Firebreak wrote: I'm glad you're addressing these kinds of questions, Dave. It's a promising start, for things much more positive than the KS could ever accomplish. Thank you.
Always good to remember that a Kickstarter is a tool, and a starting point, not an end.
Cheers!
Dave
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dave said before that they plan on keeping the pledge manager open until just before manufacturing begins so you can always pledge $1 and then add a pledge level like the standard $115 starter pledge if you like what you see in the intervening months. Dave, feel free to correct me if the details here have changed since IIRC a week ago when you said it.
Indeed we will be open to more rewards being chosen after the Kickstarter ends though I have to say this clearly. Whatever is unlocked at the end of the kickstarter is all that will be produced in plastic. Even if the backers all decide to chip in more the stretch Goals will only be unlocked if we get them unlocked during the kickstarter period. Though $1 pledges are good for getting those post-KS update mail outs that might include all kinds of nice messages.
frozenwastes wrote: Yeah, it's something that could only be done in a total reboot. Like if HG actually died and someone was bringing it back later.
When 40k transitioned from 2E to 3E, GW started with pretty much a clean sheet. They got rid of the Follow Fire / Sustained Fire dice, along with all of the DnD polyhedral dice, moving everything to d6s. They got rid of the variable Flamer templates, down to just one. They ripped out pages of rules and special interactions, along with Psyker levels (a la Dark Millennium). They got rid of the random template phase. 40k3 was a very successful ground-up relaunch.
Same with GW WFB moving from 5E to 6E.
40k3 and WFB6 are what I consider the high points of both systems - clean and simple, easy to learn and play. Pity that GW has forgotten the lesson entirely.
Anyhow, point being, DP9 could have done the hard work to write a clean ruleset for a new edition of Heavy Gear to Kickstart, something to grow the game, rather than cater to the tightest core of existing players.
@JohnHwangDD:
I would like to point out that two years before 40k 2E was released there was a management buyout, so none of the original 'visionaries' were left in control. Also keep in mind that after 40k 2E was released the company went on the stock exchange, after that 3E was released and the game was made as accessible as possible for as large a crowd as possible. If you want to point at a start of the current state and hate for GW you need to look at those events. I for one didn't feel that 3E was an improvement and do you really think that the 3E starter boxed set with the two squads of Dark Eldar was a good idea? The 5E and 6E/7E boxed sets are far better, but the rules are still the same variation of the same theme/rules.
I seriously doubt that the folks behind Heavy Gear, dp9 want to walk the same path as Games Workshop...
That said, dp9 has a past of creating a great universe, but often offset by horrible decision making (scale change, rapid rules set changes, not finishing a line of supporting army books, etc.). So if nothing was changing, I would be worried. And if this was a KS for another iteration of the same rules in the same format and another new range of metal/resin minis I wouldn't support it at all. Dp9 has stated that they are going for cheaper hard plastic minis (the kind GW/Revell uses), a complete rewrite of the rules, they are only keeping the Blitz! name because of recognition (don't know if that's a good idea though). They want to go for the 'living rulebook' format that Blood Bowl and Infinity uses (both available for free online), this is a great improvement imho. This allows for easy access for new people and combined with the new plastic starter set a far lower point of entry then previously thought impossible. The contents of the new starter are even better then the GW starters (or any others on the market, as far as I know), it comes with four factions, it allows out of the box for two allied forces that give you enough variation to play the standard 150pts (4-20 miniature, 2 hour) format. With two starters you can provide enough minis for four players and have four unique factions. It also comes with a lot of options in the starter, most game companies make starters as option free as possible. The core starter currently currently costs ~20% of the equivalent in metal/resin, that pretty much destroys the pricing hurdle for HG.
Combine that with the discussion that's been going on in the months leading up to this KS, what went from a KS to produce the next HG rulebook, became a KS for a plastic core starter set. They listened to folks on the boards, not to everyone equally, but that would be madness. They changed their initial ideas, adapted and changed some more, the result is this moderately successful KS. For me this is the moment to put my money where my mouth is, they have pretty much done what I always wanted #1 Far cheaper plastic miniatures; #2 An online 'living' rule set; #3 Listening to (some) ideas from the community. Honestly, if dp9 bugger this KS up in delivery (and I'm not talking about delivery date, more like quality), it will be their complete downfall.
If you wanted change from dp9 and the HG property, this is the moment to support the KS, because if this wasn't successful, I suspect that it would have suffered the same fate as Renegade Legion or Silent Death, a life without any real support. Battletech is a pretty big beast compared to HG and that barely survived the FASA closing and the clickytech exodus...
Hell, even if the rules set isn't everything you would want, it's still a great deal on the minis, $1.60US/Hunter is very nice. The 'living' rules set makes it very easy to copy the rules into your favorite word-processor and 'fix' them for your group.
ps. I haven't bought any 1/144 minis to date, I'm still playing around with the 1/87 RAFM Gears from way back (and bought a ton from ebay, etc.) I have bought the Blitz pdfs, but in my head HG is still 1E, just as 40k is still RT (1E). Some rules streamlining is fine, alternate rule sets for bigger or smaller battles are great, but 'dumbing down' a game is not what makes a great game imho.
pps. The same could be said for Reaper and their CAV line, that was not very well supported. When they made them in plastic 'Bones' everyone came out of the woodwork to support a good idea, hope for a great rules set and get a ton of cheap minis. Or Robotech, it's not as if Palladium or Harmoney Gold have a stellar reputation or anything, but folks wanted their Robotech minis (and the Battletech fans their Unseen). Everyone hoped for better rules/support then the past would have indicated...
ppps. There are haters, there are fans, and there are critics that have valid points/concerns. The point of constructive criticism is say "x is bad, it could be made better by using y." making a list of gripes is NOT constructive criticism. Folks blindly defending against any point of criticisms is also not helpful. dp9 did a ton of unpopular things in the past, they are indicating a change, so the question is whether you give them a chance by supporting this KS or not.
And the Kickstarter staff made the project one of their Staff Picks.
Anymore questions folks have to ask?
All the same ones that have been asked all along.
Well... Most, if not all, the questions that have been asked have been answered already. What I do see, are a lot of complaints, often repeated by the same poster(s). Some of those complaints certainly do have a valid origin, but they are not questions that can be answered...
Scale change change happened 17 years ago, after the metal miniatures industry was force to use a far more expensive non-lead alloy. Not to mention rising costs of the metals used. An 1/87 mini uses 4.5 times as much metal then a similarly sized 1/144 mini (not to mention the metal base). My Mammoth is a lethal weapon, much more so then the classic SockDread made by GW. Tin is currently four times as expensive then in 1997, a few years ago there was a peak of six times as expensive. The pricing '95 was $4.50-$8 for lead and $5.5-$10 for pewter, as pewter is pretty much the only option these days, prices of $22-$40 for a 'mini' just isn't all that acceptable anymore... As dp9 has indicated, they don't intend to change the current scale (1/144) again, no reason to doubt them on that point.
A well balanced, good rules set isn't a requirement for a successful miniatures game, just look at 40k/wfb! Your not going to tell me that's a GOOD, well BALANCED rules set, are you? It needs to be not repulsive and it must be understandable. HG certainly suffered from the last point, to many overlapping rules sources, making it almost incomprehensible during the later Blitz! period. With the intent to publish online a 'living' rulebook, they are pretty much solving that issue.
