote: I don't even know why I keep collecting Heavy Gear Minis since nobody I know plays the game anymore due to the general lack of interest in the game. I just picked up a few PRDF FS squads off Amazon because they were only 10 bucks O_o
That is an exceptionally fair price for those squads. If I were still in the market to buy more Gears, I'd have jumped on that, too!
warboss wrote: Strictly speaking, it doesn't matter if they're not exactly the same with the profile LOS system they're using. You can use a walnut glued to the top of a milk gallon jug cap since the rules mandate the use of the profile the model whenever an opponent asks similar to infinity.
As for that last part, I think almost everyone here is a collector by necessity as opposed to a player. I can't recall the last time I heard someone say in the thread they were actually playing the game outside of vassal. You're definitely not alone in that regard.
Magic cylinder. Wooden dowels on bases. Or, even better, standees...
This year, I've been playtesting KOG light using HG minis, IRL, head-to-head. Does that count?
Firebreak wrote: A time jump would've been fine. Bring it up to say TN1980, ignore/rewrite completely everything about the WfTN and the 1940/50s (for the third time!) and say that thanks to the Prime Knights/microgate weaponry/NuCoal's mere presence Earth was beaten off again and now Terra Nova is taking the fight to them. Easy peasy. And then just throw in some historical scenarios at the back of the book for the skipped decades.
Or perhaps they could develop the ability to open microgates at planetary level a la Stargate or Peter Hamilton's Pandora's Star series would make the whole interplanetary landship idea plausible. It would be a huge game changer and would make big spaceships obsolete. It would also let Jovian Chronicles retain its niche as a space combat game while HG will focus on planetside fights.
Nomeny wrote: Does it really matter? It's just there to facilitate robots fighting robots.
Some people like their gaming worlds to be internally consistent.
If "it's just there to facilitate robots fighting robots", why stop there? Let's give landships to everyone and their uncle, but let's also make gearstriders the standard fighting unit, too! And let's toss aside that inane idea of tannhauser gates: we want robots fighting robots after all, so all ships should be able to warp and go places, by golly! Let's also make tanks arbitrarily slow and vulnerable, so they can't stand a chance against battlemec-er, gearstriders!
In other words: because there is already a game and a serting that does that, and it's name is Battletech, which is a very cool game, but making Heavy Gear more like Battletech will not help it, particularly when Alpha Strike is a game that actually exists right now unlike HG which is in eternal beta, and which does "Fast, easy robot battles" way better than HGB ever had.
Argumentum ad Fireballum brings us to weird places, doesn't it.
From what I can tell, BTAS is still over 100 pages with a pretty substantial table of modifiers! It's faster and easier than CBT, and faster and easier than any edition of HG, but I would hesitate to call it fast and easy compared to anything more modern like X-wing, to say nothing of something like Tanks!.
JohnHwangDD wrote: From what I can tell, BTAS is still over 100 pages with a pretty substantial table of modifiers! It's faster and easier than CBT, and faster and easier than any edition of HG, but I would hesitate to call it fast and easy compared to anything more modern like X-wing, to say nothing of something like Tanks!.
You know, the old rules were clunky, modifier intensive, and just so esoteric that it made the game difficult or impossible to play as a new player. And once you got the rules down, it became pretty obvious how to make a list and how to play to win. :(
DP9 promised a whole new, sleeker, faster, more dynamic system. Well, they gave us a whole new system all right with a whole bunch of modifiers, and modifiers to the modifiers, and if you have studied calculus at all, you can understand some of the arcane wizardling formula's they have come up with just to shoot at a model standing behind cover. Maybe.
You know, some people really like that depth of game play, but those people are in a minority. I would go so far as to say the only people that are still interested in Heavy Gear are those players (and those players probably still play old school Batteltech, Full Thrust, and Star Fleet Battles just for that nitty-gritty rules systems). Too many other games out there have vastly more simple conflict resolution systems than the spaghetti-like flow chart that is used in HG. I really hate to say it, but how does DP9 expect to get a bunch of new players into a game system that is so complicated? There is already the significant hurdle of buying the models, assembling the models, and then painting the models. Add to that a horribly complicated and esoteric rules system and, well... yeah. As an example- look at X-wing. I buy a ship, I get all the rules for that ship, it doesn't require assembly or painting... basically, I could be playing with that ship in about 5 minutes (the packaging FFG uses leaves a lot to be desired. Takes 4 minutes just to get it open...). I have a set of red and green dice. When I attack, I roll the red dice, and count up the hits. When I defend, I roll green dice, count up the evades, subtract them from the hits, and Bob is your uncle. There is a bit more to it then that, but the game concentrates on PLAYING THE GAME, not on calculating modifier after modifier after modifier then rolling some d6's and hoping for something to happen. X-wing is simple, easy, and yet has a surprising depth of play.
But hey, at least army building has simplified dramatically, but there are still issues.
"WTH would I ever take that unit for anything when I can take this clearly superior unit?"
"Oh, well you can take an unlimited amount of the first unit, and only two of the second unit."
"Well, I guess it's a good thing that we are playing at an average point values that means I can really only take two or three units of Gears anyways, so... two units of superior gears for me, please!"
Oh, no doubt. In going back into the HGBTTWGLRB, it always fascinates me that they've got so many flavors of things. 4 range bands per weapon: sub-optimal, optimal, super-optimal, and out of range. Target numbers that aren't always the target number. All for what basically amounts to a net +1.
Whereas X-Wing just has that little stick for range and their custom dice (which could have been d6s, and/or used the blanks for the opposite role). Plus, the X-wing models are gorgeous. And pre-painted.
The internal balance is, of course, an issue. In theory, DP9 has their best minds working on balancing things, right?
Tamwulf wrote:You know, some people really like that depth of game play, but those people are in a minority. I would go so far as to say the only people that are still interested in Heavy Gear are those players (and those players probably still play old school Batteltech, Full Thrust, and Star Fleet Battles just for that nitty-gritty rules systems). Too many other games out there have vastly more simple conflict resolution systems than the spaghetti-like flow chart that is used in HG. I really hate to say it, but how does DP9 expect to get a bunch of new players into a game system that is so complicated? There is already the significant hurdle of buying the models, assembling the models, and then painting the models. Add to that a horribly complicated and esoteric rules system and, well... yeah. As an example- look at X-wing. I buy a ship, I get all the rules for that ship, it doesn't require assembly or painting... basically, I could be playing with that ship in about 5 minutes (the packaging FFG uses leaves a lot to be desired. Takes 4 minutes just to get it open...). I have a set of red and green dice. When I attack, I roll the red dice, and count up the hits. When I defend, I roll green dice, count up the evades, subtract them from the hits, and Bob is your uncle. There is a bit more to it then that, but the game concentrates on PLAYING THE GAME, not on calculating modifier after modifier after modifier then rolling some d6's and hoping for something to happen. X-wing is simple, easy, and yet has a surprising depth of play.
Well, I am indeed one of those guys: I still play HG 2nd edition with much more gusto than the current editions, I do indeed play CBtech, never got into Full Thrust but I am an ASL player, I dabble into Hearts of Iron and Europa Universalis... you know, fun stuff. So there is certainly people that still likes that kind of stuff. But yeah, the new Beta is still waay too rulesy for regular players nowadays, and is getting more complicated.
JohnHwangDD wrote:Oh, no doubt. In going back into the HGBTTWGLRB, it always fascinates me that they've got so many flavors of things. 4 range bands per weapon: sub-optimal, optimal, super-optimal, and out of range. Target numbers that aren't always the target number. All for what basically amounts to a net +1.
Whereas X-Wing just has that little stick for range and their custom dice (which could have been d6s, and/or used the blanks for the opposite role). Plus, the X-wing models are gorgeous. And pre-painted.
The internal balance is, of course, an issue. In theory, DP9 has their best minds working on balancing things, right?
Right. At least the ones they still have not alienated out of their little walled community, because saying that there's stuff wrong is bad and trolling.
OOT, a good Gundam or Macross game with the X-Wing system would kill my wallet.
JohnHwangDD wrote: OMG, a tiny Gundam Game like X-wing with pre-painted minis? I couldn't afford it.
I would basically need to buy EVERYTHING EVER of that one, and EVERYTHING EVER TIMES 2 of a Macross X-Wing game... shame it doesn't seem to be happening :(
Same here.. at least for the initial macross stuff. I'm not too big of a fan of the later series both in terms of stories as well as visuals.
Does anyone here know much about the Antelope northern ORVs? A while ago I bought a painted northern lot and the guy built one with the camper and turret on the back and two with the flat bed truck showing. I don't know if he was trying to show which one was the heavy weapon base since in the old rules they were just infantry upgrades or if there is/was a difference in camper and flatbed ORVs in the old RPG fluff. I don't have the second vehicle compendiums.
Nomeny wrote: Does it really matter? It's just there to facilitate robots fighting robots.
It matters because once upon a time, Heavy Gear went above and beyond to try and inject realism.
On one end of the spectrum, you have MFZ, which is "ALIENS! And we need ROBOTS to fight them!" and that is it and you play the game. And it is glorious.
The other end is Heavy Gear, with encyclopedic-depth of information, background, and development, all of which, while very clearly being sci-fi and never being constrained by a desperate need to show off the writer's physics degree, did its best to have engines that run on gas, plows pulled by cows, and space travel dangerous and expensive.
So, when the company waves a great big "20 YEAR ANNIVERSARY WE'RE PROUD OF OUR HISTORY!" sign, and then makes what appear to be contradictory changes that make very little sense within the confines of that carefully crafted system, some of the very, very, very few people who have stuck around over those twenty years get confused.
But of course, those people are just anyway, and it doesn't matter what they think.
Exactly. It's as if Star Trek decided that ships flew based on Midicholrian production. Which itself was Star Wars wishing they had dilithium crystals powering their warp drives. Be hard, or be soft, but don't switch horses mid-stream.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Exactly. It's as if Star Trek decided that ships flew based on Midicholrian production. Which itself was Star Wars wishing they had dilithium crystals powering their warp drives. Be hard, or be soft, but don't switch horses mid-stream.
That's why I prefer 40K: Psykers open a portal into Hell that ships fly into, and they are guided to their destinations by a God-Like Emperor of Mankind that is all but dead and rotting on his Golden Throne on earth, but his psyke is kept alive by the sacrifice of thousands of psykers every day. They don't even pretend to make it sound reasonable.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Exactly. It's as if Star Trek decided that ships flew based on Midicholrian production. Which itself was Star Wars wishing they had dilithium crystals powering their warp drives. Be hard, or be soft, but don't switch horses mid-stream.
That's why I prefer 40K: Psykers open a portal into Hell that ships fly into, and they are guided to their destinations by a God-Like Emperor of Mankind that is all but dead and rotting on his Golden Throne on earth, but his psyke is kept alive by the sacrifice of thousands of psykers every day. They don't even pretend to make it sound reasonable.
Actually, 40k space travel has been depicted very consistently over the years. Consistently with its own lore, which is the important thing, and which is what HG is doing wrong.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
warboss wrote: Same here.. at least for the initial macross stuff. I'm not too big of a fan of the later series both in terms of stories as well as visuals.
Does anyone here know much about the Antelope northern ORVs? A while ago I bought a painted northern lot and the guy built one with the camper and turret on the back and two with the flat bed truck showing. I don't know if he was trying to show which one was the heavy weapon base since in the old rules they were just infantry upgrades or if there is/was a difference in camper and flatbed ORVs in the old RPG fluff. I don't have the second vehicle compendiums.
Back in 2nd edition, the flat bed one was the regular Antelope, whereas the closed one was the Antelope Spotter, which was better armored, changed Exposed Crew Compartment for Reinforced Crew Compartment and HEP: Desert, and had a whole lot of electronics upgrades: better comms, sensors and a Target Designator.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Firebreak wrote: But of course, those people are just anyway, and it doesn't matter what they think.
We're trolls, don'tcha know. Unlike the ones who're crapping all over the setting.
Back in 2nd edition, the flat bed one was the regular Antelope, whereas the closed one was the Antelope Spotter, which was better armored, changed Exposed Crew Compartment for Reinforced Crew Compartment and HEP: Desert, and had a whole lot of electronics upgrades: better comms, sensors and a Target Designator.
Cool, thanks. If they actually had a TD, I might actually use them but they don't. They're a hybrid with improved comms and an mmg which I can't really find a good use for.
I saw the landship announcement and immediately thought Helicarriers!
Rule of Cool.
But, breaks the laws of physics, both in game and out of game. I doubt if DP9 really understand that and what it means. Me, I don't care, because my models, my rules and my campaign.
I imagine that could sound quite good in German: Meine Modelle, meine Regeln, und meine Kampagne (cue tradition military music etc.).
As rapid super fans, we invest heavily into the fiction of our chosen cause. The longer we stay with it, the more we invest in it, and we gain a sense of ownership. Unfortunitly, we don't own this fiction. It belongs to DP9. If they want to retcon the entire universe, well, we don't really have a say in it except to stop buying their products and stop playing the game. Then we can all take to social media and lament the end of our favorite game system!*
What I have noticed after having played in so many game universes, for a long time, is that retcon happens, and it's a fact of life. Some companies pull it off, while others, fail pretty hard at it. For example, it amazes me how well Games Workshop manages to retcon 40K ALL THE TIME, and it's just accepted. Like "Oh, it's the Grim Dark, no one really knows whats going on, and everything is written from a particular point of view that changes often". Contrast that with Warhammer Fantasy- a system that has been around for longer then 40K, and what happened last year- the End Times. GW kicks off this massive world wide campaign, calling it "THE END TIMES" and people throw a huge fit when, guess what? They nuked the whole game! The misshapen, twisted, thing that took it's place is not even a shadow compared to the old system, but it's all we have left. Some people left the game entirely, some picked up the new game, and some just continued playing 8th like the End Times never happened.
My point here is that we really can't control how/what a company does with it's intellectual property (fluff) beyond voting with our dollars. In rare circumstances, the fan base can rise up and take to social media and pressure a company to change, but let's be real- do ya'll think the 10 or so fans of HG that are left will really be able to change Robert's mind on anything?
*FYI, Heavy Gear Blitz is NOT my favorite game system, but I do enjoy it on occasion.
Albertorius wrote: My point is more on the line that, if you want to do a retcon... say so, and do it. Don't do stealth retcons that only muddle the waters.
Albertorius wrote: My point is more on the line that, if you want to do a retcon... say so, and do it. Don't do stealth retcons that only muddle the waters.
Hey I have an idea. Let's do our own retcon, only, instead of Paxton, Nicosa-er, I mean, Earth... Earth blows up Port Arthur, breaking the spine of the nascent NuCoal.
The Heavy Gear Assault video game company's financials were posting on the last day before risking delisting from the Canadian Stock Exchange. I'm reading this in common English with no formal financial training to see the likelihood of getting a final finished release HG game I'd actually buy myself as a consumer as well as the progress of the franchise in general so feel free to correct any misconceptions/mistakes with references as needed.
The Company's ability to continue as a going concern is dependent upon its ability to attain profitable operations and generate funds therefrom, and to continue to obtain equity investment and borrowings sufficient to meet current and future obligations. The Company has a net loss for the year December 31, 2015 of $1,658,589 and a net loss from the year ended December 31, 2014 of $604,451. The Company’s cumulative deficit was $2,259,435 as of December 31, 2015, and $600,846 as of December 31, 2014. As the Company continues to develop its core offerings, it will require additional financing to meet its working capital requirements. These conditions, cast significant doubt about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern.
The Company also entered into an agreement with Dream Pod 9 Inc., to license certain IP for a period of 5 years, ending July 18, 2017. The license is subject to a 15% royalty rate on sales, with an initial advance of $20,000 made under the agreement. The balance at year-end is $7,628 (2014 - $12,366.) The license may be renewed for an additional 5 years, subject to a new royalty rate being agreed, and being no greater than 15%.
Does anyone with more financial accumen than me know where the info on actual sales of games like HGA are? Is it the $34k "testing revenue" on page 17? Or the zero/dash empty field on revenue on page 3 with a note referencing the 34k? Or the numbers in a table below from the second file linked below? In any case, it looks like their license is up for renewal in 2017 so that'll likely be the first chance we'll get as customers for a possible real time indy/mobile/smaller strategy game if they don't renew.
Revenue before adjustment 1,811 6,062 21,991 19,363
Divided up by quarters for the 2015 inaugural release year of HGA (admittedly in an alpha unfinished state) and I think from the whole company (and not just HGA revenue). With a minimum buy in of $40 CAD for just a hunter/jaeger, does that mean that at most (assuming no higher cost pack sales or dlc sales if they have any) roughly 45 people max bought into the game during the last quarter (aka Xmas season) of 2015? edit: If the "testing revenue" is the same thing on their q1 2016 file, it dropped down to $1,566. Again, if that is sales then does it mean approx 39 new players max in the first 3 months of 2016?
Then there are these bits about the big new game they announced last year... First what looks to be the management's view on the matter... then the accountant's numbers...
Spoiler:
Locke & Key – The Company along with the licensor announced the successful licensing of the Locke & Key property. The Company is currently in discussions with Behaviour Interactive, Montreal, to develop Loc ke & Key as an episodic console release.
Locke & Key3 3The Company is currently in breach of its agreement due to non-payment of CD$150,458.
The above is from the end of year 2015 pair of documents posted by them and linked above. It looks like there are some other documents from the first quarter of this year as well.
It was launched in some fashion in 2015 as it's available to purchase by the general public. On the plus side, DP9 stands to potentially make some quick and easy cash next year either from Stompy renewing or someone else picking up the license to make another style of game.
If I read the numbers right, that means Stompy has paid about 12 400$ in sale royalties to DP9 so far, with 5 000$ over the last year.
At 15%, that means total sales of around 82 700$, and something like 33 000 $ over 2015. When they started going on sale.
Wow, that's a smash-hit there !
Robert must thinks he made out like a bandit, with 20k handed in advance, and to be fair, he kinda did, I don't see anyone else having made money over this
The canadian people are living up to their reputation as kind folk as they generously gave Stompy $300,000 CAD from their media grant fund. And in the words of Stompy, a rising tide lifts all boats! Your Canuck tax dollars at work.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Firebreak wrote: Oh, I suppose that's true. I've just never though of it as anything other than beta. I hate early access and pre-orders. XD
If they're charging for it, I consider it a release.. even if it is still a WIP. YMMV. I agree though about the early access and pay to demo preorders. The only beta I participated in was the World of Tanks console one and it was a very well done beta. They didn't charge anything and actually worked on the game with steady progress for about a year while we were testing (which basically amounted to just playing and occasionally commenting on their forums). They'd wipe your progress, introduce a new country or set of tiers (it started only 1-6), change maps, do balance tweaks on existing tanks, and start farming that new data. It wasn't one of those BS month before retail launch "betas" that are just glorified demos after the game has already gone gold and no significant changes can be made in time even if they find massive game breaking bugs.
warboss wrote: DP9 stands to potentially make some quick and easy cash next year either from Stompy renewing or someone else picking up the license to make another style of game.
Given the financial performance of the license to date, I'd expect license fees to be dramatically lower next year...
Firebreak wrote: Hey I have an idea. Let's do our own retcon, only, instead of Paxton, Nicosa-er, I mean, Earth... Earth blows up Port Arthur, breaking the spine of the nascent NuCoal.
Heh. I know it's a joke, but that would have some quite interesting implications, all in all. For example, what would be Port Arthur's reaction to that? Would they see as a direct attack from the CEF on their attempts on integration? Would that make the colonel to renege of TN and side again with Earth, or would that be the final push in a long story of betrayals and defections?
I was digging into my new blisters, and I'm feeling a bit of angst over my King Cobra and Spitting Cobra models.
In comparing the bitz, the Arena Spitting Cobra is *dramatically* larger than my Tactical-era King Cobra. The body seems nearly 2x as big, with much bigger arms and legs. Also, it appears that the rules/stats are off, as the Tactical King Cobra has the same HRP pack as the Arena (Blitz?) Spitting Cobra.
As my other South stuff is Tactical-era metal, maybe I should just unload the Arena stuff pack? Anybody got an OOP Tactical-era Spitting/Support Cobra they want to trade for the current Arena (Blitz?) Spitting Cobra with "FREE!" Strike Cheetah? ____
Crap. It's a Spitting Cobra, no Striking (Bazooka)...
Are you sure it isnt a spitting cobra? I have that blister and I don't recall any bazookas in it that the striking cobra would need. The arena blisters are cool but dont always give you the standard load out iirc but make up for it in extra bits. Id love another strike cheetah but sadly dont have any tact era stuff.
Firebreak wrote: Hey I have an idea. Let's do our own retcon, only, instead of Paxton, Nicosa-er, I mean, Earth... Earth blows up Port Arthur, breaking the spine of the nascent NuCoal.
Heh. I know it's a joke, but that would have some quite interesting implications, all in all. For example, what would be Port Arthur's reaction to that? Would they see as a direct attack from the CEF on their attempts on integration? Would that make the colonel to renege of TN and side again with Earth, or would that be the final push in a long story of betrayals and defections?
And how would the GRELs react? What would happen to Jan Mayen and Proust?
Firebreak wrote: Hey I have an idea. Let's do our own retcon, only, instead of Paxton, Nicosa-er, I mean, Earth... Earth blows up Port Arthur, breaking the spine of the nascent NuCoal.
Heh. I know it's a joke, but that would have some quite interesting implications, all in all. For example, what would be Port Arthur's reaction to that? Would they see as a direct attack from the CEF on their attempts on integration? Would that make the colonel to renege of TN and side again with Earth, or would that be the final push in a long story of betrayals and defections?
And how would the GRELs react? What would happen to Jan Mayen and Proust?
IIRC, Proust razed Jan Mayen before the blowing up of Peace River, to get to the twins. I'm not sure that it would change much in that regards. As to the rest of the GRELs, if Port Arthur allies itself with the CEF again, the very "buggy" PAK GRELs would have plenty of contact with FLAILs, which could go either way, really.
Do you mean scheduled games or that DP9 isn't even going i.e. no booth in the dealer's hall? I thought nublitz was supposed to premiere there this summer. As for scheduled fan run games, you need fans to run them and HG has long been short of those. Even the gencon get together games that have months to prepare and organize with multiple participants confirming don't happen.
But.. destroying the a populous city in a badlands nation has been proven in the HGverse to just stimulate massive growth heretofore impossible for the remaining population despite the loss of that central powerbase! In 10 years, Port Arthur would be sending invasion fleets TO earth instead of just fighting them off! The puny Banner rule applies in the HGverse. The quickest way to exponentially grow an army overnight is to destroy its manufacturing and recruiting base.
warboss wrote: But.. destroying the a populous city in a badlands nation has been proven in the HGverse to just stimulate massive growth heretofore impossible for the remaining population despite the loss of that central powerbase! In 10 years, Port Arthur would be sending invasion fleets TO earth instead of just fighting them off! The puny Banner rule applies in the HGverse. The quickest way to exponentially grow an army overnight is to destroy its manufacturing and recruiting base.
By the Prophet! We've cracked the new landship fluff!!
warboss wrote: But.. destroying the a populous city in a badlands nation has been proven in the HGverse to just stimulate massive growth heretofore impossible for the remaining population despite the loss of that central powerbase! In 10 years, Port Arthur would be sending invasion fleets TO earth instead of just fighting them off! The puny Banner rule applies in the HGverse. The quickest way to exponentially grow an army overnight is to destroy its manufacturing and recruiting base.
By the Prophet! We've cracked the new landship fluff!!
Now guess the ratio of Terra Novan cities destroyed to the number of Interplantery Landships deployed :O
warboss wrote: But.. destroying the a populous city in a badlands nation has been proven in the HGverse to just stimulate massive growth heretofore impossible for the remaining population despite the loss of that central powerbase! In 10 years, Port Arthur would be sending invasion fleets TO earth instead of just fighting them off! The puny Banner rule applies in the HGverse. The quickest way to exponentially grow an army overnight is to destroy its manufacturing and recruiting base.
By the Prophet! We've cracked the new landship fluff!!
Well, taking into account that the second CEF invasion destroyed the southern landship shipyards... it completely checks out
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mmmpi wrote: It won't be cities. It'll be *SPACE*Landships:named characters. The ratio will be at least 3:1.
(Or should that be Land*SPACE*ships?)
Funnily enough, a SPACElandship would make a lot more sense. Kind of like a White Base...
Firebreak wrote: Ah, the ever-teased twins. Had my dates mixed up.
A Port Arthur civil war could be very interesting.
Indeed it could... and then you have the Soldier Roskiman and Scruffy Guy threads you could also pick on, for added chaos to the mix.
Okay, I officially want a NuCoal civil war scenario/supplement sparked off by the destruction of Port Arthur.
It actually writes itself. It's a very compelling scenario, and it doesn't break the setting or its premises...
Arguably, the Peace River attack could still happen, and the Earth nuking Port Arthur would be the second step in a harrasing campaign from the CEF to prevent the problems it had during the first invasion, that being a cohesive Badlands creating a third front.
An attack against Port Arthur could be prompted by the Yakut Brotherhood after the Peacer River bombing, probably sparked by Colonel Arthur's intent of having closer relationships with the rest of the NuCoal: that would be a threat against a renewed CEF invasion, so the Yakuts would not abide it.
Peace River and Port Arthur getting attacked sets up an interesting scenario regarding NuCoals NuGears, too. Some of them - I'd still see most of them disappear - could exist as part of a NATO-style joint defense program. (That is, behind schedule, overbudget, and lacking most of the features everyone wanted.) It would bulk out Paxton's line and make a little more sense than SUDDENLY HUMANIST GENIUS MAGIC. I'd like to see the Dark upgrades remain, but maybe the Claw series not launch or even enter development until the WfTN actually begins.
warboss wrote: Do you mean scheduled games or that DP9 isn't even going i.e. no booth in the dealer's hall? I thought nublitz was supposed to premiere there this summer. As for scheduled fan run games, you need fans to run them and HG has long been short of those. Even the gencon get together games that have months to prepare and organize with multiple participants confirming don't happen.
Oh, hey! DP9 does have a booth at Gencon this year! #1321, right next to Margerat Weis Productions and behind Upper Deck. it's not the smallest booth an exhibitor can get- it's the next size up. LOL Still haven't found any events for them in the gaming area. :( I might try the DP9 forums, but that place always makes me feel... sad.
And about the nuking of Paxton and landship yards, etc. etc. DP9 just uses the events of WWII as a play book for their own history. PAXTON got nuked just like Hiroshima, but Japan moved on to become a leading electronics and automotive industrial juggernaut after the war.
The bombing of Pearl Harbor made it such that many wrote off the US Pacific Fleet... but it just so happened that all the aircraft carriers were not in port that day, and it turned out those aircraft carriers won the Pacific Theater for the US.
Again, and again, DP9 has "ripped off" history for their own universe. I'm not saying it's a bad thing or not, just that that is where they get a lot of their inspiration from. Does it make any sense? /shrug
The difference is that Japan was then rebuilt thanks to the country that nuked it which also provided for its protection allowing the Japan to spend very little of its GDP on defense unlike the US... and it still took 20+ years for that electronics and automotive juggernaut to *start* happening. The equivalent from Heavy Gear would be more like if the US had nuked almost every major city and industrial area in Japan on Dec 8th, 1941 and Japan ended up winning the Pacific war decisively anyways by becoming a military and industrial juggernaut with all new advanced tech despite that.
As for Gencon, judging from a thread earlier this year when the events were due and then released, there aren't any official events outside of demos in the dealer's hall nor are there any fan run scheduled game events either. There was the usual half hearted talk of a get together unofficial game but that has consistently fallen apart in years prior.
warboss wrote: As for Gencon, judging from a thread earlier this year when the events were due and then released, there aren't any official events outside of demos in the dealer's hall nor are there any fan run scheduled game events either. There was the usual half hearted talk of a get together unofficial game but that has consistently fallen apart in years prior.
Once again, the Pod follows in Palladium's footsteps!
The Pod should "poll" the backers whether they should sell a "select" amount of product at Gencon prior to fulfilling KS Backers.
In all seriousness, I don't recall if they made that pledge. If they didn't, IMO they're free legally and morally to do so but it obviously may not be in their best long term financial interests (a concern that never particularly bothered them in the past).
So, for those going with access to the games, are there no fan run or official run Robotech or HG events at all at gencon beyond dealer hall mini-demos? That's a sad statement for the mech tabletop genre. I guess folks can get their fix with Battletech/Alpha Strike instead.
Automatically Appended Next Post: On an unrelated note, has anyone here played a good amount or tried to play a good amount of arena? Why did that game fail specifically? (beyond the usual bugbears inherent with using the blitz silhouette system) They gave away a free copy of the rules a few years ago in some contest or promo (for HGA on facebook?) that I downloaded but I must not have kept it on more than one hard drive as I can't find it anymore.
Quite frankly, I doubt the Pod would even deign to ask. If the Pod can make an extra penny at the expense of their existing customers, what would they do?
And even if they did make such a promise to fullfill KS backers before selling to the public, it's not like the Pod doesn't retract promises when it's financially convenient for them to do so.
But getting back to GenCon, it's not that surprising. Reaper CAV was kind of a thud. RRT is dead in the water. HG is kinda floundering. OTOH, if someone announces a PacRim game using the X-wing mechanics...
Nah. A Pacrim game, even if released in conjunction with the sequel for a boost, would IMO be a flash in the pan less impressive than the already forgotten about MonPoc. I would offer though that HG might make a turn around. Yes, it's optimistic and plenty of screw ups can happen but it's floundering LESS than it was a year, two years, or three years ago. Baby steps...
I wouldn't say that Heavy Gear is foundering. The company is still afloat, despite of everything, and they're going to be able to roll out the new product at GenCon, booth #1321.
Nomeny wrote: I wouldn't say that Heavy Gear is foundering. The company is still afloat, despite of everything, and they're going to be able to roll out the new product at GenCon, booth #1321.
So going from a licensed cartoon, multiple popular RPG lines, multiple successful video games by one of the biggest names in videogames, multiple games run each day at gencon (some official, others fan run), and available in most stores and most distributors to a largely direct order, one distributor carrying the product, no successful licensed finished products, all but one rpg dead in the water and the flagship RPG still in dry dock with no ETA on the launch, an videogame by a relative unknown still in alpha 4 years after the announcement, not available in most stores whether online or brick and mortar, with no games at gencon apparently scheduled isn't floundering? I'll admit that the game/company/IP is in a better state now than it was a year or two ago with the impending release of the plastics but that isn't a high bar to overcome. The titanic was afloat for hours after hitting the iceberg but that didn't prevent it from sinking. I hope it does do well with these changes though and they don't feth it up again.