Not sticking to their 'guns' and completing a range of source books for their game and having a new edition every two years is indeed a big issue with me. Dave has stated his intention of sticking to the new beta rules for years through the 'living' rulebook format. That said, GW just adapted the 2 year edition with 40k and that was easily swallowed by most of their customer base... Whether to believe Dave or not is a personal decision, Dave can have the best intentions in the world but he's not the owner and business decisions might very well be out of his purview.
But it does look like that Dave has been able to sway the current dp9 owner(s) to the reality of the miniature wargaming business, the money is in the miniatures and not in the rules, finally getting far enough away from their RPG origins (I love RPGs, but their business model is directly opposite to miniature wargames).
Another issue was price and availability, availability in this case is directly related to price. Just ask European retailers why they don't stock HG anymore: "Doesn't sell well enough to justify the shelf-space/storage or the money sunk in stock that doesn't move as much as the competition.". Lower the prices and folks will be more willing to buy it, retailers will be more willing to stock it, making it more available. The only way to lower costs is to cut material costs and manufacturing costs. While plastics have a high upfront cost for molds, each 'cast' is a lot cheaper in materials and time-money. Not to mention that if you use steel molds, those can last for a long time, we could easily see the same minis for a decade. That translates to cheaper minis for us and more profit in the long run for dp9, thus a healthier company, which translates (hopefully) in more and better products for us.
As for closing discussions and/or ignoring certain posters, I can kind of get that. My business is customer support in IT, I have a ton of patience with my customers, but it isn't infinite. When I look at the IT, when I look at the 'next level' in IT support, the system admins, they are notorious for not being customer friendly and lacking patience for customers. That's the reason why there's a translator between them and the customer, that's pretty much me. Now Dave has a lot of customer relations experience, but even he will have a point where he stops discussion and will discourage further discussion under his 'roof'. Because if your not a customer and not a potential customer due to your own words, your a disruptive influence for the rest of the customers, your pretty much kicked out of the store/forum. These are the 'haters' and we've had them in this thread as well (Hi Smilodon_UP ;-), that doesn't mean that they don't have good points, but as they've stated themselves they will not be swayed to any point of view then they currently hold. That means they aren't customers, nor will they ever be (unless they lied and can be swayed), so why waste resources on these people beyond an initial best effort?
History is important, but it can't be changed, only the future can be changed. We do need to learn from history, but whether to give dp9 the benefit of the doubt is a personal choice.
Cergorach wrote:A well balanced, good rules set isn't a requirement for a successful miniatures game, just look at 40k/wfb! Your not going to tell me that's a GOOD, well BALANCED rules set, are you? It needs to be not repulsive and it must be understandable.
After someone buys into a miniature game all you need to do to keep them interested is make a moderately fun, mediocre game. They already have an investment so as long as your game is passable, they should keep up with it. Yet everyone I know who bought the starter armies for Blitz:L&L:1.1/FM assembled their miniatures, tried the game and never spoke of it again. I doubt the local experience is an isolated thing. Other companies took advantage of the same promotion and distribution opportunities with Beasts of War and Wayland and have exploded in popularity, while for HG, it seems to have largely been for not.
And what's this beta? It's a set of rules cobbled together for the appeasement of those who liked the previous edition enough not only to stick with it, but to post about it on the internet. I don't see this "abandon the RPG approach for the sake of a miniature game" in there at all. I see more of the same.
HG certainly suffered from the last point, to many overlapping rules sources, making it almost incomprehensible during the later Blitz! period. With the intent to publish online a 'living' rulebook, they are pretty much solving that issue.
Unfortunately it reads like a software support document. It's not the kind of living rulebook that inspires you to play it upon reading.
But it does look like that Dave has been able to sway the current dp9 owner(s) to the reality of the miniature wargaming business, the money is in the miniatures and not in the rules
They only need to be mediocre in terms of game play, but great in terms of inspiration to generate the excitement needed to keep people buying. The beta is unfortunately neither. "The miniatures matter, not the rules" only works when your rules are not bad enough to actually detract from the experience and are actually useful in selling people armies. Like how 40k and Flames of War sell people on army building. If you can't use your rules to inspire people to build an army, there's something wrong with them.
That means they aren't customers, nor will they ever be (unless they lied and can be swayed), so why waste resources on these people beyond an initial best effort?
I won't speak to personal interactions with individuals, but when someone who used to give you money tells you why they are not, you need to listen to them, even if you end up deciding that in the end you won't be able to address their concerns. And when you hear the same thing again and again, it might be time to rethink whether or not it's worth addressing their concerns.
This KS is going alright and I hope it results in nice plastic gear models coming out on time, but given DP9's history of cancelled editions, delays and the fact that it's their first attempt at plastic like this (also the amount of plastic miniatures is very high relative to the funds raised, so that's worrying), I think the smart thing to do is to sit this one out.
18 months from now, I'm hoping that people can tell me how wrong I was and how they've been painting and expanding their armies for half a year already. Somehow though, I think we'll be occasionally watching this thread get updated about why the KS hasn't delivered yet.
Seeing as DP9 has always treated the rules themselves as an after-thought next to selling minis, I'm not sure I see any change in policy there.
If anything, this KS is once again "Minis first, rules... whenever we can", especially when it was supposed to be about a new rulebook in the first place.
Well, I can't address the living rulebook deal, since the Beta does read like software support.
Then again, so did Final Fantasy Flight PDFs when they wrote them up for their Beta.
Beta documents being subject to change and modification and altogether nuking of rules, this should be something many playtesters would be accustomed to.
I do not know what the plans are for the living rulebook, but if Dave has any ideas my guess is he going to continue producing small videos and pictures for examples that will be uploaded into the documents at a later date to make it more visually appealing.
The original idea behind the rulebook being the Kickstarter died, Hudson. Dead. Let me repeat. You have thrown your last batch of dirt on the grave with this, between you, mrondeau and Smilodon. We know what it was supposed to be.
Toward that end, the Kickstarter just achieved Dream Pod 9's goal of 105,000 dollars for everything they were hoping to include in the package. Everything after this is even more bonus material for those who want to join in.
As for how it ends, I will most certainly keep updating here.
After someone buys into a miniature game all you need to do to keep them interested is make a moderately fun, mediocre game. They already have an investment so as long as your game is passable, they should keep up with it. Yet everyone I know who bought the starter armies for Blitz:L&L:1.1/FM assembled their miniatures, tried the game and never spoke of it again. I doubt the local experience is an isolated thing. Other companies took advantage of the same promotion and distribution opportunities with Beasts of War and Wayland and have exploded in popularity, while for HG, it seems to have largely been for not.
This isn't unique to HG, we see this around here (Netherlands) a lot, there's a burst of popularity and then a game dies down. We've seen this with most Spartan Games games, the new Warzone, the Mongoose miniature games, 15mm sci-fi gaming (Gruntz, etc.), Dropzone Commander, Anime Tactics, Hell Dorado, etc, etc. The folks go back to their bread and butter games like wfb, 40k, LotR, WarmaHordes, etc.