Automatically Appended Next Post: On an unrelated note, has anyone here played a good amount or tried to play a good amount of arena? Why did that game fail specifically? (beyond the usual bugbears inherent with using the blitz silhouette system) They gave away a free copy of the rules a few years ago in some contest or promo (for HGA on facebook?) that I downloaded but I must not have kept it on more than one hard drive as I can't find it anymore.
It was released half finished, full of typos, some critical elements missing, etc... It read like it was written in a couple of weeks, and from what I was told by the people involved, it basically was.
A well-deserved dud.
warboss wrote: The difference is that Japan was then rebuilt thanks to the country that nuked it which also provided for its protection
That's what Earth is TRYING to do!
Dream Pod 9 is absolutely foundering less than a couple years ago when they were going to do a kickstarter for a black and white rulebook. That can safely be called foundering. Today, they are in a better place.
Heavy gear, the IP, is not in a good place. Two essentially dead games (Assault and the new RPG), and an as-yet untested relaunched flagship game. We're still at a point where the new game could reignite popularity for Heavy Gear, or it could just fizzle on.
Nomeny wrote: I wouldn't say that Heavy Gear is foundering. The company is still afloat, despite of everything, and they're going to be able to roll out the new product at GenCon, booth #1321.
So going from a licensed cartoon, multiple popular RPG lines, multiple successful video games by one of the biggest names in videogames, multiple games run each day at gencon (some official, others fan run), and available in most stores and most distributors to a largely direct order, one distributor carrying the product, no successful licensed finished products, all but one rpg dead in the water and the flagship RPG still in dry dock with no ETA on the launch, an videogame by a relative unknown still in alpha 4 years after the announcement, not available in most stores whether online or brick and mortar, with no games at gencon apparently scheduled isn't floundering? I'll admit that the game/company/IP is in a better state now than it was a year or two ago with the impending release of the plastics but that isn't a high bar to overcome. The titanic was afloat for hours after hitting the iceberg but that didn't prevent it from sinking. I hope it does do well with these changes though and they don't feth it up again.
I'm not disagreeing that they've seen better days. I do think that the impending release of the plastic Heavy Gear Blitz: War for Terra Nova set should see a turn-around in their fortunes. The fact that they've managed to get it produced despite the hurdles faced by the Kickstarter, and stay in business in the meantime, is a good sign to me. I'm hoping that it's something that they can build on from here.
Fun fact... I've been saying floundering (flapping around helplessly like a dying fish out of or in shallow water) and you guys have been saying foundering (a ship filling up with water and sinking). I suppose both may be appropriate.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nomeny wrote: I'm not disagreeing that they've seen better days. I do think that the impending release of the plastic Heavy Gear Blitz: War for Terra Nova set should see a turn-around in their fortunes. The fact that they've managed to get it produced despite the hurdles faced by the Kickstarter, and stay in business in the meantime, is a good sign to me. I'm hoping that it's something that they can build on from here.
Change "should" to "could" (the onus being on their future continued positive efforts rather than maintaining the status quo your word implies) and I agree completely. It's a seemingly subtle difference but important (to me at least) nonetheless.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
HudsonD wrote: It was released half finished, full of typos, some critical elements missing, etc... It read like it was written in a couple of weeks, and from what I was told by the people involved, it basically was. A well-deserved dud.
Thanks. I remember there being issues and a call for a long and immediate FAQ/errata to fix things but didn't recall exactly what they were. I skimmed through the pdf when I got it from the promo but focused more on the art than a detailed reading of the rules. The combos intrigued me as did the expanded combat system but as completely new mechanics (along with DP9's playtesting habits) I figured they may not hold up to much scrutiny. At least we got a few new minis out of it and some new poses for existing ones.
Like most of the "haters" posting in this thread, I've been there, done that... and it was neither appreciated nor particularly productive. Hopefully this new leaf the company is turning won't fall off and rot come Autumn like so many of the previous ones.
At Gencon this year, there are some Robotech Tactics games actually being run in the mini's hall. They are all sold out, but they look to be more like 2 hour demo's then "bring a list and play". Thomas Roache is running them- he was one of the writers for tactics I believe.
And there are some Robotech RPG events going on too.
As far as Pacific Rim is concerned, I'd say have a look at Monsterpoclypse by Privateer Press. It's not dead, it's just in limbo due to Pacific Rim. And before you ask, yes there is some drama there, and MonPoc came first, but someone REALLY wanted to get a movie made, so he sold the rights and didn't read the fine print. On a more happy note, PacRim 2 is back on, and there is a MonPoc script being floated around, so maybe we'll see the return- MonPoc II: A Whole New Disaster.
What's the term for a drowning victim after they stop floundering?
Psh. According to GW, AoS did fine financially, and is growing. This is entirely possible, given where WFB was.
I had forgotten about MonPoc, but it doesn't quite appeal to me. Maybe it doesn't have enough GrimDark?
It'll be interesting to see how HG does, whether the new plastics actually drive player growth and retailer support. Or whether it was just selling to the existing base.
Tamwulf wrote: At Gencon this year, there are some Robotech Tactics games actually being run in the mini's hall. They are all sold out, but they look to be more like 2 hour demo's then "bring a list and play". Thomas Roache is running them- he was one of the writers for tactics I believe.
And there are some Robotech RPG events going on too.
Ah, thanks. He must've submitted those later. A friend going let me know about his robotech options when it first opened; he mentioned the rpg games but I wasn't referring to related games in other genres. And iirc was the guy who originally proposed the different original game and a playtesting lead on this one...and a staunch defender of Palladium's ability to deliver in full despite three years of delays and no end in sight.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JohnHwangDD wrote: Psh. According to GW, AoS did fine financially, and is growing. This is entirely possible, given where WFB was.
I had forgotten about MonPoc, but it doesn't quite appeal to me. Maybe it doesn't have enough GrimDark?
Would you really expect GW to say otherwise? The few retailers who commented here said it was a stinker and the summer 3 month premiere dropped all their sales including 40k (iirc Mikhailia said 40% lost sales month over month). Gw only admits failure if they can pin it on an external source. As for Monpoc, it's about as grimdark as Spectreman and other 60s and 70s japanese scifi faire.
Nomeny wrote: I'm not disagreeing that they've seen better days. I do think that the impending release of the plastic Heavy Gear Blitz: War for Terra Nova set should see a turn-around in their fortunes. The fact that they've managed to get it produced despite the hurdles faced by the Kickstarter, and stay in business in the meantime, is a good sign to me. I'm hoping that it's something that they can build on from here.
I'd say that their biggest hurdle begins now: they have successfully produced the game, and they've given it a decent starting price point.
But thee most important part is that now the game must reach stores and distributors. It doesn't matter how good the new game and starter might be or not be if no one checks it out because it's only sold directly on the pod store. Even getting it on stores and a strong advertising campaing for a solid starter are not surefire measures, as the Halo fleet game clearly indicates, but if the game doesn't even get to that... it will fade and die, simple as that. Or well, limp away as it does currently.
Given how the world is going on lately, not having an overseas distributor basically means that people over here (generic "here" to basically mean EU) won't buy the game, to spare themselves the aggravation and additional costs. So that leaves you basically with the american and canadian market, where the Pod has a... reputation, with stores and distributors. They will need to overcome that, and have luck.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tamwulf wrote: And about the nuking of Paxton and landship yards, etc. etc. DP9 just uses the events of WWII as a play book for their own history. PAXTON got nuked just like Hiroshima, but Japan moved on to become a leading electronics and automotive industrial juggernaut after the war.
The bombing of Pearl Harbor made it such that many wrote off the US Pacific Fleet... but it just so happened that all the aircraft carriers were not in port that day, and it turned out those aircraft carriers won the Pacific Theater for the US.
Again, and again, DP9 has "ripped off" history for their own universe. I'm not saying it's a bad thing or not, just that that is where they get a lot of their inspiration from. Does it make any sense? /shrug
The southern landship shipyards could be argued to have been ripped off from Pearl Harbor, I guess, if you squint a bit, although if anything I would link it with the allies' bombing of Germany's manufacturing assets. But I don't really see the similarities with Peace River and Hiroshima/Nagasaki. Completely different situation, and completely different scope. Maybe the aftermath (although, again, very different scope), but honestly speaking, that came from the Blitz retcon and was not linked to the original idea in any way, so who knows.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Firebreak wrote: Peace River and Port Arthur getting attacked sets up an interesting scenario regarding NuCoals NuGears, too. Some of them - I'd still see most of them disappear - could exist as part of a NATO-style joint defense program. (That is, behind schedule, overbudget, and lacking most of the features everyone wanted.) It would bulk out Paxton's line and make a little more sense than SUDDENLY HUMANIST GENIUS MAGIC. I'd like to see the Dark upgrades remain, but maybe the Claw series not launch or even enter development until the WfTN actually begins.
That would probably be a much more sensible approach than the current one.
Politically speaking, a double nuking of Peace River and Port Arthur would probably give the survivors of both factions (or rather, the multiple factions: Port Arthur and PAK survivors, Peace River and PRDF survivors, Mayen's surviving followers and the rest of the original NuCoal at the very least, with even the possible addition of Roskiman's sandrider tribe, the Desert Wolves and lastly, Proust... yes, extreme circunstances might make for strange bedfellows) compelling reasons to unite and work together against a common enemy, that being the Yakut Brotherhood and CEF agents,plus the actual CEF later on. The NuCoal has decent manufacturing capabilities for the Badlands, and among the PR survivors were some R&D teams in secreted locations, so they might provide a number of new designs for manufacturing, just nowhere near the ones that PR and NuCoal got, and they'd have to account for limited high tech resources (in other words, the designs should be done for reliability).
The Dark Project would make more sense as a joint TN effort rather than mainly a PR Skunk Works one, too, and I basically agree with the Claws.
Firebreak wrote: A United Badlands led by Proust fighting Earth insurgents would be quite the twist for the Cabinet to swallow.
It is probably too out of left field, given his involvement in at least the Peace River bombing, but with enough desperation, it's not completely impossible that he could end up feeling the need to ally himself with former enemies to save the twin he has, for example; discovering the truth behind the FLAILs could make him snap, too.
Zaku212 wrote: So lads, I stopped following this back in 2008 as it seemed like a massive cluster-feth.
Am I right in thinking from reading this thread that there are plastics "on the way" but the rules have gone further to pot than they previously were?
Well, the rules are a new core, so it kind of remains to be seen. I'd say it has been lightly streamlined from what there was before, but I'm not sure how much of a net gain it can end up being.
Zaku212 wrote: So lads, I stopped following this back in 2008 as it seemed like a massive cluster-feth.
Am I right in thinking from reading this thread that there are plastics "on the way" but the rules have gone further to pot than they previously were?
You were right to stop back in 2008 (I did a few years earlier.. but then restarted around 2012) as it was a continuing mess. There was a bump with a new tweak of the rules after that along with a bump for a new style army book but that only lasted about a year. This is a good time to relook at the game since so much is changing in so little time. The new plastics are being produced right now with a premiere later this summer and the new rules that will accompany them just came out a few days ago. This is the first time in 20 years that HG has a completely new ruleset instead of a tweak of an existing one so you'll have to decide on your own if the changes are worthwhile. I recommend checking out the last half dozen kickstarter updates for looks at the painted plastics and drivethrurpg for the free download of the new rules (the July 4th update).
Zaku212 wrote: So lads, I stopped following this back in 2008 as it seemed like a massive cluster-feth.
Am I right in thinking from reading this thread that there are plastics "on the way" but the rules have gone further to pot than they previously were?
You were right to stop back in 2008 (I did a few years earlier.. but then restarted around 2012) as it was a continuing mess. There was a bump with a new tweak of the rules after that along with a bump for a new style army book but that only lasted about a year. This is a good time to relook at the game since so much is changing in so little time. The new plastics are being produced right now with a premiere later this summer and the new rules that will accompany them just came out a few days ago. This is the first time in 20 years that HG has a completely new ruleset instead of a tweak of an existing one so you'll have to decide on your own if the changes are worthwhile. I recommend checking out the last half dozen kickstarter updates for looks at the painted plastics and drivethrurpg for the free download of the new rules (the July 4th update).
I have a quiet friday in work here so I'll read up on the brb, which is looking great so far for a free PDF release!
anything even close to an ETA on retail versions of the plastics being available?
No idea. They planned to start shipping from the KS comments to backers in North America later this month and just sent out (according to the KS comments) the bill for international backer shipping. After that, who knows. My guess (based on going to gencon for 10 years but not on any concrete info) is that they'll premiere it at gencon for the first week of retail sales (that they collect 100% of) and then ship it out to their single distributor and whatever stores have direct accounts with them the week after.
Wayland Games in the UK a few years back was announced as the official exclusive distributor for Europe... and barely reordered any out of stock items after the first year post annoucement. I looked last week and couldn't find HG products in any of the online stores in any quantity I looked at. The few products I did find looked like left overs after a clearance (like Wayland). For those wishing to buy these new products, it's going to apparently be an uphill battle and one that DP9 needs to work on very quickly. It will only be worse for you as an international player.
The entry here by Dave (the line developer and caster) is an example of what I find/found frustrating about working on playtesting with DP9. While he still is an improvement over bonkers and biased Saleem, he finally posts in a 6 page thread about a potential issue with balance... and skips 5 pages of constructive criticism and suggestions to say that he doesn't like the single word title used to describe the potential mechanic. He then goes on to address a side discussion that Albertorius casually mentioned in a throw away post and then politely started another thread for when that side discussion took on a life of its own and threatened to derail the original. Five pages of various suggestions ignored because he didn't like the word "scoped" to describe one suggestion (not my own but I do like it). He does admittedly say why he doesn't like that one word (and he does have a point) but comments nothing on the actual topic of discussion which is the mechanics/roll/balance of the rifle overall in the new rules. Ughh... That didn't happen with IceRaptor or Smilodon on their projects. I certainly was a vocal proponent of certain topics that didn't go my way but I always felt that the issue was at least considered appropriately even if I didn't agree with the final decision. All it took in that thread was for Dave to say something like "No, I like the rifle as is. I want it to be a medium range inaccurate but hard hitting single shot weapon as the dice roller results show." to both acknowledge the potential issue raised as well as put it to bed. Instead, we get the tabletop gaming equivalent of the princess and the pea. I saw that happen multiple times two years ago (for instance with the 4 player starter idea when I suggested it should be a 2 player one at a lower cost... or the massive UA squad spam that has now been cut in half with the very latest update... both of which were ignored completely or dismissed out of hand when suggested) and it seems that at least that hasn't changed. :( It's not a huge deal but in the end frustratingly consistent with DP9.
warboss wrote: He does admittedly say why he doesn't like that one word (and he does have a point) but comments nothing on the actual topic of discussion which is the mechanics/roll/balance of the rifle overall in the new rules. Ughh...
For what it's worth - the original concept was that ACs were reliable damage (+1D), rifles were higher damage with a situational boost (+1D when braced) and burst-ACs were lower damage, bigger spread weapons (+2D). This was back when you could choose to allocate your base dice pool to any targets within 3" of each other, so a AC could split fire or concentrate to ensure they did damage. The (rough) equivalencies were a strength autocannon:6 == rifle:8 == burst-autocannon:4 - but that was before heavy play-testing, so YMMV.