I think this has something to do with these companies not being able to keep up a release schedule in the same way as the bigger companies can. People lose focus and die down from the shiney-new-model-syndrom and go back to their regular addiction.
And what's this beta? It's a set of rules cobbled together for the appeasement of those who liked the previous edition enough not only to stick with it, but to post about it on the internet. I don't see this "abandon the RPG approach for the sake of a miniature game" in there at all. I see more of the same.
If you have a fanbase, you don't entirely alienate your existing fanbase. You don't cater to the extremes, you cater to what you have and what you could possibly can get. This is not bad, it's sound business. GW killed the Squat (Space Dwarves) decades ago (one tiny race) and folkes are still miffed about that... ;-)
Unfortunately it reads like a software support document. It's not the kind of living rulebook that inspires you to play it upon reading.
I do agree with you there, but I do think that this is the barest alpha/beta test, with a lot of work on presentation and readability. It's not the polished beta of the AAA computer game companies, but i've seen worse ;-)
I won't speak to personal interactions with individuals, but when someone who used to give you money tells you why they are not, you need to listen to them, even if you end up deciding that in the end you won't be able to address their concerns. And when you hear the same thing again and again, it might be time to rethink whether or not it's worth addressing their concerns.
You need to take note, but if the expectations of the customer are not in line with your game/business you need to ignore it. A lot of comments is relative, 10k for gw is a drop in the bucket, for dp9 that might be their entire customer base...
This KS is going alright and I hope it results in nice plastic gear models coming out on time, but given DP9's history of cancelled editions, delays and the fact that it's their first attempt at plastic like this (also the amount of plastic miniatures is very high relative to the funds raised, so that's worrying), I think the smart thing to do is to sit this one out.
18 months from now, I'm hoping that people can tell me how wrong I was and how they've been painting and expanding their armies for half a year already. Somehow though, I think we'll be occasionally watching this thread get updated about why the KS hasn't delivered yet.
Delays I'm not having a problem with (much), but if quality is an issue, if that's not up to par, it's going to completely kill HG and dp9 right along with it.
If you have a fanbase, you don't entirely alienate your existing fanbase. You don't cater to the extremes, you cater to what you have and what you could possibly can get. This is not bad, it's sound business. GW killed the Squat (Space Dwarves) decades ago (one tiny race) and folkes are still miffed about that... ;-)
It's definitely good not to alienate your existing fan base, but what if they are simply too few to support a revenue stream and continuing to make the products they are asking you for prevents you from getting new ones? I just see those who actually like the Blitz:L&L:1.1/FM line of games to be a tiny subset of those who might be potentially interested in HG. The KS will get people on hype and on plastic miniatures, but the real question will be how many of those will be sufficiently inspired to continue to play and make future purchases?
If I were DP9 I'd bank on that number being "not enough" and have another KS ready to go just as the product from the first one is arriving in people's hands. That way they'll have the feeling of "this company delivers!" and the initial impression of the plastic gears in mind, but not the experience of actually playing the full game. Then you can get them on some more KS hype rather than just hoping they don't sort of fade like every other time Blitz has been put out there.
Delays I'm not having a problem with (much), but if quality is an issue, if that's not up to par, it's going to completely kill HG and dp9 right along with it.
If you have a fanbase, you don't entirely alienate your existing fanbase. You don't cater to the extremes, you cater to what you have and what you could possibly can get. This is not bad, it's sound business. GW killed the Squat (Space Dwarves) decades ago (one tiny race) and folkes are still miffed about that... ;-)
It's definitely good not to alienate your existing fan base, but what if they are simply too few to support a revenue stream and continuing to make the products they are asking you for prevents you from getting new ones? I just see those who actually like the Blitz:L&L:1.1/FM line of games to be a tiny subset of those who might be potentially interested in HG. The KS will get people on hype and on plastic miniatures, but the real question will be how many of those will be sufficiently inspired to continue to play and make future purchases?
If I were DP9 I'd bank on that number being "not enough" and have another KS ready to go just as the product from the first one is arriving in people's hands. That way they'll have the feeling of "this company delivers!" and the initial impression of the plastic gears in mind, but not the experience of actually playing the full game. Then you can get them on some more KS hype rather than just hoping they don't sort of fade like every other time Blitz has been put out there.
Delays I'm not having a problem with (much), but if quality is an issue, if that's not up to par, it's going to completely kill HG and dp9 right along with it.
A last minute switch to PVC?
Well, there is still Peace River, NuCoal, Utopia, and Black Talons to cover. That and these aren't all the available Northern and Southern miniatures.
Cergorach wrote: @JohnHwangDD:
I would like to point out that two years before 40k 2E was released there was a management buyout, so none of the original 'visionaries' were left in control. Also keep in mind that after 40k 2E was released the company went on the stock exchange, after that 3E was released and the game was made as accessible as possible for as large a crowd as possible. If you want to point at a start of the current state and hate for GW you need to look at those events. I for one didn't feel that 3E was an improvement and do you really think that the 3E starter boxed set with the two squads of Dark Eldar was a good idea? The 5E and 6E/7E boxed sets are far better, but the rules are still the same variation of the same theme/rules.
I seriously doubt that the folks behind Heavy Gear, dp9 want to walk the same path as Games Workshop...
RT was a mess of a RPG. 2E was playable, but still very clunky. 3E was far more playable than 2E. The rules were clean, and the 3E starter was fine for what it was: 2 opposed forces with everything you needed to play in a single box.
I suspect that you are correct - DP9 doesn't want HG to become the best selling and most profitable tabletop wargame in the world.
Cergorach wrote: if this was a KS for another iteration of the same rules in the same format and another new range of metal/resin minis I wouldn't support it at all. Dp9 has stated that they are going for cheaper hard plastic minis (the kind GW/Revell uses), a complete rewrite of the rules, they are only keeping the Blitz! name because of recognition (don't know if that's a good idea though).
I've tried my hand at current Blitz, and I've tried the new rules, which I find to be essentially similar, but playable instead of unplayable. The minis are simply converting metal to plastic, but there's no obvious indication that retail prices will drop in any significant way (i.e. -30% or more).
Cergorach wrote: They want to go for the 'living rulebook' format that Blood Bowl and Infinity uses (both available for free online), this is a great improvement imho. This allows for easy access for new people and combined with the new plastic starter set a far lower point of entry then previously thought impossible. The contents of the new starter are even better then the GW starters (or any others on the market, as far as I know), it comes with four factions, it allows out of the box for two allied forces that give you enough variation to play the standard 150pts (4-20 miniature, 2 hour) format. With two starters you can provide enough minis for four players and have four unique factions. It also comes with a lot of options in the starter, most game companies make starters as option free as possible. The core starter currently currently costs ~20% of the equivalent in metal/resin, that pretty much destroys the pricing hurdle for HG.
The KS isn't the new starter - it's the KS deal, with a bunch of adders. As I understand it, the new starter is 8 vs 8 minis, and everything else is KS-only bonuses. If DP9 is going to be providing all 40-odd minis from all 4 factions in the starter at the $115 CADKS price, that's news to me. Where is your source for the KS bundle being the new starter at / around the KS price?
Cergorach wrote: Hell, even if the rules set isn't everything you would want, it's still a great deal on the minis,
Right now, I am only looking at HG as a toybox of 40+ minis for $110 USD, and weighing that against Robotech Tactics which I'll receive my first portion of very shortly.
I own several 1/144 Gears in metal. If I didn't own those mins, I wouldn't be looking at this KS at all.
Cergorach wrote: pps. The same could be said for Reaper and their CAV line, that was not very well supported. When they made them in plastic 'Bones' everyone came out of the woodwork to support a good idea, hope for a great rules set and get a ton of cheap minis. Or Robotech, it's not as if Palladium or Harmoney Gold have a stellar reputation or anything, but folks wanted their Robotech minis (and the Battletech fans their Unseen). Everyone hoped for better rules/support then the past would have indicated...
Reaper CAV finished with 60 minis for $100 USD. I bought into Robotech, because it was licensed 1/144 pure scale minis at a great price (90 hard plastic minis for $140 USD), even though I have no interest in the RIFTS-based RPG-like Robotech rules by Palladium. Again, I'd have preferred a Flames-like approach for Robotech as well. But I will have a 1/144 scale Destroid Monster backed by other in-scale Destroids, Valks & Zentradi come this time next year, which is all that I wanted.
Cergorach wrote: ppps. the question is whether you give them a chance by supporting this KS or not.
At $120 USD shipped, I'm not sure it's worth throwing more of my money at DP9 when I have so many other games in queue to be delivered...
The KS isn't the new starter - it's the KS deal, with a bunch of adders. As I understand it, the new starter is 8 vs 8 minis, and everything else is KS-only bonuses. If DP9 is going to be providing all 40-odd minis from all 4 factions in the starter at the $115 CADKS price, that's news to me. Where is your source for the KS bundle being the new starter at / around the KS price?
I'm not sure how they could make it any clearer. It is in the text description on the front page of the KS AND in the faq...
Our desired goal is a Core Starter Set of 46 miniatures and color quick start rulebook, which will be accomplished by reaching the 13th stretch goal of $105K CAD. This would allow for a variety of eighteen different models from 4 factions in a Core Starter Set for two players, with a multiplayer option of up to four players.
Our desired Stretch Goal would be #13 for $105K CAD, which would then include 46 minis with 18 different models from 4 factions in the Core Starter Set along with a printed color copy of the Quick Start Rulebook. We think that would make an amazing Core Start Set.
We apparently just reached that goal this weekend so I'm finally going in on the KS. $105k was my break even point on this in terms of value versus cost in $ and frustration.
JohnHwangDD wrote: The minis are simply converting metal to plastic, but there's no obvious indication that retail prices will drop in any significant way (i.e. -30% or more).
Ayup, the KSFAQ mentions this:
Are the prices we see here going to be the retail cost of the models when they are released? No. We expect to have to adjust the cost upwards from 10 to 50%. The individual Add-on rewards cost is being kept low during the Kickstarter as a thanks to our backers.
To be fair, there was a $1 CAD drop on several of the KS model add-on prices a week or two ago.
Back on October 9th there was also a small $$$ drop for the online store, because quite a few people would wait months so as to order during a sale period:
We have updated nearly all the prices on the Dream Pod 9 Online Store. Our main goal is to have an everyday lower pricing for our customers and no more special sales in the future. To that point we have lower all book prices by 10% and pewter miniature prices have been lower by 10% to 15% on average (a $20.99USD Two Pack Blister is now $17.99USD). Larger resin and resin/pewter hybrid models have had their prices lowered as much as possible (a Hun Light Tank is now $19.99USD, an Aller Main Battle Tank is $28.99USD and a Naga Strider is now $34.99USD). Costs of resin Badlands Terrain and Stoneheads have been lower by 10%. Decal prices have remained the same as before.
Which is still quite high for individual Striders & conventional vehicles of any size under the (4) action minimum per combat group using the Beta ruleset force construction system.
JohnHwangDD wrote: The KS isn't the new starter - it's the KS deal, with a bunch of adders. As I understand it, the new starter is 8 vs 8 minis, and everything else is KS-only bonuses. If DP9 is going to be providing all 40-odd minis from all 4 factions in the starter at the $115 CADKS price, that's news to me.
Until it changes, the KSFAQ mentions this:
Will there be a retail version of the Core Starter Set and how much will it cost? Yes, we will have a Retail Basic Pledge level at the start with 6 copies of the Basic Starter Set of 16 miniatures for a $350 CAD pledge, with a SRP of $79.99 USD ($92 CAD) each.
We'll be announcing an updated retailer package after the Kickstarter is done and we see how may stretch goals have been unlocked.
If I did my math correctly, a retail box of that size at that SRP would have about a 27% profit margin.
As the KS currently stands there are (2) retail backers.
The KS isn't the new starter - it's the KS deal, with a bunch of adders. As I understand it, the new starter is 8 vs 8 minis, and everything else is KS-only bonuses. If DP9 is going to be providing all 40-odd minis from all 4 factions in the starter at the $115 CADKS price, that's news to me. Where is your source for the KS bundle being the new starter at / around the KS price?
I'm not sure how they could make it any clearer. It is in the text description on the front page of the KS AND in the faq...
Our desired goal is a Core Starter Set of 46 miniatures and color quick start rulebook, which will be accomplished by reaching the 13th stretch goal of $105K CAD. This would allow for a variety of eighteen different models from 4 factions in a Core Starter Set for two players, with a multiplayer option of up to four players.
Our desired Stretch Goal would be #13 for $105K CAD, which would then include 46 minis with 18 different models from 4 factions in the Core Starter Set along with a printed color copy of the Quick Start Rulebook. We think that would make an amazing Core Start Set.
We apparently just reached that goal this weekend so I'm finally going in on the KS. $105k was my break even point on this in terms of value versus cost in $ and frustration.
That's the KS deal, not the retail starter. Try again.
The company's desired goal was to fund the full-color rulebook plus the miniatures mentioned to be switched over to plastic.
The Caprice line I've already written about earlier, with the cost of savings (even WITH a 30% price increase after the KS is completed) being substantial.
Try again.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Mr. Mastergunz has recently been posting up a little primer for new painters (such as yours truly) concerning how to adequately paint Heavy Gears, using some old bits and 1/144th Tactical scale miniatures he still has left over.
I know some of the previous commenters in this forum and also in other threads have mentioned that the Tactical line scale change was what killed it for them with the retailers, and also that the lack of detail was horrible.
So I thought I might share these with you all so you can see that there is in fact a great amount of detail, even in those old warhorses:
The above is actually not a Jaguar Destroyer, but a Jaguar with a Hunter body, however, for the sake of the awesomeness of said painting I'm will to say it's an earlier version of a Jaguar Destroyer and let that dawg lie.
Then, in the spirit of the anime that inspired Heavy Gear, he pulled one out of his hat and shared it with us from start to finish:
All of those bits are from the Tactical scale line. But they are certainly fine looking. I look forward to giving it the old try myself with some of his tips (albeit I won't be able to do the same as swiftly as he).
BrandonKF wrote: Then again, so did Final Fantasy Flight PDFs when they wrote them up for their Beta.
1) Fantasy Flight Games 2) Er, no. Most of the stuff in the beta has made its way unchanged into the rulebooks, at least in the case of the two core Star Wars RPGs. Trust me on this one. And they don't read anywhere near as... muddy, as the current HG. And of course, the FFG betas have actual, real layout, which makes them immensely more manageable and readable.