I'm sorta surprised that people are still hanging in here. I figured I'd find a ghost-town.
The product is in production, ready to launch, and there's been a stream of pre-production content. Why wouldn't we be here discussing it? I mean, I get why you or warboss or Albertorius might not be here, but some of us are kind of excited about this.
I'm sorta surprised that people are still hanging in here. I figured I'd find a ghost-town.
It was but it picked up a bit. I'd pop over there maybe once a week or so and only see a handfull of topics active in the last 24 hours (usually 2-4). I just recently logged in for the first time in over two years last month when I got a mess of rafm minis and had some questions. I always said I'd pop back in when the final results shook out the other end of the development pipeline so the timing for me was rather fortuitous.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nomeny wrote: but some of us are kind of excited about this.
As well you should be since it is a big step and they have been doing better than the rinse, repeat, charge full price yet halfbaked premature releases of L&L and FM (and 2nd and 3rd edition RPG even). It's just that those of use who were there for some or all of those and saw the initial pie in the sky enthusiasm turn to frustration once the dust settled.. or even warned about it from the beginning seeing the problems ahead of time and watching them not be fixed... experience has shown us that we shouldn't count those chicks before they're hatched.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Psh. According to GW, AoS did fine financially, and is growing. This is entirely possible, given where WFB was.
I had forgotten about MonPoc, but it doesn't quite appeal to me. Maybe it doesn't have enough GrimDark?
Would you really expect GW to say otherwise? The few retailers who commented here said it was a stinker and the summer 3 month premiere dropped all their sales including 40k (iirc Mikhailia said 40% lost sales month over month). Gw only admits failure if they can pin it on an external source. As for Monpoc, it's about as grimdark as Spectreman and other 60s and 70s japanese scifi faire.
I'd expect them to say nothing, as they said basically nothing about Fantasy for years.
AOS released Summer 2015. 40k 7E released May 2014. That 40% year-over-year drop makes perfect sense when they don't have a major relaunch of THE only game that matters to a miniatures wargaming store. Quite frankly, GW launching 7E early in 2014 vs waiting until 2015-2016 was a bonus boon to the retailers. Those retailers whining might make more sense when compared to the last WFB launch. Or even 2013 when nothing launched (basically the same thing).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
warboss wrote: This is the first time in 20 years that HG has a completely new ruleset instead of a tweak of an existing one
It's been a while since I looked at the old HGB rules, and, yeah, the new version is much cleaner.
Nomeny wrote: Why wouldn't we be here discussing it? I mean, I get why you or warboss or Albertorius might not be here, but some of us are kind of excited about this.
It wasn't a criticism - just an observation. I figured interest would have fizzled out here, since that tends to be the cycle. My surprise was to find Warboss and Albertorius still engaged, as I would have figured them to have moved on by now. You might presume malice where none exists?
I'm not presuming malice. I'm wondering why you'd think nobody would be interested. Production was held up for a while there, but development of the game has probably benefited from the extra time.
If I understand it correctly it was your baby at some point, the project fell apart, and you're probably understandably sore about that. I have some stuff I check up on occasionally myself, for the sake of schadenfreude, but I don't try to participate in the conversation anymore.
Nomeny wrote: I'm not presuming malice. I'm wondering why you'd think nobody would be interested.
I assumed nobody would be interested because historically (during the Blitz / L&L) time Dakka (and other forums) generally went dark about HG until something new was released, then someone migrated from the DP9 forums over to spread the gospel, and then it went back to being quiet again. I assumed that most of the interested parties would have migrated back to the mothership, since most of the time it's a 'slow news day'.
Nomeny wrote: If I understand it correctly it was your baby at some point, the project fell apart, and you're probably understandably sore about that.
I walked away on amenable terms, actually. I may disagree with many of the choices Dave has made in steering it - but I knew when walked away that was the cost. I wasn't willing to tie so much time into the game anymore - so I didn't get to make decisions. That's just a natural consequence. So no - I don't habor any ill will, just a general engineer's bemusement at what I consider poor choices.
There's definitely more interest due to the KS - if not for that, I wouldn't have bought the CEF Frames that I did.
Although seeing the huge scale/proportion change from Tac era to nuBlitz/Arena kinda makes me wish I hadn't bought the Arena set. It's like the difference between RTB-01 and 7E SMs. I wonder if I could get some HG-scale infantry for them.
And it's spurred me to get KOG light to a playable state, which potentially makes other stuff like my RRT minis simply playable as well.
Nomeny wrote: Why wouldn't we be here discussing it? I mean, I get why you or warboss or Albertorius might not be here, but some of us are kind of excited about this.
It wasn't a criticism - just an observation. I figured interest would have fizzled out here, since that tends to be the cycle. My surprise was to find Warboss and Albertorius still engaged, as I would have figured them to have moved on by now. You might presume malice where none exists?
It still cycles, at least for me. I'd unsubscribe from the thread for a week or two to a month or two but then the curiosity always made me click that "unread" link eventually and I'd stick around shooting the breeze for a while. I wasn't tempted though to log into the official forums though for those two years. In my best Jake Gyllenhaal voice, "I wish I knew how to quit you, Heavy Gear!". My record so far was about 6+ years (whatever the time frame was between the Rafm and 1st edition switchovers to Blitz' release) and in 2nd place is the span between the L&L announcement and the FM release. Heavy Gear is the game that got me to buy into the tabletop hobby (although it's not the first game I played) and holds alot of nostalgia for me just like Robotech and Rifts (the first RPG that I played.. a robotech character in a Rifts campaign). Just like a parent with a good child who grew up into a bad adult, I see alot of the good that used to be and could have been overlaid over what actually is.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JohnHwangDD wrote: Although seeing the huge scale/proportion change from Tac era to nuBlitz/Arena kinda makes me wish I hadn't bought the Arena set. It's like the difference between RTB-01 and 7E SMs. I wonder if I could get some HG-scale infantry for them.
Out of curiosity, do you prefer the scale/proportions of the tact era minis more or the blitz era metals? I realize that you'd prefer to have a cohesive looking collection and that you have much more of the former than the latter but I'm asking, in a perfect world where you had the choice to restart at no cost, which you'd prefer. Feel free to add in the plastics if that is the correct choice for you.
warboss wrote: Don't forget to add "Schlecht Hund Uber Alles!".
Absolutely! Bad Dog the novel of my hero in her mecha traveling through microgates to see strange new planets and get into more trouble than she imagined.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Although seeing the huge scale/proportion change from Tac era to nuBlitz/Arena kinda makes me wish I hadn't bought the Arena set. It's like the difference between RTB-01 and 7E SMs. I wonder if I could get some HG-scale infantry for them.
Out of curiosity, do you prefer the scale/proportions of the tact era minis more or the blitz era metals?
I realize that you'd prefer to have a cohesive looking collection and that you have much more of the former than the latter but I'm asking, in a perfect world where you had the choice to restart at no cost, which you'd prefer. Feel free to add in the plastics if that is the correct choice for you.
From a purely aesthetic standpoint, I rank things like this:
1. Tactical-era minis,
2. Blitz/Arena-era minis,
3. plastics.
I like the Tactical-era minis best, as I find them more realistic / less cartoony. Even though we're talking about giant robots. Er, rather, big, stompy robots. In particular, the Tac-era weapons are far better proportioned for 1/144 scale. If we look at a modern heavy tank gun with a 120mm barrel, the true 1/144 scale diameter is less than 1 millimeter. If I look at the 380mm gun of a Sturmtiger, it scales to only 2.6mm diameter, well under 1/8 inch even with the counterweight collar. The details are finer and so forth. I believe the sculptor was deliberately trying for a true scale model, within the constraints of the materials available.
The Blitz/Arena stuff has 40k-style cartoon guns. If we believe scale, they are carrying cannon comparable in caliber to the WW2-era "88" gun, and the larger stuff easily outclasses the 128mm gun on the Jagdtiger. The Gears themselves got bigger and bloated. This exaggerated aesthetic is fine for wargame pieces.
I abhor the plastics stripping off much of the fine detailing and complex shape, their clumsy posing and terrible hands. In this iteration, the models are equivalent to boardgame plastics, rather than scale models. Or maybe gashapon.
I definitely like my stuff to match in style and scale, and I definitely prefer my Tac-era Gears. The CEF Frames are there to be different, and they succeed at that.
@John: Some good reasons. I actually prefer the cartoony look on the tabletop from a distance but it does look a bit odd on occasion close up. You make some good points with the barrel diameter. I suppose the Rafm scale heavy bazookas look to you like they should be launching something the size of Flails then! Those are some big tubes.
Yeah, the cartoon thing is definitely for tabletop viewing at a distance, and I get that. It's also the bit about camouflage vs heraldry that 40k delves into.
TBH, the Drake is the worst offender, by far. And yes, you could put a person inside that tube! In a world of big, stompy robots, the push for realism is kinda silly.
Yeah, the cartoon thing is definitely for tabletop viewing at a distance, and I get that. It's also the bit about camouflage vs heraldry that 40k delves into.
TBH, the Drake is the worst offender, by far. And yes, you could put a person inside that tube! In a world of big, stompy robots, the push for realism is kinda silly.
I... might have commented about the Drake in that regard back in the day. Something about the bazooka firing smaller bazookas...
Nomeny wrote: Why wouldn't we be here discussing it? I mean, I get why you or warboss or Albertorius might not be here, but some of us are kind of excited about this.
It wasn't a criticism - just an observation. I figured interest would have fizzled out here, since that tends to be the cycle. My surprise was to find Warboss and Albertorius still engaged, as I would have figured them to have moved on by now. You might presume malice where none exists?
It kind of comes and goes. I can't say I'm happy with the direction stuff is going (I still hope the game gets decent) but I'm just too fond of the setting to be completely done with it, so I go there from time to time, and yell someone to get off my lawn
At least in the current and previous Aug 2015 version, all the gearstriders got their main weapons buffed. I don't know when that started though as I only looked at the Aug 2015 version relatively recently and didn't bother with the last one or two before. I noticed it when I was researching whether I could use my RAFM kodiak as one and if the bazooka's oversized looks matched the stats.
Nomeny wrote: I'm not presuming malice. I'm wondering why you'd think nobody would be interested.
I assumed nobody would be interested because historically (during the Blitz / L&L) time Dakka (and other forums) generally went dark about HG until something new was released, then someone migrated from the DP9 forums over to spread the gospel, and then it went back to being quiet again. I assumed that most of the interested parties would have migrated back to the mothership, since most of the time it's a 'slow news day'.
Nomeny wrote: If I understand it correctly it was your baby at some point, the project fell apart, and you're probably understandably sore about that.
I walked away on amenable terms, actually. I may disagree with many of the choices Dave has made in steering it - but I knew when walked away that was the cost. I wasn't willing to tie so much time into the game anymore - so I didn't get to make decisions. That's just a natural consequence. So no - I don't habor any ill will, just a general engineer's bemusement at what I consider poor choices.
... This is relevant how ?
You're talking to the main architect behind your beloved "Heavy Gear Blitz: War for Terra Nova™" new edition, and you seem oddly passive-agressive about it. What's getting you so uncomfy ?
warboss wrote: At least they gave it special stats over and above the typical L/M/H designation...
Don't get me started on the light, medium, heavy, special version of weapons combined with the point blank, short, optimum, long, and extreme or what ever all the range bands were. My Gawd, so many modifiers...
... This is relevant how ?
You're talking to the main architect behind your beloved "Heavy Gear Blitz: War for Terra Nova™" new edition, and you seem oddly passive-agressive about it. What's getting you so uncomfy ?
I'm just interested in his background, given his comments about what Robert and Dave are doing with HGB. Sometimes when people have a particular expertise it pays to listen carefully to them.
Depends on what you consider an engineer. I'm a software developer with a decent math background, so that may or may not allow me into the exclusive 'engineers' club depending on what your personal views are.
warboss wrote: At least they gave it special stats over and above the typical L/M/H designation...
Don't get me started on the light, medium, heavy, special version of weapons combined with the point blank, short, optimum, long, and extreme or what ever all the range bands were. My Gawd, so many modifiers...
Yeah, the HG weapons list it's kinda excessive. Especially as it seems many were simply placeholders for completeness that didn't even get used. It's unnecessary complexity for complexity's sake. Forcing acronyms for the sake of acronyms.
Range bands in skirmish games are something of a peeve of mine. In HG, they're total nonsense, given that they actually do apply a maximum range, when there are only a couple weapons that would see a real-world maximum (effective) range at this scale. Short of the flamethrower (which modern doctrine doesn't even use), only grenade launchers and infantry fragmentation weapons would come up short on a typical board.
If they're going for a simulation, which the robots and spaceships and whatnot kind of nix no matter how plausible your technobabble sounds. At some point in the design I feel like you need to put usability and players first. Probably better to continue such a discussion in the GD forum.
OTOH, if the Pod wants actual feedback on the HGBTTWGLRB, they are free to open a thread under Game Design. Of course, there is some expectation that the Pod would actually consider the suggestions, rather than dismiss them out of hand because reasons.
OTOH, if the Pod wants actual feedback on the HGBTTWGLRB, they are free to open a thread under Game Design. Of course, there is some expectation that the Pod would actually consider the suggestions, rather than dismiss them out of hand because reasons.
Pretty much. Everyone of my suggestions has fallen on deaf ears (or maybe blind eyes?). A game at this scale with those kinds of range bands? Not to mention all the different types of weapons was insane. It was so obvious just by looking at the weapons chart which weapons were far superior to anything else. And the preponderance of their occurrence was very much in evidence any time you looked at an army list. It always made me cringe to think that a Bazooka, basically a metal tube with a dumb rocket in it, was the best weapon in a game filled with space ships, laser cannons, high tech, and mecha. So stupid... but I guess that's my personal bias showing, eh?
So here's a question for you guys and gals. Given that the rules have a 3" cylinder the diameter of the base as the actual measurement of most gearstriders as part of the profile to use if there are any LOS issues, is this photoshopped comparison an ok substitute? I took a pic this weekend of my Rafm Kodiak next to a hunter and tried to match the angle of the shot as much as possible and then resized the pic until the hunter's base was the exact width as that of the hunter in the official pic. Is that an ok substitute size-wise for a gearstrider?
OTOH, given the realities of HG matchups (no players, no gaming), it won't matter a bit what you do. It's close enough for me, if we were to ever play.
Striders have gone through some growth spurts (and price raises!) since their initial introduction. It'd probably be spot on for the original gearstrider, the Cataphract, on the bottom right. Also, that drake sculpt is uuuuuuuugly.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Range bands in skirmish games are something of a peeve of mine. In HG, they're total nonsense, given that they actually do apply a maximum range, when there are only a couple weapons that would see a real-world maximum (effective) range at this scale.
The ranges are present as a game mechanic; they are (supposed to be) an incentive to maneuver, and a way to differentiate weapon play-types. I wanted to have mechanical benefits for CQB weapons (flame-throwers, shotguns, etc) as well as to be able to reinforce the fluff background of the weapons on the tabletop. If a Snub Cannon has the same effective range as everything else (i.e. the board), it's harder to give places for the autocannons and missiles of the world to shine.
If you have more defense types, you can drop range and still have segmentation. But HG's legacy was just DEF to defend, then Armor to protect. Keeping the rules similar enough to appeal to the old guard, while moving them in a more modern approach was difficult and I did it largely in isolation. There was certainly plenty of room for improvement.
I would note that while range bands aren't realistic, a game whose primary design driver is realism won't be fun, either. If we're going for realism, cheap man-portable guided missiles means Gears have no chance on the battlefield. And that's before we deal with the fact that there are effective speed-of-light weapons - which would be the second nail in the coffin of Gears. There has to be some balance, and in this case I felt the game play was more important than the 'realism'. That's why the new HG feels more 'gamey' and less 'realistic' - it's a deliberate shift to give the wargame more room for abstractions that make for a fun game.
Thanks for the explanation, although I am not entirely convinced that having so many bands is necessarily the best implementation (I only have effective range / long range in my game). For a game like HG, pretending that you're going for "realism", there are still the core RL drivers of ROF, caliber and muzzle velocity that can be traded for whatever the conventional weapon might be. Then you have exotic stuff like lasers and missiles. I think there are plenty of differentiators even without implementing non-realistic range bands and completely unrealistic maximum ranges.
Defense-wise, yes, this is gamey, and it gets to the core combat mechanic. Structurally, my mechanic is similar, but simplified via implicit subtraction.
I dispute that realism wouldn't be fun - in a game like this, one can apply more grit (ranges) to offset areas where it's not desirable (mass MANPADS). In the real world, energy weapons are strongly affected by atmosphere. We don't have small anti-tank lasers because the energy required to punch through the air and then a tank' takes a bigger battery than what a tank can carry. That said, Infantry should be assumed to all carry a single IED / Bazooka teams in a world of Gears, but what an unassisted human can carry compared to a walking tank would be of less power and capability.
Realism shouldn't be conflated with complexity, nor simplicity with gamey. One can have realistic, simple games, and the Command and Colors games are excellent for being realistic in the sense that units behave properly, and the flow of the battle is correct. Proper tactics are generally rewarded. Then there are unrealistic, overly-complex games, of which old HG is a pretty good example. ___
Note that I'm not blaming you for how it came out - I get that you were still trying to make it HG-like, which necessarily carries over a lot of old mechanics and stats.
JohnHwangDD wrote: I think there are plenty of differentiators even without implementing non-realistic range bands and completely unrealistic maximum ranges.
Sure, there could be. I'm not disputing that. The compromise solution - the weird range bands like 6-18"/32" are not something I'm going to passionately defend, because I didn't like them when I was making the game and would have preferred to refine them away as time went on. Even a two range band split needs to be carefully tweaked IMO, because if you make it too hard to land a shot at long range, what's the point of having long range in the first place? Just ditch it and make the player's life simpler. It was retained largely because it seemed like HG fans were traditionalists, who would want to retain a simulation of realism even if it was a clunky mechanic.
I dispute that realism wouldn't be fun - in a game like this, one can apply more grit (ranges) to offset areas where it's not desirable (mass MANPADS). In the real world, energy weapons are strongly affected by atmosphere. We don't have small anti-tank lasers because the energy required to punch through the air and then a tank' takes a bigger battery than what a tank can carry. That said, Infantry should be assumed to all carry a single IED / Bazooka teams in a world of Gears, but what an unassisted human can carry compared to a walking tank would be of less power and capability.
I was talking about the 'realism' of the Heavy Gear universe. If you take the background material as 'true' and try to make a game that's 'realistic' to the technology they have. They do have lasers that can kill tanks at a kilometer or so. They have ubiquitous electronics that are standardized - which means there's no reason every missile wouldn't have at least some guided capability. Ranges for sensors and missiles are weird, I'll freely admit - you can detect objects a few kilometers away, but their missiles are in the single kilometer range (whereas the 1970s hellfire has an operating range of 8km).
What I mean is if you follow all of the 'in-universe' realism to it's logical end, you get very boring encounters. Whomever detects the other person first wins, and there are threats that there's just no counters to. You'd have to build the game around the scenario where Gears are supposed to have a role - like a dangerous environment for infantry, that's too unstable for conventional vehicles to have a role. Which might work, might not. In the end I think you have to flex the in-universe 'realism' in order to give Gears a place to be.
Realism shouldn't be conflated with complexity, nor simplicity with gamey. One can have realistic, simple games, and the Command and Colors games are excellent for being realistic in the sense that units behave properly, and the flow of the battle is correct. Proper tactics are generally rewarded. Then there are unrealistic, overly-complex games, of which old HG is a pretty good example.
Absolutely. People thought old HG was a 'realistic' game because they had weapon ranges that looked 'normal' to military eyes, and because there was lots of detail in damage tracking. But it was a good example of the system rewarding number-crunching, instead of tactical decisions. It was more about what you brought to the table, rather than how you used it. And while there some element of that which is realistic (small arms can't hurt a tank), it doesn't make for a good tactical game.
Note that I'm not blaming you for how it came out - I get that you were still trying to make it HG-like, which necessarily carries over a lot of old mechanics and stats.
No worries, I fully own up to the decisions I made. The game was meant to be a refinement of the old system, not a whole new system - because ultimately I (an outsider) had to pitch it to people who were part of the old guard. There wasn't a desire to 'rock the boat' from the inside, and as an outsider I didn't feel like a wildly new system would be accepted. So I hedged my bets and compromised, which is why the system is less dramatically different than people could have expected. The biggest gain was to remove multiplication / division which was the most common complaint I heard in 4+ years of demoing, and I think the system does that well. There was significant resistance to the idea of dropping the opposed roll, for instance - which means there are certain things you just have to live with.
But an entirely new system, from the ground up that tried to weave in the background more strongly? That could be really interesting.
The only reason I have near / far range in my game is because players expect it, even thought it barely makes any sense at 1/144 scale if "realism" is to factor at all. Especially with HG typically played on sub-40k-sized boards. The 7+ foot corner-to-corner shot on a 4x6' board is barely 1,000 ft (0.3 km) - that's basically point blank for anything with modern targeting and fire control.
If you look at the tech level of the HG universe, and take it as being higher than our own, then everything always hits, and the only question is the quality of the shot based on intervening terrain and luck of what part specifically got hit. I agree that 40k & HG gamers won't want that sort of game.
One of the guys I game with is an ex-tanker, and I used to be big in to the WW2 stuff. It is very hard using the world "realism" when we look at 1/100 Flames of War, 1/144 HG, or 1/56 40k ranges and distances. What I see is sham detail masquerading as "realism", when true realism pushes all of that stuff back by an order of magnitude. I agree that working the min-max stats tables makes for something of a worse game.
As in the other thread, you did a good job, and removing the multiplication was a good move.
The same is true in videogames. I enjoy world of tanks but a shot at the maximum spotting distance in that game (450m) was considered a close range shot in WW2. You take it for what it's worth and hopefully have a fun time.
Indeed! I love watching Girls Und Panzer. Even though none of the actual driving & fighting has a lick of realism in it. It looks great and is entertaining, though...
Maybe we need to rebrand minis wargames as playing out the video game / anime adaptation of a "what if" encounter?
What it comes down to is that the game developer has to decide how to resolve the action in the game. We throw around words like "realism" and "technical" when the reality is, in modern day warfare, just about all the equivalent HG weapons would be able to shoot anywhere on the table with accuracy and "hitting power". The "sci-fi" weapons would be even more deadly. So the game designer has to deal in the abstract, and that comes down to how complicated to make the resolution system.
It could be as easy as each Gear has a stat, you roll some dice, and compare that to the stat of the enemy Gear. If you hit, you do a fixed amount of damage. It could be made even simpler- you get X amount of dice, and for every dice that rolls 4 or more, you hit and do damage. The damage can be easy or hard as well- a gear could have X amount of hit points, and when those points are gone, the gear is inoperable.
Or it can be made hilariously complicated, starting with the pilots skill at shooting, which is calculated during the army building phase. Next, it's modified by the targeting system in his gear, and the ECCM being generated. Next, how fast the Gear is moving could influence the shot (though you would think a computer would be able to compensate for that. After all, they already do in a modern Fighter), and finally, the weapon the Gear is using could have an effect on the shot- range bands! So that's what, a primary stat and four modifiers right there! Now, we can use a "versus" resolution system where the defender has a defense value that has a bunch of modifiers, (pilot defense skill, gear computer telling him how to dodge, how fast his gear is moving, ECM, is he behind cover, etc. etc. and both the attacker and defender roll dice, and either compare the dice to each other, or to some attack or defense number to count up successes. This is an active-style combat system and works fairly well when you only have 1-2 combats a turn to resolve. When you start adding in many, many combat resolutions, it becomes cumbersome. Really, there is no upper boundary for how complicated a resolution system can be.
You need to have a balance somewhere in between, but again, the game designer has to envision what the combat will be like: Fast, anime style combat where Gears can dodge lasers (which would be impossible in real life), or slow, ponderous murder machine gears that plod across the battlefield, shooting at each other, damaging each Gear piece by piece until its no longer functional or blows up.
Once the primary vision of how combat should be in this particular universe is set, then the game developer can start writing the conflict resolution system for the game. A really good game will have a cohesive and intuitive resolution system that can be applied anytime something on the board must be resolved: Whether it be shooting an autocannon at a Gear, or figuring out if your gear can climb a cliff or not. Having multiple resolution systems clutters up the game and makes it harder to play.
Basically, you have to decide what the focus of the game will be (gear on gear combat? Or army vs. army combat? Combined arms? Tanks? Infantry? Air? Space? How do they fight on Terra Nova? Fast, anime style, slow, lots of maneuvering, how do they fight?), then how "big" the game will be (1-2 models per side, units of models, whole armies...), and finally, how long you want the game to last. The game developer is making the "ideal" game, under "ideal" circumstances. Then they can start writing the rules. Periodically, they should review it, and look at the how the game scales when it strays from this "ideal" game. There should be some parameters set early, lest the final game spirals out of control.
At least, that's the way I would approach making a new version of HG. /shrug
Yup, I Tamwulf is right on all points. I found it best to aim for a 'verisimilitude' of realism, if for no other reason than the target audience (HG Fans) have a simulationist bias. I'm more in the gamist camp, myself - so there was a mismatch. I was trying to make a game that reflected the story descriptions more than adhered to the rule legacy, and I think in some ways it achieved that. We'll see where it goes from here.
This is pretty interesting. I'm curious about missions and scoring, and other game parameters that would presumably inform the pace and development of play when determining the kinds of processes and procedures that should take players through a game.
Nomeny wrote: This is pretty interesting. I'm curious about missions and scoring, and other game parameters that would presumably inform the pace and development of play when determining the kinds of processes and procedures that should take players through a game.
Missions and scoring would be one of the last, if not the last things, to work on. Once you have a solid foundation of how to resolve conflict, you can establish the "parameters" of winning. Do you leave it up to the players to decided who wins? Do you play for a fixed number of turns, or until you've had enough? Last man standing? Mission cards like "destroy the enemy's ECM" or do you each get tokens, and you place the tokens on the table, and then score points for "picking up" the token? Is the game time limited? Here is where a strong "fluff" background can come into play, as well as the "vision" of what the game should be. Again, the Game Designer has to deal in the abstract, because actual, real world military missions are NOTHING like what you might think (unless you were in the Military and saw the entire process from beginning to end- planing, prep, equip, train, execute, after action, etc. etc.).
The HG:B mission system was pretty snazy, I will admit. I liked it! I'd like to see something like it continue into the new edition. Having objectives to fulfill and points to score makes for a much better play experience then "kill the enemy".
Tamwulf wrote: Having objectives to fulfill and points to score makes for a much better play experience then "kill the enemy".
Too true! What's funny is how long it's taken players to accept this, and the HG random mission generator is not bad.
Although, in some ways, I'm starting to think that the pendulum has swung too far over to the other side, simply for the sheer amount of time it takes to figure out what you're fighting for. GW's 40k 7E mission generator becomes rather painful with all of the random things you're supposed to check for just to get started, and adding in mysterious objectives and/or Maestrom keeps the annoyance going every turn.
There's a happy middle ground between running around like a chicken with it's head cut off, and only killing stuff to kill stuff.
Tamwulf wrote: Having objectives to fulfill and points to score makes for a much better play experience then "kill the enemy".
Too true! What's funny is how long it's taken players to accept this, and the HG random mission generator is not bad.
Although, in some ways, I'm starting to think that the pendulum has swung too far over to the other side, simply for the sheer amount of time it takes to figure out what you're fighting for. GW's 40k 7E mission generator becomes rather painful with all of the random things you're supposed to check for just to get started, and adding in mysterious objectives and/or Maestrom keeps the annoyance going every turn.
There's a happy middle ground between running around like a chicken with it's head cut off, and only killing stuff to kill stuff.
What I strongly dislike about 40K Melstrom Missions, is the sheer randomness, how some are impossible to fulfill, and how they give your opponent zero chance to react. Case in point: "Successfully manifest a Psykic Power"- so all I have to do is cast a spell? Awesome! And very easy for some armies, and impossible for others (Tau, Necrons, Bugs, any army that doesn't take a Psyker). "Slay the Warlord" - again, what if that Warlord is a Bloodthrister? Good luck. How about "Take Objective 3"- and it just so happens that Objective 3 is on the other side of the table behind my opponent's lines. I could suicide a deep strike squad and hope I get close enough to take it, or right it off as "impossible". Or how about "Take Objective 4" which one of my scoring units is presently sitting on- and my opponent gets no chance to react or stop me.
There are all kinds of House Rules for Melstrom missions, Basically, nice idea, implementation needs some work.
No battle plan survives contact with the enemy. What I would like to see in HG:B would be a similar mission system to the last one, but halfway through the game, a player can decide to "Change" his objectives. For example, halfway through the game, it becomes obvious they can't win the game with the current objectives, so the player decides to change to "save the commander and one other gear" which could be those units survive until the end of the game, or they manage to reach a certain extraction zone. These "Changed Objectives" are worth fewer points then the "Primary" objectives, but they give the player a chance instead of zero points.
It would be great if a player could generate a random objective and get full points for achieving it, or pick an objective, and get fewer points for it, but it's more "achievable" for that player. And have a couple secondary objectives.
IMO, Maelstrom is something of a disaster, and I don't think anybody actually plays it as written - they all appear to apply house rules to remove "impossible" objectives (which go hand in glove with which armies were taken).
I'm not sold on the idea of the Field Commander simply changing his mind mid-game. I think Major v Minor v Draw covers that. If you're getting beat, and Major is out of grasp, then you need to refocus strategy for Minor or Draw, and adjust tactical play accordingly.
IMO, for a generic mission generator, the HG thing is fine for getting games started, but I don't think they're "balanced". Nor do the ideas of "secret" with "re-rolls" really work together. But it's not a big deal.
I really enjoy Maelstrom, and I think it's pretty important to keep the null results to both balance out the armies, make it work. The Maelstrom Warlord traits exist so that players have the option to mitigate risk, after all. I think the combination of ongoing scoring and random draw helps to spread the game out over the board. I'd liken it to the implementation of random game length from 4th edition to 5th edition 40k as a massive improvement over the Eternal War missions.
For the short time my old group played 7th before giving up on 40k, we did sharef objectives meaning each player drew them and had first crack on the new ones but ultimately both players had a chance to accomplish them.
Maelstrom is a very different way of playing the game, and it absolutely needs to be played RAW, keeping the "impossible" objectives as unscorable. It also requires a physical deck, which is more expense. But the whole thing devolves into just so much randomness...