JohnHwangDD wrote:OK, Brandon, 18 months from now, exactly what is going to be on the shelf of Toroto Hobbies and Games?
How many models for how many CAD?
Go, pledge a dollar on the KS, and ask Dream Pod 9 or Dave. They can give you a straight answer.
Albertorius wrote:
BrandonKF wrote: Then again, so did Final Fantasy Flight PDFs when they wrote them up for their Beta.
1) Fantasy Flight Games 2) Er, no. Most of the stuff in the beta has made its way unchanged into the rulebooks, at least in the case of the two core Star Wars RPGs. Trust me on this one. And they don't read anywhere near as... muddy, as the current HG. And of course, the FFG betas have actual, real layout, which makes them immensely more manageable and readable.
Most of the stuff made its way in unchanged, and most of it was still not in a 'pretty, made-up font' while it was in Beta. It was a spreadsheet. Yes.
Dave has continued to repeat that the rules and everything you guys are pointing out will be addressed, and in fact he is already addressing.
The FFG guys had a whole company of God-knows-how-many folks to playtest. HG has Dave, and those playtesters who are joining him over there right now.
We also have the Terra Nova DMZ, my old Pictures Facebook Group, which is also extending questions, concerns, and pointing out mistakes and typos and other errors from the Beta in the DP9 development forum. Here is the link: https://www.facebook.com/groups/302254736538781/661392040625047
So headway will be made on this. I welcome you to join in.
JohnHwangDD wrote: I suspect that you are correct - DP9 doesn't want HG to become the best selling and most profitable tabletop wargame in the world.
Even though I think you have some very valid points, I don't really think that is one. Warhammer 40k in particular and GW in general were already the best selling and most profitable tabletop wargame in the world back in 2nd edition.
As you say, back in 2nd edition, 40k was "playable, but still very clunky" and 3rd was "far more playable than 2nd", arguments, btw, that I agree almost completely with: 2nd edition 40k was a skirmish game played with far too many minis for its ruleset, whereas 3rd edition 40k was a game designed wholecloth for the amount of minis they were actually playing with, and it is actually my favorite "big game" edition of 40k.
But it is also true that 3rd edition onwards, 40k's position as the "most profitable tabletop wargame in the world" has been slipping away a bit at a time, losing market share with every new edition and mounting up finantial losses every year. 40k was much more the only game in town back in 2nd edition, and it's been losing ground with every following edition.
So, were we to follow the "might makes right" theory of gaming design (or at least the one you seem to have been toting around over here, namely that as 40k and FoW are the most successful games they are therefore the best ones), we would have to reach the conclusion that 40k 2nd edition was indeed a better game than 3rd and onwards, wouldn't we?
One of the older RPG holdovers (of which I have a fairly good memory of) used various nomenclature for a wide variety of chassis in Heavy Gear.
The most recent Field Guides were an attempt (as is the current Beta) to use similar nomenclature for Gears using weapon loadouts that are similar. So, a Destroyer Jaguar carries a Medium Bazooka. A Destroyer Hunter carries a Medium Bazooka. A Destroyer Tiger carries a Medium Bazooka. The difference then lies in the Gears themselves and their GUN, PILOT, EW abilities, plus their Traits.
Edit: @Albertorius and @JohnHwangDD, I was never a player of the GrimDark. Enjoyed the setting. Perhaps you could enlighten me some. What is the biggest difference between 2nd edition and the latest edition? And in that instance, what similarities does it share with, say, Flames of War and X-wing?
I know that they are completely different settings, I am just curious what is their mechanic that makes them so simple yet fun to play?
BrandonKF wrote: Most of the stuff made its way in unchanged, and most of it was still not in a 'pretty, made-up font' while it was in Beta. It was a spreadsheet. Yes.
Again, no. The basic layout of the Star Wars books' rules chapters is completely unchanged from the betas, except for the lack of some images (as in, the finished book has more). Everything else is completely unchanged. And how do I know this, you ask? Well, for starters I have both books of the two lines, but I also happen to personally know the guy who did the design and layout for both books.
Frankly speaking, comparing the layout, quality and design of FFG's beta books with HG's Beta (incidentally, the FFG's beta physical books were in color, whereas AFAIK the HG beta was B/W. Not that it would change a whole lot, though) would be... well, insulting.
BrandonKF wrote: Most of the stuff made its way in unchanged, and most of it was still not in a 'pretty, made-up font' while it was in Beta. It was a spreadsheet. Yes.
Again, no. The basic layout of the Star Wars books' rules chapters is completely unchanged from the betas, except for the lack of some images (as in, the finished book has more). Everything else is completely unchanged. And how do I know this, you ask? Well, for starters I have both books of the two lines, but I also happen to personally know the guy who did the design and layout for both books.
Frankly speaking, comparing the layout, quality and design of FFG's beta books with HG's Beta (incidentally, the FFG's beta physical books were in color, whereas AFAIK the HG beta was B/W. Not that it would change a whole lot, though) would be... well, insulting.
Are you saying that he did it all by himself? Edit: I have just the one book and one spreadsheet from Edge of the Empire. But I know that while the layout of the book was pretty much the same, you can't tell me that it was 'pretty'. And no, the Beta does have a few color bits, although all that involves counters and terrain/concealment layouts more than anything.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Actually, color in the Gear tables would help folks, I think. I will pass that suggestion along.
BrandonKF wrote: Are you saying that he did it all by himself? Edit: I have just the one book and one spreadsheet from Edge of the Empire. But I know that while the layout of the book was pretty much the same, you can't tell me that it was 'pretty'. And no, the Beta does have a few color bits, although all that involves counters and terrain/concealment layouts more than anything.
Layout for a book is generally done by just one guy, yes. In this case, both the layout and the general layout design for the core EotE book and beta were done by the same guy, David Ardila. And yes, I'd say it was quite pretty. Not as pretty as the finished book with all the pretty pictures, but pretty anyways. And very readable. You canot really say the same for the HG Beta, which is clearly just a word file ported over to InDesign.
And well, as you obviously need physical proof, here it is:
Nope. I was thinking of the Google Docs that they shared. Which are all gone now, but oh well. Thanks for sharing the pretty version. I wasn't in on that.
BrandonKF wrote: Nope. I was thinking of the Google Docs that they shared. Which are all gone now, but oh well. Thanks for sharing the pretty version. I wasn't in on that.
The Google docs? Hm, don't know about those. And they actually can't do digital versions of the SW stuff due to their licensing, so I'm not sure those were official.
BrandonKF wrote: Nope. I was thinking of the Google Docs that they shared. Which are all gone now, but oh well. Thanks for sharing the pretty version. I wasn't in on that.
The Google docs? Hm, don't know about those. And they actually can't do digital versions of the SW stuff due to their licensing, so I'm not sure those were official.
Well, they had them shared all across the wide net among playtesters, so... *shrug*
Maybe their Alpha, and the Beta is the copy you have?
BrandonKF wrote: Nope. I was thinking of the Google Docs that they shared. Which are all gone now, but oh well. Thanks for sharing the pretty version. I wasn't in on that.