Actually you don't need the deck, they're just handy. It's kind of cool how they work like that, in that you can either roll on the book tables or use cards. You can even make your own cards. The Renegade ITC rules do an interesting variation with a list of 14 Maelstrom-style objectives where the players can pick two of 1-12, or trade them in for 13 or 14, and scoring them at the beginning of the next player turn. My local group found they were a little difficult to use and so we made cards. Seems easy enough to play a partial Maelstrom deck of cards with players choice.
I've tried Maelstrom without cards, and it was really cumbersome and painful. Maelstrom definitely needs cards. Saying you can roll dice for Maelstrom is like saying, well, you can play 40k with standees instead of minis...
I quite liked whichever edition of HG it was that gave each side a different "mission priority" for their objectives; one side might be running low on fuel and supplies so really needs to capture that supply dump, while the other side is looking to observe the enemy strength, but it's not really that important to them. That affected, IIRC, the sort of off-table support available and morale thresholds.
I liked the idea of the PL system and how it interacted with the missions but unfortunately its implementation in actual practice was flawed, especially in how it was used to build certain armies. It artificially boosted some builds and crippled others when it pigeonholed them into certain PL's based on what went where (core, auxilliary, etc) via the regiment force organization system.
warboss wrote: I liked the idea of the PL system and how it interacted with the missions but unfortunately its implementation in actual practice was flawed, especially in how it was used to build certain armies.
I'm with warboss - I really liked the ideal of Priority Levels, but hated the implementation. It was such a cool concept that ended up just being a major hindrance to army building.
What, you mean a system where the Priority level added incoherent restrictions to list building and did not actually change the difficulty of the mission, or the availability of support options, was botched ?
We are talking about taking 30 seconds to realize that the worst case was needing 1 more OP for a major victory, IIRC.
For the benefit of the people reading this thread, and that might not be familiar with the old PL system, lets use compare it with 40K army building, around 5th edition, before formations and all.
Regular PL is like CAD, You need one HQ, and 2 troop choices. Ok
Certain army variants can have some specific squads that change their requirement. Lets say you play Blood Angels, your assault squads are now troop. Awesome !
So far, so good.
The PL (Priority-something) system was intended to represent increasingly "more important" missions, with better troops assigned, and more important objectives.
So lets say you're playing high PL, well, instead of needing 1 HQ and 2 Troops, you now need 1 HQ and one Elite, and your troop choices are 0-2. Most people would like that more, except that, once you mix that and the above, you gain armies that have bonuses (stronger squads as core choices) that turn to maluses. Brilliant.
In case some white-knight comes around to explain us that this was a feature, not a bug, when I mentionned this to the game writer that this system was penalizing certain armies, his reply was ... complete surprise. He hadn't noticed the issue at all during the writing and "testing".
The issue was never solved (simply adding "Army Y may count X as core choices" instead "Army Y counts X as core choices" would have solved it), and a brand new, different system was released 2 years later anyway, with its own new sets of weird bugs, issues and imbalances.
That's DP9 for you.
HudsonD wrote: For the benefit of the people reading this thread, and that might not be familiar with the old PL system, lets use compare it with 40K army building, around 5th edition, before formations and all.
Regular PL is like CAD, You need one HQ, and 2 troop choices. Ok
Certain army variants can have some specific squads that change their requirement. Lets say you play Blood Angels, your assault squads are now troop. Awesome !
So far, so good.
The PL (Priority-something) system was intended to represent increasingly "more important" missions, with better troops assigned, and more important objectives.
So lets say you're playing high PL, well, instead of needing 1 HQ and 2 Troops, you now need 1 HQ and one Elite, and your troop choices are 0-2. Most people would like that more, except that, once you mix that and the above, you gain armies that have bonuses (stronger squads as core choices) that turn to maluses. Brilliant.
In case some white-knight comes around to explain us that this was a feature, not a bug, when I mentionned this to the game writer that this system was penalizing certain armies, his reply was ... complete surprise. He hadn't noticed the issue at all during the writing and "testing".
The issue was never solved (simply adding "Army Y may count X as core choices" instead "Army Y counts X as core choices" would have solved it), and a brand new, different system was released 2 years later anyway, with its own new sets of weird bugs, issues and imbalances.
That's DP9 for you.
And, on top of everything, having an higher PLwas not actually making the mission harder.
It's kinda speaking volumes to me when their rulebook update over the weekend there had the following:
The July 17th update mainly adds the bookmarks and table of contents page links that were missing from the earlier update, plus adds new chibi gear artwork and other photos to the rules section, and fixes all the grammer and typos that were found.
Idk if the misspelling is intentional but either way it's acting the maggot. Are their QA guys (If they exist) just sitting around drinking milk from bags?
Unfortunately, Robert can't write for gak (seriously, most non-native english speakers I know write better in english than him, or at least with less obvious mistakes). But AFAIK, Robert is not the writer of the book, but Dave, so... dunno? I haven't paid much attention, TBH ^_^
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mrondeau wrote: And, on top of everything, having an higher PLwas not actually making the mission harder.
Srsly. With the excision of the Morale rules, priority got weird fast.
Albertorius wrote: Unfortunately, Robert can't write for gak (seriously, most non-native english speakers I know write better in english than him, or at least with less obvious mistakes). But AFAIK, Robert is not the writer of the book, but Dave, so... dunno? I haven't paid much attention, TBH ^_^
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mrondeau wrote: And, on top of everything, having an higher PLwas not actually making the mission harder.
Srsly. With the excision of the Morale rules, priority got weird fast.
What ? Morale was less important with higher PL: the thresholds included PL.
Of course, Morale was essentially: kill the CGL to break to CG, otherwise waste time rolling dice to ultimately do nothing.
IIRC, in the first Blitz rules Priority was only on the mission types, and it was only related to Morale, as in low priority missiones had worse morale thresholds.
Zaku212 wrote: It's kinda speaking volumes to me when their rulebook update over the weekend there had the following:
The July 17th update mainly adds the bookmarks and table of contents page links that were missing from the earlier update, plus adds new chibi gear artwork and other photos to the rules section, and fixes all the grammer and typos that were found.
Idk if the misspelling is intentional but either way it's acting the maggot. Are their QA guys (If they exist) just sitting around drinking milk from bags?
There is no QA group at DP9, and there hasn't been for a long time - that's a big part of why Arena died. This living rulebook is getting some form of QA only because a dozen or so people are posting typos on the forum, but that's it.
It's been crowdsourced for years. Heck, the it's/its issue was one that I submitted over a dozen corrections for PRIOR to the release of the first publicly shown alpha version of the rules 2 1/2 years ago. It's a common mistake and one I'm certainly guilty of at times... or worse! I found the mistakes in that initial document using an arcane process of technosorcery called "search" after I noticed the first two or three in the alpha rules back when I was ostensibly playtesting.
I think I can safely say that this will be one of the best giant-antigravity-land-battleship games around.
Well, Albert, it was nice seeing you post on the dp9forums all these years but I suppose that era will soon be coming to a close. That at least explains the sudden interest in revamping Space Landship Yamato for interstellar combat beyond just a one page fluff blurb in the upcoming rulebook.
I think I can safely say that this will be one of the best giant-antigravity-land-battleship games around.
Well, Albert, it was nice seeing you post on the dp9forums all these years but I suppose that era will soon be coming to a close. That at least explains the sudden interest in revamping Space Landship Yamato for interstellar combat beyond just a one page fluff blurb in the upcoming rulebook.
Yeah, I saw... as you can expect, I'm not too thrilled, setting wise, about that development >_>.
I don't plan on pledging for the KS (duh), but eh, it's removed enough for me to treat it like an alternate reality and be done with it. I've been doing that since the NuCoal book after all, so...
And if the game is fun enough, who knows. I'll just wait for retail, and if they actually manage to get an EU dealer I might even buy it, who knows.
Just close your eyes and think of the Republic when you see the fluff. As for backing the KS, you'll probably be better off waiting for retail regardless given the current 70% markup for shipping on the HG kickstarter. I'm guessing the rates won't magically get better in the next year or two.
warboss wrote: Just close your eyes and think of the Republic when you see the fluff. As for backing the KS, you'll probably be better off waiting for retail regardless given the current 70% markup for shipping on the HG kickstarter. I'm guessing the rates won't magically get better in the next year or two.
"Better". Heh.
I already have fleet scale minis of the old kind, so if the ruleset is decent I might buy the pdf. I don't really need anything else.
I think I'm more interested in tiny scale Heavy Gear combat if they make the ground units at 3mm hopefully (6mm being too big for my tastes.. I'd like a whole squad of gears on a 40mm base!).
warboss wrote: I think I'm more interested in tiny scale Heavy Gear combat if they make the ground units at 3mm hopefully (6mm being too big for my tastes.. I'd like a whole squad of gears on a 40mm base!).
Fleet scale ground units were smaller than equivalent Epic ones, IIRC, although the Gears were bigger (basically Epic dreadnought scale), so probably the rest of the ground units would probably be ok-ish as is. That combined with the scale change (from 1:3500 to 1:2500), the landships should probably feel more to scale.
The fleet scale helicarrier, oops I men landships, game sounds interesting, but I'm too old to find 'chibi' or super deformed anything of much interest to me.
Ghislain WAS Heavy Gear (and Jovian Chronicles) in many respects, there really was no replacing him. Too bad his online portfolio seems to be down, though he has a Tumblr.
Absolutely, John. He defined a look, and that's a big thing for a game or setting. I think my biggest complaint with modern Heavy Gear is that there has been no attempt at style. The style set by Barbe has not been modernized or built on, or even drawn from for inspiration. We've just had purely modern, purely digital art, with none of the feel of what was created 20 years ago.
Barbe's original art can certainly be called "dated" (a term I hate but understand), but the fact is, it STILL stands out. Very, very little of the new art is capable of that. It all just looks like another mecha speedpaint from deviantArt, or, much worse, a poor render job.
I did like some of the art from the waning blitz years. The Parajagers dropping in from FIF, the duelist characters from arena, and the technical drawings from the TPS and FIF were ones that I liked. I didn't think the actual human art (all round cherub faced) was particularly good though as well as the fauna/landscapes or covers. It wasn't all bad but it definitely lacked the cohesion and consistent quality that the Ghislain era had for its time.
That's the difference an art director can make, I suppose. Someone to maintain a consistent vision. Warhammer's a great example of that. There is some HORRENDOUS effing art in 40K, but even the worst offenders are still immediately identifiable as 40K. Even the original Rogue Trader stuff still looks like the property.
Firebreak wrote: Absolutely, John. He defined a look, and that's a big thing for a game or setting. I think my biggest complaint with modern Heavy Gear is that there has been no attempt at style. The style set by Barbe has not been modernized or built on, or even drawn from for inspiration. We've just had purely modern, purely digital art, with none of the feel of what was created 20 years ago.
I wouldn't go quite that far. Mariko did some decent work, though her strength was more character art than mecha, and I don't think she had tons of room to be creative, because the mecha design was handled by other people. I feel that the mecha design is still good; NuCoal has some really good looking units and the newer Southern stuff is good too. Pretty much all the gearstriders are over-designed messes, though. Not EVERYTHING from the old HG worked either - looked at critically, the Mammoth just wouldn't work, and the Kodiak and King Cobra are also overdesigned to the point that they can't physically fit all their weapons and still move.
Probably part of the magic of Ghislain was he designed mecha from his style of art, which was largely derived and inspired from Votoms and Gundam. DP9 developed into a mecha RPG company pretty organically (Protoculture Addicts, Mekton Zeta version of Jovian Chronicles, then HG Card Fighter and finally Heavy Gear) around his artwork.
Firebreak wrote: That's the difference an art director can make, I suppose. Someone to maintain a consistent vision. Warhammer's a great example of that. There is some HORRENDOUS fething art in 40K, but even the worst offenders are still immediately identifiable as 40K. Even the original Rogue Trader stuff still looks like the property.
I thought that went to Battletech for horrible art especially mech art.
John Blanche is what happens when somebody has H.R.Giger's creativity with far less talent at drawing. Tons of great ideas, terrible execution. The Rogue Trader edition of 40K inspired so much, but the art is generally terrible.
The early mech designs in Battletech - once they were forced to stop using the good ones they stole from anime, yeah, they were pretty terrible.
John Prins wrote: John Blanche is what happens when somebody has H.R.Giger's creativity with far less talent at drawing. Tons of great ideas, terrible execution. The Rogue Trader edition of 40K inspired so much, but the art is generally terrible.
The early mech designs in Battletech - once they were forced to stop using the good ones they stole from anime, yeah, they were pretty terrible.
Battletech didn't steal anything, they got the rights to use them but then Harmony Gold rescinded on them or some sorts like that. They were used Legally. Funny enough that is what got me into Battletech and the horrible artwork after the "unseen" I left Battletech.
While I didn't really care for John Blanche art work style, it sure did set the MOOD what 40K was. It's not all unicorn and rainbows, unlike the art GW is showing for 40K now.
Well I for one was enjoying the socioeconomic and manufacturing discussion.
One of the things that always made Heavy Gear stand out was it never asked you to believe in space magic. The V-engine is a real thing. It's kinda crappy, but with some blurry around the engines, why not use it on a giant robot? The robots' guns fire bullets. The robots are only a few metres tall. And the robots themselves, well, mechs make no sense. Ever. So we've got a planet with limited space capability, dangerous, confusing atmospheric conditions, and broken terrain. That's just about the only place walkers could ever work. So, believably not strained. Not too much.
But all this careful, meticulous work was done before smartphones. We had a different picture of the future, 20 years ago, however fictional that future may be. Look at Star Trek. Today there would never be a sci-fi show with an android main character who didn't have to hack something every other episode.
I guess what I mean is when we have conversations about things like, "Why can't Terra Nova X? We can already X!" it's worth remembering that a different picture was in mind when Terra Nova's Set of Rules* was created. The fact is we're going to see a day with better technology and manufacturing than Terra Nova has - because it was designed that way.
Knock-off Hunters don't break the Rules, and maybe hoverjet ferrets made by 3 guys and a cow don't either, but they sure do seem to stretch and confuse the issue.
*Not the in-game rules, the rules the universe runs on.
I think it's less "why can't they exist", and more "Why does THAT faction get it?" Particularly when the faction in question seems to have popped up out of nowhere as a major power. If the North, or the South were the ones making these I think you'd have alot fewer people crying foul.
Firebreak wrote: I guess what I mean is when we have conversations about things like, "Why can't Terra Nova X? We can already X!" it's worth remembering that a different picture was in mind when Terra Nova's Set of Rules* was created. The fact is we're going to see a day with better technology and manufacturing than Terra Nova has - because it was designed that way.
The HG universe has quite a bit of high-tech shenanegans in its background. There was an Earth country that had citizens living 250 years, genetic supersoldiers far better than GRELs, and flat out terraforming of planets (over several centuries, but still). Effectively, Rome fell several times in the history of their universe and stuff go lost, priorities changed. We're likely to see huge data losses of our own in near term future unless we adopt some better storage media (though there's some promising techs for that in the works, but it's a matter of actually adopting them).
Mmmpi wrote: I think it's less "why can't they exist", and more "Why does THAT faction get it?" Particularly when the faction in question seems to have popped up out of nowhere as a major power. If the North, or the South were the ones making these I think you'd have alot fewer people crying foul.
It is mainly a question of "why's" and "how's" most of the time, yes. And yes, mainly the problem is that the NuCoal, as a whole and as its now in the official setting, basically is a really big "because I say so" clump with a list tailor made to make the best use out of the (then current) ruleset.