The Google docs? Hm, don't know about those. And they actually can't do digital versions of the SW stuff due to their licensing, so I'm not sure those were official.
Well, they had them shared all across the wide net among playtesters, so... *shrug*
Maybe their Alpha, and the Beta is the copy you have?
The Beta is the book they sold on GenCon and afterwards on their online store and through selected retailers. Basically the same as the HG one, except for the fact that they can't sell pdfs (nor share them for free)
Agreed. They've also updated with the 54th update with a 3D wrap-around of the Jaguar, and they got in touch with Impudent Mortal for some 75mm round MDF terrain bases.
Yeah, I said "better", but unfortunately, "better" is still not really "good". Hopefully they'll end up "good" with some more passes.
I was looking more at the body. It's rough right now.
As to the Spit, a few more tweaks. I don't know, what do you think is the biggest difference in proportion? And do you think they can even achieve the same proportions?
BrandonKF wrote: I was looking more at the body. It's rough right now.
As to the Spit, a few more tweaks. I don't know, what do you think is the biggest difference in proportion? And do you think they can even achieve the same proportions?
Well, right now, and looking just at the front, I'd say that the current worst parts would be the knees and the arms on the whole (the shoulders look nice right now). The tracks are also quite rough, and the thigh front armor plates look odd.
Also there's a complete dearth of fine detail in the mini, and there shouldn't be, nor need it be. The face sensors need detailing, the "ears" comm antennas need detailing (and thinning), the rest of the head needs detailing... actually basically the whole mini needs detailing. The mini looks much better, volumes-wise, but right now it lacks... well almost all detail whatsoever, other than the volumes. Hence it looks "better", but not "good".
EDIT: Let's be completely honest, here.
This is what HG's current renders look like:
This is what HG minis' 3d renders are going to be measured against:
The Infinity renders are more detailed. However, they also are cast in a different medium than the new HG models (metal as opposed to plastic). I expect that the Infinity models also cost more than the new Heavy Gear plastics will cost.
There is also more to a model than detail. The aesthetic is very important. I am a fan of the HG aesthetic.
All of this being said, I do not think that there is any doubt that more detail is generally desired, and that the Heavy Gear sculpts are on the low end of the detail spectrum.
I would rather Heavy Gear stand on its own. The only contemporary mecha games currently are Battletech and Alpha Strike.
Infinity, Last Saga, MERCs, Myth, Afterlife: The Shards of Liberty, and Fallen Frontiers all fall under the idea of infantry combat.
They include great vehicles. Great detailed miniatures. All have their strengths.
But they are, first and foremost, actions involving men.
Flames of War I will grant is even closer in style to Heavy Gear than those I listed above.
Do I want more detailed plastic miniatures? Yes. But comparisons right now are going to be judged on finished products versus entirely new molds in entirely new medium for the company. So far, I applaud the man who is performing the duties of the renders. I can only hope to see more work and even greater efficiency in the modelers and production and distribution staff.
Cergorach wrote: You can add a lot more detail on those Infinity models as those will come out of rubber molds. The HG minis will come out of inflexible steel molds.
Oh, I agree completely. It's not fair... but it is what people will compare it with. And it's not like other companies do much less detail in renders for plastics, either. See Malifaux, GW or PSC.
You guys also know that there's a Gundam game, right... My Japanese is non-existent though... There are a ton of rules sets for Mecha (Mekton, etc.) that either have few minis or use minis from other games.
Cergorach wrote: You guys also know that there's a Gundam game, right... My Japanese is non-existent though... There are a ton of rules sets for Mecha (Mekton, etc.) that either have few minis or use minis from other games.
There are multiple ones, actually, most of which use just gashapon minis that you can get for really cheap (and painted to boot). Those also have much sharper details.
And of course there's Mobile Frame Zero too, for those among you that likes to play with legos. And as you say, many more games that you couldn't call "mecha" games that have mecha in multiple lines. And loads of scifi games that can use mecha...
Hell, I still have SJG's OGRE mecha rules, written by Marc A. Vezina himself!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Alpharius wrote: I think this one's reached the 'good deal, definitely worth it' point now, right?
I mean, if you're at all interested in the minis/theme/scale/etc, of course!
If you like the minis, I'd say "yes".
Me, personally, I've changed my pledge to $1 and plan to wait and see how those renders end up looking and how the actual minis look. I already have a crapton of HG minis and the KS doesn't seem to need my help at all, so I can wait.
Yeah... CAV, Robotech and Paulson Games don't exist, no siree.
My point was to have Heavy Gear stand on its own and not be overshadowed by all that you just mentioned, Albertorius.
Mine was that there are already plenty "pure" mecha games and plenty of other scifi games with mecha that can do exactly the kind of combined arms game that HG can do. So it needs to acknowledge they are not the only fish in the pond, both to know what they are against and to do better.
For example: take a look at Dropzone Commander: that is a game that is a direct, concrete rival for the people's moneys. It's a small scale "army" game with a big emphases in combined arms operations, gorgeous minis and quite nice rules. They also have very, very competitive plastic starting armies, plastic starters with loads of scenery, cheap scenery packs... which will compete directly with HG. It is also a game that has the full core rules in the starter set, in full color, and are quite a bit less abstruse to read than the current HG Beta rules are (including the fluff, which is actually quite nice).
Saying that "HG stands on its own and is not overshadowed by anything" is, quite frankly, a bit like burying you head into the sand. I guess it's comforting, but does nothing to address any problem.
When I said "have stand on its own", it meant I would like for it to stand on its own merits. I understand there is competition, and I won't be stupid enough to say there isn't.
Anybody reading this thread this far already has a great idea that the Blitz rules have been spread out far too much, and not consistently enough to make the game catch and stick at the local gaming stores that had to watch their investment halt when the next iteration came out.
But I hope that this new ruleset, while still a Skirmish game of about 30-40 miniatures total, will be definitive enough for folks to reintroduce themselves to the game. And I think that the staff at the Pod know that they have their work cut out for them to achieve what they have put in place.
"This is your morning wake-up call."
So yes, no sticking heads in the sand, just pulling them out of the dark places where the sun doesn't shine and making the game fun again.
Someone mentioned scales in a wrong way, maybe a typo, but:
Robotech and Battletech: 1/285 (6mm)
CAV and Dropzone Commander: 1/180 (10mm)
Heavy Gear: 1/144 (12mm)
HG is a pretty niche scale compared to other games. It might seem a stone throws away from 1/180, but that's the same difference between the old 25mm miniatures and the modern 30mm minis. You might get away with using the same terrain, but infantry/vehicles tend yto look out of scale to each other.
As Albertius mentioned, the Dropzone Commander plastics are beautiful and a joy to put together, if HG comes close to this quality I'll be ecstatic!
Cergorach wrote: Someone mentioned scales in a wrong way, maybe a typo, but:
Robotech and Battletech: 1/285 (6mm)
CAV and Dropzone Commander: 1/180 (10mm)
Heavy Gear: 1/144 (12mm)
Actually I was thinking scale more in the "quantity of stuff in the board" sense and less in the "scale of the miniatures", but it's a good idea to clarify it, thank you.
Something that's pretty great about 1/144 scale, btw, is that it is basically "N" railroad scale, so you can use loads of stuff from that. If only there were futuristic railroad stuff...