Firebreak wrote: I guess what I mean is when we have conversations about things like, "Why can't Terra Nova X? We can already X!" it's worth remembering that a different picture was in mind when Terra Nova's Set of Rules* was created. The fact is we're going to see a day with better technology and manufacturing than Terra Nova has - because it was designed that way.
The HG universe has quite a bit of high-tech shenanegans in its background. There was an Earth country that had citizens living 250 years, genetic supersoldiers far better than GRELs, and flat out terraforming of planets (over several centuries, but still). Effectively, Rome fell several times in the history of their universe and stuff go lost, priorities changed. We're likely to see huge data losses of our own in near term future unless we adopt some better storage media (though there's some promising techs for that in the works, but it's a matter of actually adopting them).
It certainly has, but as it has been said, a lot of it works the way it does because it was done in the 90s, and as everyone else, well, they didn't really get things right (Where the feth is my flying car? Yes, I do have secondary brains that are connected to the shared conscience of the world, but come on! ).
Firebreak wrote: I guess what I mean is when we have conversations about things like, "Why can't Terra Nova X? We can already X!" it's worth remembering that a different picture was in mind when Terra Nova's Set of Rules* was created. The fact is we're going to see a day with better technology and manufacturing than Terra Nova has - because it was designed that way.
The HG universe has quite a bit of high-tech shenanegans in its background. There was an Earth country that had citizens living 250 years, genetic supersoldiers far better than GRELs, and flat out terraforming of planets (over several centuries, but still). Effectively, Rome fell several times in the history of their universe and stuff go lost, priorities changed. We're likely to see huge data losses of our own in near term future unless we adopt some better storage media (though there's some promising techs for that in the works, but it's a matter of actually adopting them).
Absolutely, and I think that's a big part of what makes (/made) the game work so well. Gates exist, GRELs exist, hover laser tanks exist, but for the most part, Terra Nova, the primary focus, uses cows to plow fields. Gears are, even in their own setting, comparatively low-tech, or perhaps "normalized" is a better way of putting it. It's one of the things that allows us to have such detailed conversations about what a realistic production level for X country is.
But the hallmarks of the 90s are by no means Heavy Gear's fault or failure. Infinity is going to look as dated in 20 years, too. That's something historical wargames never have to worry about, I suppose.
It certainly has, but as it has been said, a lot of it works the way it does because it was done in the 90s, and as everyone else, well, they didn't really get things right (Where the feth is my flying car?
The lack of flying cars is proof that we aren't completely stupid. We can barely trust most people to drive in TWO dimensions.
Firebreak wrote: But the hallmarks of the 90s are by no means Heavy Gear's fault or failure. Infinity is going to look as dated in 20 years, too. That's something historical wargames never have to worry about, I suppose.
I dunno. When was the last time you chose to play a 1970s-era chit-and-hex wargame as anything but a nostalgia-fuelled lark? Even by the mid-80s / 90s, they were showing their age.
Firebreak wrote: But the hallmarks of the 90s are by no means Heavy Gear's fault or failure. Infinity is going to look as dated in 20 years, too. That's something historical wargames never have to worry about, I suppose.
I dunno. When was the last time you chose to play a 1970s-era chit-and-hex wargame as anything but a nostalgia-fuelled lark? Even by the mid-80s / 90s, they were showing their age.
Well... I played ASL a month ago, And Blue Max and OGRE three weeks ago. Still great games.
That said, Firebreak is not talking about the game, but about the setting.
It certainly has, but as it has been said, a lot of it works the way it does because it was done in the 90s, and as everyone else, well, they didn't really get things right (Where the feth is my flying car?
The lack of flying cars is proof that we aren't completely stupid. We can barely trust most people to drive in TWO dimensions.
Whaaaat? You're talking logic and flying cars in the same phraseee? Who are you
Hard hitting interview with Robert posted up by Gamer Goggles from gencon where we find out about the "blessing in disguise" delays that cut two funded stretch goals due to a series of mistakes on DP9's part. Deep, slow breaths, JohnHwang.
Well, I just found an opponent who's about 20miles from me (The same exact distance I'm away from my most commonly patronized FLGS). Found him/her/ze on Rumbl of all things.
Don't even know if this person will accept yet though.
Yay Rumbl?
If it works out this will be my 4th game, and hopefully 2nd that will actually get finished.
warboss wrote: Hard hitting interview with Robert posted up by Gamer Goggles from gencon where we find out about the "blessing in disguise" delays that cut two funded stretch goals due to a series of mistakes on DP9's part. Deep, slow breaths, JohnHwang.
Ten minutes hearing Robert yap about? Yeah, not happening. Someone got a cliff's notes?
Mmmpi wrote: Well, I just found an opponent who's about 20miles from me (The same exact distance I'm away from my most commonly patronized FLGS). Found him/her/ze on Rumbl of all things.
Don't even know if this person will accept yet though.
Yay Rumbl?
If it works out this will be my 4th game, and hopefully 2nd that will actually get finished.
If he just steals your kidneys, can I have your minis?
Also yes I meant about the setting having the hallmarks of the 90s, thanks for that catch Albertorious. Though I suppose even historical games display more nuance nowadays than they would have 30 or 40 years ago.
warboss wrote: Hard hitting interview with Robert posted up by Gamer Goggles from gencon where we find out about the "blessing in disguise" delays that cut two funded stretch goals due to a series of mistakes on DP9's part. Deep, slow breaths, JohnHwang.
Ten minutes hearing Robert yap about? Yeah, not happening. Someone got a cliff's notes?
Here you go:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Automatically Appended Next Post: Well, I was trying to attach a picture, but the "broken link" symbol seems appropriate.
Mmmpi wrote:Well, I just found an opponent who's about 20miles from me (The same exact distance I'm away from my most commonly patronized FLGS). Found him/her/ze on Rumbl of all things.
Don't even know if this person will accept yet though.
Yay Rumbl?
If it works out this will be my 4th game, and hopefully 2nd that will actually get finished.
Congrats and good luck! Hopefully you'll have a steady opponent.
Albertorius wrote:
warboss wrote: Hard hitting interview with Robert posted up by Gamer Goggles from gencon where we find out about the "blessing in disguise" delays that cut two funded stretch goals due to a series of mistakes on DP9's part. Deep, slow breaths, JohnHwang.
Ten minutes hearing Robert yap about? Yeah, not happening. Someone got a cliff's notes?
Nothing new was said. Just some explanations of some (not all) the issues blessings. There is a newer video on the same channel with Wunji talking about the landship game with some new (for me) info that the gears are expected to be roughly 1/500 scale.
warboss wrote: Hard hitting interview with Robert posted up by Gamer Goggles from gencon where we find out about the "blessing in disguise" delays that cut two funded stretch goals due to a series of mistakes on DP9's part. Deep, slow breaths, JohnHwang.
Ten minutes hearing Robert yap about? Yeah, not happening. Someone got a cliff's notes?
Nothing new was said. Just some explanations of some (not all) the issues blessings. There is a newer video on the same channel with Wunji talking about the landship game with some new (for me) info that the gears are expected to be roughly 1/500 scale.
Well, that's 10 minutes of my life that were well spent then, thanks for the sacrifice .
If the Gears are the ones they've shown in pics besides the new landships, they're too big by half. They seem bigger than the old Fleet Scale stuff.
Drahazar1 wrote: so looking for opinions what are peoples opinion of the new rules are they and how did NuCoal and PRDF turn out in it?
I haven't played it yet but from a reading and watching GMG videos it seems a bit faster so that you can reasonably finish a 10-12 model game in less than two hours. I don't think it's streamlined or deadly enough though to fit in the higher model counts (20+ figs) they were initially aiming for during the kickstarter in a reasonable time frame but I have yet to see/participate in a game of that size. About 100-150pts seems to be the current sweetspot albeit with a very low sample size to drawn from.
Nucoal got bloated "variety" with their subfaction rules that their limited model variety can't give them. All in all, I think they get the most varied and powerful subfaction benefits that they pay little or nothing frequently for. It's not bad enough that I'd say they're broken but the power level on a subfaction rules basis seems ramped up for them with the most room for abuse that I saw from the various sublists. Paxton gets a boat load of cheap (1pt) ECM on almost the cheapest gear possible (the basic warrior). Got a gear with no good shot to take? Activate ECM defense (iirc no roll required as its automatic) and your whole squad just got an extra dice for defense for most shots. Yes, Paxton squads carry instantly deployable forest where ever they go (that iirc stacks with actual cover). Other forces have to buy a relatively expensive recon gear that takes up the support option to get that but Paxton gets the option baked into most squads for 1pt. Again, I haven't played but I see those issues as potential ones (along with some discounted benefits for Talons) in the future.
In other words, I think they turned out better than average for NuCoal and PRDF players, one of which includes me (NuCoal).
Peace River indeed got a lot of cheap ECM. This was always the case, but now ECM is more useful. Note that any army can manage this trick by bringing a Recon gear as part of a support unit - sometimes with more dice - but it's more expensive and you don't get the redundancy.
What Peace River doesn't get is much in the way of good Target Designation. Their only TD:1 gear is a Command upgrade, and otherwise you rely on Observer Teams (TD:1) or Drones and Elans (TD:0). Not an army that can make good use of guided weaponry.
It's the utility of having any standard trooper or elite gear/warrior do it that is the real benefit. With a dedicated recon gear, you're having to choose between doing what it was actually meant to do (TD, scan, boost something else, FO, etc) and ECM defense... with paxton, any gear that has nothing better to do can instead potentially benefit the whole team on the fly as needed. If I were a paxton player, I'd add a simple warrior to every squad just for that reason. YMMV.
I wish they had introduced some sort of bonus for the other trooper gears as initially imagined to keep them all at the same cost. Paxton got ECM and better EW for 1pt, Nucoal got faster speeds in return for fragility.. and the polar forces got... well.. squat. Something along the lines of standard panzerfaust or grenades for one polar force like the north and some equivalent for the south. That was at least temporarily the plan but then the only thing that shook out the other end was benefits for the badlands. :(
John Prins wrote: Peace River indeed got a lot of cheap ECM. This was always the case, but now ECM is more useful. Note that any army can manage this trick by bringing a Recon gear as part of a support unit - sometimes with more dice - but it's more expensive and you don't get the redundancy.
If ECM is much more powerful than before, maybe the price (particularly when you can spam it) should be revisited?
What Peace River doesn't get is much in the way of good Target Designation. Their only TD:1 gear is a Command upgrade, and otherwise you rely on Observer Teams (TD:1) or Drones and Elans (TD:0). Not an army that can make good use of guided weaponry.
Ok, let's see: They have TD: 1 for the Tag upgrade for the Command Skirmisher, also on the Dragonfly and on Observer Teams, Elans have TD: 0.
On the other hand, Peace River doesn´t have than many Guided weapons (LABMs in one Argos variant, ATMs in some Argos, Cats, Coyotes and Red Bull variants, and the Dragonfly, but that one has it's own TD, LAVMs for infantry as everyone else, a single GM in all the list and SAMs on the Dragonfly), only one of those can't be shot directly and all of the designs they are mounted on have variants with non Guided options to do more or less the same, so on the whole I'd say the won't be hurting much in that regard.
warboss wrote: It's the utility of having any standard trooper or elite gear/warrior do it that is the real benefit. With a dedicated recon gear, you're having to choose between doing what it was actually meant to do (TD, scan, boost something else, FO, etc) and ECM defense... with paxton, any gear that has nothing better to do can instead potentially benefit the whole team on the fly as needed. If I were a paxton player, I'd add a simple warrior to every squad just for that reason. YMMV.
I wish they had introduced some sort of bonus for the other trooper gears as initially imagined to keep them all at the same cost. Paxton got ECM and better EW for 1pt, Nucoal got faster speeds in return for fragility.. and the polar forces got... well.. squat. Something along the lines of standard panzerfaust or grenades for one polar force like the north and some equivalent for the south. That was at least temporarily the plan but then the only thing that shook out the other end was benefits for the badlands. :(
Hunters and Hunter UC's get a LPF, though the Gunner, Assault, and Destroyer don't. Jager's get LHG's, though the rest of the variants don't. I think (but haven't checked yet) that more of the Hunter and Jager varients had LPF/LHG's in the last copy of the rules. If those could be made standard to all hunters and jagers, it might be worth it.
Thanks for pointing that out. I need glasses apparently as they both hunters/jaegers got that stuff without me noticing. I'd still have preferred ECM defense to require a roll instead of automatically working but at that point I'm admittedly nitpicking.
Well, that's 10 minutes of my life that were well spent then, thanks for the sacrifice .
If the Gears are the ones they've shown in pics besides the new landships, they're too big by half. They seem bigger than the old Fleet Scale stuff.
Glad I could help. Just to be clear, I didn't see any pics of the new gears for the landship game but rather wunji just said they'd be 1/500. I don't know if he had examples there or not and/or if the pics are floating around on Brandon's facebook group but I didn't see any (admittedly on my mobile device so small screen). At 1/500 or roughly about a third the size of a current gear, they're probably not going to work for what I had intended (namely a 6mm epic 40k style travel heavy gear mass battle game variant).
It has one less power (6 vs 7), but actually has a range outside of melee and is AP2 vs AP1. So in raw damage the LVB is better against armor up to 7, while the LPF is probably better against heaver armor. Or is at least more consistent. That's without factoring in range of course.
Ok, let's see: They have TD: 1 for the Tag upgrade for the Command Skirmisher, also on the Dragonfly and on Observer Teams, Elans have TD: 0.
Yes, that's why I qualified the statement with 'gear'. Mostly because it's hard to get TD in the same squad as a unit with guided weapons unless it's infantry. Your only real option here is to take a 4-gear RC squad and put your guided weapons in the support unit.
Note you can take the PSBM army and select southern RC units for Iguanas and even a Silverscale, but then you're borrowing from other army lists to patch holes in your own. I mean, Silverscales are exactly good enough to justify doing it (TD:2 and Sensor Boom), but it's cheese.
On the other hand, Peace River doesn´t have than many Guided weapons (LABMs in one Argos variant, ATMs in some Argos, Cats, Coyotes and Red Bull variants, and the Dragonfly, but that one has it's own TD, LAVMs for infantry as everyone else, a single GM in all the list and SAMs on the Dragonfly), only one of those can't be shot directly and all of the designs they are mounted on have variants with non Guided options to do more or less the same, so on the whole I'd say the won't be hurting much in that regard.
The Skirmisher TAG used to be just a variant, I have no idea why it became a +CMD gear. Guided weapons certainly aren't common in Peace River, but the amount of jumping through hoops you have to do just to get TD:1 is stupid.
And taking an entire RC squad for each guided weapon seems inefficient.
On an unrelated note, I'm trying to decide if I should just magnetize everything, or if there are a few builds that are ubiquitous enough that I can make a fixed version.
I already have several Hunters and Jagers with LAC's as unit fillers.
John Prins wrote: The Skirmisher TAG used to be just a variant, I have no idea why it became a +CMD gear. Guided weapons certainly aren't common in Peace River, but the amount of jumping through hoops you have to do just to get TD:1 is stupid.
It certainly is weird, and I might be misremembering here, but didn't the regular Skirmisher have a basic TD? If so, I'd like to hear the reasons for it. As to using polar designs, well, I've never seen much problem with it, tbh. Paxton Arms did sold a lot of stuff, but never were one for throwing good money after bad. If they already had polar Gears, throwing them out would not seem sensible. But of course, that an RPGer perspective, and from the wargame perspective I guess that they needed recognizable stuff.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mmmpi wrote: And taking an entire RC squad for each guided weapon seems inefficient.