I guess I'm...what? Third in command of the Hater Troll Army? So believe me when I say, earlier in this very thread in fact, that the Pod's off to a good start. I personally thanked Dave, the very Dave who only weeks ago deleted and locked threads containing questions of comments he didn't like, for starting to address those sorts of issues. He even got rid of that asinine "don't feed the trolls" bit in his sig, for crying out loud! This may not be the best word for it, but Dave (at least, and maybe Rob, too) really appears to have matured throughout this KS campaign.
And I've said as much.
But taking the step from ignoring and removing questions, to acknowledging some of them and beginning to address them, is very, very different from "everything is better now, because people pledged!"
I love Heavy Gear, not Dream Pod 9, thought I'd like to one day. At launch, there was no reason to believe anything had or would change about their behaviour. Completely forget about the low-detail models and bad rules. Forget that. The Pod has made bad decisions and acted poorly. That's all. That's the root concern. Asking private individuals to invest doesn't somehow fix the way the whole two people left at Dream Pod 9 have behaved, and it doesn't change that behaviour going forward.
But.
Now, a few weeks on, it looks like things are starting to - let's use that word again - mature. And, if you scroll up, Dave even agreed with me, Troll 1st. Class Firebreak, Hater 2nd Division (or however I should be properly classified as enemy), that the KS is a good starting point. Things aren't better. The KS isn't even done. But now there is reason to at least have a conversation that they could get better. That conversation still includes all the same questions as before, though. As I said, Dave is starting to address some of them. So.
Good start.
But this swaggering "Anybody else??" attitude doesn't do anything to help. "Look they made money that means you're wrong and everything is good now." Okay, whatever. Have fun in 18 months. I really hope the models are good, and that you get them.
What are these unanswered 'questions' people keep chucking around, I went through this entire thread and I don't see unanswered questions. Could you maybe list them? Then people could try to answer them.
Let's just boil the questions my fellow trolls have down to one, Cergorach:
What's changed? At the Pod, with Rob and Dave as business owners and operators, what's changed that makes THIS go round any more likely to stick?
I'm not going to continue to be part of this conversation past this post, because frankly I see a mod swooping down in my future, and besides, the conversation's not going anywhere new. Good luck to the people that pledged, and good luck to Dream Pod 9. I sincerely hope it all works out.
The Infinity model are clearly at a later stage of design than the Gears. Plus there is a very different kind of model aesthetic there. Also does it need to be said that there are months to go before the designs are finalized and sent to the mold cutter? If you have a criticism like low detail drop us an e-mail and let us know.
We will be reviewing the 3D models with our backers and fans to check the final design just like we did with the Scimitar discussion. There's no reason not to listen to feedback and make adjustments.
Sorry If I've missed any questions, there is a lot of social media to keep track of, not just here. Just post them again or send them to me in a message and I'll try to address them.
Rob is posting some additional updates and some teasers for hidden stretch goals today.
Firebreak wrote: Let's just boil the questions my fellow trolls have down to one, Cergorach:
What's changed? At the Pod, with Rob and Dave as business owners and operators, what's changed that makes THIS go round any more likely to stick?
Well, that wasn't actually a question that was asked, just a crapton of complaints (which weren't all wrong), but repeating the same thing over and over again is considered harping and not asking questions...
My impression: They looked into the Abyss and Bankruptcy stared back.
What changed from my pov:
- Doing a KS is a big chance for the modus operandi for dp9.
- Listening that much to discussions on their forums (and possibly elsewhere) was a big chance for dp9, after imput they went from a book KS to a miniatures KS, they changed that in a big way as well after further input.
- They listened to customer input during the KS, changed some goals around, didn't listen to everyone, which I think is a good thing, because not everyone should be listened to (99% of the people talk from their own pov and have no sense for business).
- Did dp9 do everything with this KS perfect, no. I didn't think that the $20k initial funding goal was fair, the reason I only pledged at $87k, others only at $105k...
As for the new rules:
- Open Alpha/Beta, this is new as far as I know, they might have done closed beta's, but that is a big difference.
- Living Rulebook free online (intention), this is a pretty big change.
Statements like no new rules every two years, two faction books per year, etc. Might fall on tired and deaf ears, because it's been heard before and things didn't change in the past.
Edit:
Stretch goals at the $200k and $215 have been added, it's the Naga and the Mammoth. How are we going to get those at this rate!?!? *despair* ;-)
But this swaggering "Anybody else??" attitude doesn't do anything to help. "Look they made money that means you're wrong and everything is good now." Okay, whatever. Have fun in 18 months. I really hope the models are good, and that you get them.
Perhaps this medium isn't proper for this, Firebreak. But if I may... I don't know why precisely you classed yourself in the 'enemy' category. I have done my best not to use the word 'troll' in relation to you. And I really prefer not having to term anyone that.
JohnHwangDD made valid points, as did Albertorius, as did you. What assurances you have that Mr. Dubois and Dave are going to change can be found in the fact that I and a lot of other folks are putting money in the hat, so to speak, on good faith that the Pod will deliver.
Dream Pod 9 never failed me once in delivering on models, even when I was in Iraq. So yes, I will put it on good faith - again - that they will deliver here.
The rules, clearly, are the other half of this that will be worked on up until finalization. I am hoping, and if Dave or Mr. Dubois read this, I would suggest strongly that they start looking forward at delivery of the rulebook equal to the plastic molds.
Another key thing, which I have spoken about with others, is the attitude of the community. I don't know how else to put it, but wargamers need to ask themselves "why so serious?" sometimes. You put in a lot of time into this hobby, yes, but at the end of the day these games should be about fun. And yes, that means being goofy once in awhile. So hopefully my comments are taken in the spirit I give them, that of someone who wants to have fun.
Alpharius wrote: I think this one's reached the 'good deal, definitely worth it' point now, right?
I mean, if you're at all interested in the minis/theme/scale/etc, of course!
I had pledged despite my existing concerns and previous investment. I dropped out a few days ago though.
If I decide to jump back in to something in this scale it will be Firestorm Planetfall (which seems to make better use of it's scale in terms of unit diversity) or with my existing NuCoal minis.
I've had enough of "great deals!" for things I'll probably never use. If they aren't gorgeous minis (and these really aren't, they just don't get across the size of the gears effectively IMO) then I'm not going down that road anymore.
BrandonKF wrote: Another key thing, which I have spoken about with others, is the attitude of the community. I don't know how else to put it, but wargamers need to ask themselves "why so serious?" sometimes. You put in a lot of time into this hobby, yes, but at the end of the day these games should be about fun. And yes, that means being goofy once in awhile. So hopefully my comments are taken in the spirit I give them, that of someone who wants to have fun.
God bless.
Brandon, I suspect for alot of gamers they have that attitude because the customers have to keep repeatedly asking themselves "why does DP9 screw us over?" along with "why do they keep shooting themselves in the foot?" so often for multiple decades. I hope that this KS marks a turn in events but there is a whole lotta really bad momentum (both internally at dp9 and in the community) that they need to overcome to do it. The community response is 100% because of company actions over the years.
Alpharius wrote: I think this one's reached the 'good deal, definitely worth it' point now, right?