On an unrelated note, I'm trying to decide if I should just magnetize everything, or if there are a few builds that are ubiquitous enough that I can make a fixed version.
I already have several Hunters and Jagers with LAC's as unit fillers.
Never got to magnetize HG stuff, too damn fiddly and annoying. I just assembled the stuff I liked/wanted and played count-as when needed.
John Prins wrote: The Skirmisher TAG used to be just a variant, I have no idea why it became a +CMD gear. Guided weapons certainly aren't common in Peace River, but the amount of jumping through hoops you have to do just to get TD:1 is stupid.
It certainly is weird, and I might be misremembering here, but didn't the regular Skirmisher have a basic TD? If so, I'd like to hear the reasons for it. As to using polar designs, well, I've never seen much problem with it, tbh. Paxton Arms did sold a lot of stuff, but never were one for throwing good money after bad. If they already had polar Gears, throwing them out would not seem sensible. But of course, that an RPGer perspective, and from the wargame perspective I guess that they needed recognizable stuff.
.
Well, in L&L edition the Skirmisher just had ECM3, and you could get the TD as an upgrade. In Blood Debt, same deal. Suddenly NuBlitz it's a +CMD unit, meaning 1 per unit and it's exactly where you don't want it, on your unit commander.
Note that the Skirmisher is always described as a long range patrol gear, while a lot of other, similar gears are described as 'scout' or 'recon'. Maybe PR wants to rely on hoppers for TD? Who knows?
Mmmpi wrote: Or infantry. The PRDF Observer team gets Comms:1 and TD:1 for the same price that southern and northern only get one of the two.
Also, just noticed that the Warrior is only W:4 compared to the Hunter/jager W:5. Can't say whether that makes up for the ECM:1 and better EW stat.
Good catch on the walker stats. I'd say it is and (as one of the biggest detractors of Paxton in the initial rollout 2-3 years ago both for blitz and nublitz) I don't have any issues with the basic warrior compared with the hunter/jager now. Kudos to Dave for that.
As for the inantry, at least for the north the unit is a squad and not a team and gets 4+ comms so I'd say that's a fair trade off. Given a choice, I'd still pick the paxton version as hands down an autosuccess on the TD FO is better than some added survivability (but even more useless when crippled) but I think they're roughly equivalent at least at the granular points value we have (3). I'm not so sure about the southern equiv though as it's still a team and loses the TD (but "gains" 4+ EW which isn't quite as useful since it still has comms 1). That one feels like it might be worth 1 pt lower unless there is a hidden boost/combo that I'm not noticing but that would need some playtesting.
I figured out how to get a 2nd TD in a skirmisher unit.
XO's and 2nd In Commands are on the list of commanders. So they can be given CMD variants. You just have to pay an extra +3/+2 pts.
@Warboss
My book says that the North gets TD infantry (squad, EW 4+). If you can keep it near what it's TDing for, you should get the buff with no roll.
Mmmpi wrote: I figured out how to get a 2nd TD in a skirmisher unit. XO's and 2nd In Commands are on the list of commanders. So they can be given CMD variants. You just have to pay an extra +3/+2 pts.
@Warboss My book says that the North gets TD infantry (squad, EW 4+). If you can keep it near what it's TDing for, you should get the buff with no roll.
Apologies if this is outdated (file on my phone) but is this below not the case here? This is from the July 17th version of the rules and I think one came out two days later that I didn't update on mobile devices.
A Comms roll is used to transmit targeting information to other ready model or to a Commander model that can direct a response. Receivers of Comms rolls that are in Formation with the origin model still require a successful Comms roll by the Origin model to be Receivers.
FO is a comms roll so even if you're nearby the firing model you still need to roll. Is there an exception elsewhere? I didn't see it under FO either although I did see that the FO range increased to sensor range (yay!) instead of just a blanket 12".
Well the only difference between a strike grizzly and a destroyer grizzly is that the strike is 14 pts with a MBZ, while the Destroyer is 15 pts with a HBZ. Now the Destroyer is 14 pts. I guess with the points change, they felt that no one would want the strike.
As for the assault, no clue. Maybe you're right? Maybe it'll be back in an update?
Mmmpi wrote: Yeah, I missed that change. Or read it wrong initially.
Also, it seems that the Assault Grizzly and Strike Grizzly varients have been removed (But the Destroyer Grizzly got a point cheaper)
Was there ever a strike grizzly? Yeah, the assault (mbzk) is gone and replaced (at least again on the july 17th file) with the grizzly destroyer (hbzk). I'm fine with the change as its an easy counts as and I came across it with the earlier version of the file (it's not a new change iirc). I was unsure how to model my Rafm bazooka armed grizzly 2-3 months ago because I wasn't sure if the assault grizzly would come back. The current one is a mix between the regular grizzly, assault, and destroyer variants iirc with parts from each.
Mmmpi wrote: The assault had a MSC. It's from a about two (beta) books back.
Ah, thanks. I skipped a few in between due to a lack of interest. I was going off of the old RPG variants and (to a lesser extent) previous blitz rules.
Or course, when we look at the tech associated with making a Bazooka (a rocket in a tube), vs an autocannon, I don't understand why those aren't the default weapon for every Gear...
Mmmpi wrote: I figured out how to get a 2nd TD in a skirmisher unit.
XO's and 2nd In Commands are on the list of commanders. So they can be given CMD variants. You just have to pay an extra +3/+2 pts.
Good catch.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JohnHwangDD wrote: Or course, when we look at the tech associated with making a Bazooka (a rocket in a tube), vs an autocannon, I don't understand why those aren't the default weapon for every Gear...
JohnHwangDD wrote: Or course, when we look at the tech associated with making a Bazooka (a rocket in a tube), vs an autocannon, I don't understand why those aren't the default weapon for every Gear...
Probably because ACs have better range.
Not on a 4'x6' 1/144-scale battlefield, they don't...
Ammo for an auto cannon is FAR less expensive to make. It off sets the higher cost of the weapon immensely.
A WWII bazooka cost $19 in 1945, with each rocket costing about $25 (depending on type). It took on average 4 shots to kill a tank. $100.
A M1 Garand in 1945 cost $32, but it cost 1.3 cents per round, or just over 26 cents for a box of twenty. It took on average 1600 shots to kill an enemy $20.80.
Granted an enemy soldier isn't a tank...
Also, while I know you're joking, I got curious.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The AC has a third more range according to the rules.
Not THAT big a difference considering it's a difference of 6" (12" max) range.
Automatically Appended Next Post: If it was something like a 12"-18" (max +18") than we'd be talking.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As it is a 4' board scales to 576 feet, or .109 miles. A light AC should at this scale have an optimum range of 440'.
Taking the same scale and applying it to movement (using the cheetah), (and assuming a 15 seconds for each turn) means a Cheetah's max speed is 4.9 mph (9.8 if it double moves).
In HG, the enemy is a light tank, that in-universe, is immune to anti-infantry weapons, so using a bolt-action rifle isn't a fair comparison. If you look at the cost of a fully-automatic BAR, it was $319 in 1945.
An 20mm Flak-38 cannon that's actually designed to take out (light) vehicles? $2400
And that's just the weapon itself, without the cost of ammo. From an economic standpoint, it would be dramatically cheaper to outfit Gears with Bazookas as the default anti-Gear weapon.
If one accepts that computer targeting by the Gear itself is possible, then you're using large Mortars are the obvious item, which again, are dirt cheap. Just another big tube, but pointed upward.
And of course, one notes that 1.2m x 144 is a mere 175 meters - well within range of any of those weapons!
A modern 60mm mortar has a minimum range of 231' (about 19" minimum range at 1/144), most vehicle mortars wouldn't be able to hit anything on the board.
Is that mortar firing guided shells? Probably not. Guided Mortars with a minimum 6" range should seem to be feasible, and non-guided weapons might be 12+".
On a 4' x 6' board, Gears could use Bazookas for close-in work, direct fire up to 4', with indirect fire Mortars for anything more than 1' away, with a fairly large range overlap between the two.
The other side of this Auto-cannon/bazooka debate is the bazooka.
Without a loader it's a one shot weapon, and I don't see a gear being dedicated to just carrying/reloading bazookas.
So to increase the weapon's battlefield endurance you have to add a magazine, which also generally means smaller rockets, if only to fit into a feed mechanism smaller than the actual weapon itself.
In addition, the smaller the rockets, the faster the mechanism can load them, increasing fire rate.
So do you use a few big rockets: Fire/load/fire/load (delay as the magazine loads the next large round)
A larger number of medium rockets: Fire/Fire/Fire/Fire/Fire
Or a *&%&-ton of small rockets: DakkaDakkaDakkaDakkaDakkaDakkaDakkaDakkaDakka
The first is basically still a bazooka, the 2nd closer to a (recoiless) rifle, the third is we just (kinda) reinvented the auto-cannon.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Or course, when we look at the tech associated with making a Bazooka (a rocket in a tube), vs an autocannon, I don't understand why those aren't the default weapon for every Gear...
I would assume that mainly for the same reasons that infantry carry assault rifles intead of all Carl Gustavs
In HG, the enemy is a light tank, that in-universe, is immune to anti-infantry weapons, so using a bolt-action rifle isn't a fair comparison. If you look at the cost of a fully-automatic BAR, it was $319 in 1945.
An 20mm Flak-38 cannon that's actually designed to take out (light) vehicles? $2400
And that's just the weapon itself, without the cost of ammo. From an economic standpoint, it would be dramatically cheaper to outfit Gears with Bazookas as the default anti-Gear weapon.
If one accepts that computer targeting by the Gear itself is possible, then you're using large Mortars are the obvious item, which again, are dirt cheap. Just another big tube, but pointed upward.
And of course, one notes that 1.2m x 144 is a mere 175 meters - well within range of any of those weapons!
Well, amount of ammo carried will certainly be an issue, as you can carry much more autogun bullets than mortar/bazooka projectiles. As an example, an Assault Hunter only has 3 shot of its Snub Cannon,which although is good enough for dedicated tank hunting, it's not exactly ideal for regular combat conditions.
OTOH, the old Hunter Zerstörer Mk. II and Hunter Commando had a LBZK with 30 shots, which I'd agree is a very good main weapon if you're expecting to shoot at Gears, and demonstrably shows that it's physically possible to do it in-setting.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JohnHwangDD wrote: Scale being what it is, a Gear reloading a 75mm bazooka is akin to an ordinary man reloading a break-action 12 ga shotgun.
I'm not sure that Gears not dedicated specifically to loading would have the manual dexterity to load a shotgun bullet by bullet (which I agree would be akin to)... but that's why there are clips, which Gears use by default. Having additional clips would make them have the Hazardous Ammo Storage Flaw, though, which can be a problem.
Sure, sure. If I'm going hunting, I can carry a lot more .22LR than .30-06 (or 12 ga), but which one is actually dropping the deer when it hits?
That's what I don't get about HG, because we all know that LACs do a lot of nothing, like hunting with peashooters. At some point, some smart guy has to notice that LACs are as obsolete as Panzer 2s in Late War armor combat.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Sure, sure. If I'm going hunting, I can carry a lot more .22LR than .30-06 (or 12 ga), but which one is actually dropping the deer when it hits?
That's what I don't get about HG, because we all know that LACs do a lot of nothing, like hunting with wadcutters.
Up to a point. They are very effective against regular light combat vehicles (APCs, trucks, emplacements and the like) and are effective against trooper Gears (which in the game it meant that they did Light damage to one with MoS 2, and overkill with a single MoS 6 shot), and also useful even against infantry due to rapid fire. They were also able to do walking fire, concentrated fire and cover fire, which gives them a wider range of possibilities. Also, the Gears that were armed with them by default were also armed with Rocket packs for heavier work and grenades and vibroknifes for close quarters.
Of course, out of the equation now are the special ammo cartridges you could equip ACs with, which leveled the field more, too.
All that said, though, the main reason has always been because they're seen as troopers, and troopers carry rifles. Dumb, but there it is. Same reasons why space marines carry around boltguns even when against other marines they hit at 3+, wound at 4+ and the save at 3+ I guess ^_^
Yup. The rules are free and the plastics are alot cheaper. If this doesn't help the IP grow, nothing will. The company still engages in the occasional shennanigans if that matters to you. If you've got minis left over from previous eras, you can download the rules for free to try them out. They're the first really new rules in 20 years which so you'll have to determine yourself whether it's an improvement. I will say that they're quicker though.
So with the last Kickstarter update, we'll be getting a whole lot of new plastics soon, eh?
I stopped by the booth at Gencon, and I gotta say the plastics are not that bad. Of course, they didn't have any of the metal sculpts to compare the new plastics to, but that's OK in my book. New players will probably have nothing but the plastic stuff anyways. The Grel Flails still looked kinda bad, but not as bad as the pictures online. I was really impressed with the Caprice models. They turned out fantastic! The CEF tanks were not as bad either; though I think they could have done some more with them. /shrug
I had a nice long chat with Dave about the Black Talons. Seems they (DP9) are on the fence about what to do with them. They really don't want a small, elite style army in the game for obvious reasons. Less model sales and competitive players will very much use them. On the other hand, the Black Talons are an integral part of the fluff, and they just can't retcon them out. There is also the issue of production. It's very, very expensive to have a plastic mold cut for the Claw series- with the current rules, you might run a Vulture, maybe 1-2 Eagles, and an Owl or Raven. After that, it's all Dark Series. As they already have the metal molds for the Dark series, it's easy enough to just pump out metal upgrade kits for the plastics. Basically, we won't be seeing plastic Claw gears any time soon, if ever. One of the things Dave and I discussed was the small, commando style nature of the Black Talons, and how they might be a small part of a larger force on the table. Maybe expect that to be the ultimate play style of the Black Talons when the new book comes out.
There is a lot of optimism in this new edition that I hope will enable the game to really take off. Certainly with all the models I'm getting in the KS, there is no reason why I can't demo the game at the local FLGS and maybe get some new players. It would be awesome to add Heavy Gear to a weekly game along side 40K and Warmachine/Hordes.
In playtesting, I advocated for turning the black talons into an optional ally for all TN factions. You'd basically get to use them as your one allowed veteran squad or more in an elite army (with the restriction that your "allies" had to be 25% or less of your total points). I don't think that allies restriction made it into the normal game though and obviously neither did Talons as an ally only force. That's not necessarily great for BT only players but frankly that "faction" was utterly broken in Blitz needing multiple points boosts and they still weren't any fun to play against (or with if you had any shame) and should never have been solo in the game for default normal play (special scenario or campaign play is another story though). YMMV.
Yup. The rules are free and the plastics are alot cheaper. If this doesn't help the IP grow, nothing will. The company still engages in the occasional shennanigans if that matters to you. If you've got minis left over from previous eras, you can download the rules for free to try them out. They're the first really new rules in 20 years which so you'll have to determine yourself whether it's an improvement. I will say that they're quicker though.
I was thinking of taking advantage of the great prices on Amazon, ATM.
Can't beat those with a stick. Mean to say, I was going to buy a few sets to use as some sort(not thought too deeply into it as yet)ofpowered armor units in GRUNTZ.
But then i got to thinking I could use them for Heavy Gear
:
anyway, and it doesn't matter what they think. 