I mean, if you're at all interested in the minis/theme/scale/etc, of course!
I had pledged despite my existing concerns and previous investment. I dropped out a few days ago though.
If I decide to jump back in to something in this scale it will be Firestorm Planetfall (which seems to make better use of it's scale in terms of unit diversity) or with my existing NuCoal minis.
I've had enough of "great deals!" for things I'll probably never use. If they aren't gorgeous minis (and these really aren't, they just don't get across the size of the gears effectively IMO) then I'm not going down that road anymore.
Some of the 3D models are looking really good, like the Iguana, and some clearly need some tweaks, like the Cobra. They're all still in the early stages and some will need more levels of detail added for sure. In this kind of situation you want to get the initial look right and then start layering the detail. Modifying the basic proportions is three times the work for the sculptor if all the detail is already placed since it means more adjustments.
It's also really hard to balance the 'large walking vehicle' aesthetic with an appropriate level of badass without going overboard. (See the Rally Ferret for an example of something pushed too far, but great in context).
Brandon, I suspect for alot of gamers they have that attitude because the customers have to keep repeatedly asking themselves "why does DP9 screw us over?" along with "why do they keep shooting themselves in the foot?" so often for multiple decades. I hope that this KS marks a turn in events but there is a whole lotta really bad momentum (both internally at dp9 and in the community) that they need to overcome to do it. The community response is 100% because of company actions over the years.
I certainly don't want to commit to anymore 'love it or leave it' conversations, warboss. Believe me, I understand the community's response. From both sides of the aisle. But I thank you for sticking with it as long as you have.
BrandonKF wrote: What assurances you have that Mr. Dubois and Dave are going to change can be found in the fact that I and a lot of other folks are putting money in the hat, so to speak, on good faith that the Pod will deliver.
That's... no assurance at all that they will or won't do anything. It's just assurance that you think they will.
Some of the 3D models are looking really good, like the Iguana, and some clearly need some tweaks, like the Cobra
You really think so? Like, really, really? Because so far I would rate no single render I've seen on the KS much above the category of "doodle", honestly. If you think that some of those are already done, it is an ill omen for me. But I'll take you at your word when you say that these are only for proportions' sake, and the detailing will come later. You have the change to throw it out of the park. Take it, you need to.
JohnHwangDD wrote: I suspect that you are correct - DP9 doesn't want HG to become the best selling and most profitable tabletop wargame in the world.
Even though I think you have some very valid points, I don't really think that is one.
That may have been slightly facetious. Did you miss the smiley?
Albertorius wrote: I agree almost completely with: 2nd edition 40k was a skirmish game played with far too many minis for its ruleset, whereas 3rd edition 40k was a game designed wholecloth for the amount of minis they were actually playing with, and it is actually my favorite "big game" edition of 40k.
We are in violent agreement here - I prefer 40k3 best, too.
Albertorius wrote: So, were we to follow the "might makes right" theory of gaming design (or at least the one you seem to have been toting around over here, namely that as 40k and FoW are the most successful games they are therefore the best ones)
Close. My position is that HG2 should leverage the basic structure of 40k and FoW to maximize potential adoption and growth. This strategy worked very well for Flames. I don't believe that Flames is necessarily the "best" ruleset, but it is the most playable for the vast majority of gamers who started with 40k and wanted something a little different.
Albertorius wrote: , we would have to reach the conclusion that 40k 2nd edition was indeed a better game than 3rd and onwards, wouldn't we?
I don't believe that 40k2 sold as much stuff as 40k3 did, and a lot of that was carryover of RT-era mechanics and rules making for a difficult learning process.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrandonKF wrote: Here is an updated view of the Spitting Cobra 3D model:
Compared with...
Be still, my beating heart!
There's hardly any change in the two, though I really wonder how many parts DP9 is looking at splitting the Spitting Cobra into. To match the render in styrene, we are looking at:
- head
- 2 antennae
- torso (requires slide mold)
- V-engine
- 2 V-engine caps
- rocket pod
- vertical rocket pod
- left arm
- right arm with gun
- 2 shoulder pads (requires slide mold)
- legs
- 2 kneepads
- 2 feet.
By my count, that Spitting Cobra will require 18 parts to make a model that stands less than 1.5 inches tall. That may be excessive, but then Robotech went with a lot of parts, too!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrandonKF wrote: I would rather Heavy Gear stand on its own. The only contemporary mecha games currently are Battletech and Alpha Strike.
How about Robotech Tactics, which is currently finishing Wave 1 delivery to the US? Doesn't that count as a mecha game? They're even styrene plastic, and pulled $ 1.4M in their KS.
BrandonKF wrote: Flames of War I will grant is even closer in style to Heavy Gear than those I listed above.
Do I want more detailed plastic miniatures? Yes. But comparisons right now are going to be judged on finished products versus entirely new molds in entirely new medium for the company.
Is it fair to compare HG's renders with the Robotech ones, and/or the production Robotech plastics now in backer hands?
Albertorius wrote: Even though I think you have some very valid points, I don't really think that is one.
That may have been slightly facetious. Did you miss the smiley?
I... heh. Most certainly have ^^
Albertorius wrote: I agree almost completely with: 2nd edition 40k was a skirmish game played with far too many minis for its ruleset, whereas 3rd edition 40k was a game designed wholecloth for the amount of minis they were actually playing with, and it is actually my favorite "big game" edition of 40k.
We are in violent agreement here - I prefer 40k3 best, too.
Yeah. I still like the old rules (or at least, part of them.... close combat is and always be nuts ) for games like Necromunda and the like, but for the kind of games 40k markets itself, 3rd edition is waaay better (or at least, for the kind of games it marketed itself. The Apocalypse games are just nuts, IMHO).
Albertorius wrote: So, were we to follow the "might makes right" theory of gaming design (or at least the one you seem to have been toting around over here, namely that as 40k and FoW are the most successful games they are therefore the best ones)
Close. My position is that HG2 should leverage the basic structure of 40k and FoW to maximize potential adoption and growth. This strategy worked very well for Flames. I don't believe that Flames is necessarily the "best" ruleset, but it is the most playable for the vast majority of gamers who started with 40k and wanted something a little different.
I don't know. On the one hand, yes, getting closer to the basic structure of 40k/FoW would help in people who like those games to at least try HG out. On the other hand, people could end up wondering why play a game like HG that has a lot smaller playerbase than 40k/FoW if the end result is playing a game that plays pretty much like one of those.
Albertorius wrote: , we would have to reach the conclusion that 40k 2nd edition was indeed a better game than 3rd and onwards, wouldn't we?
I don't believe that 40k2 sold as much stuff as 40k3 did, and a lot of that was carryover of RT-era mechanics and rules making for a difficult learning process.
Maybe not in gross quantities, but most certainly in terms of market percentage. Back then in 2nd edition 40k/4-5th edition WFB, Games Workshop games were pretty much the only game in town, and their market share was more or less "all of it", except for those weirdo historical players .
Is it fair to compare HG's renders with the Robotech ones, and/or the production Robotech plastics now in backer hands?
I'd say pretty fair, personally... and we all know by now how those ended up (Spartan nipple launcher, anyone?)
frozenwastes wrote: This KS is going alright and I hope it results in nice plastic models coming out on time, but given DP9's history of cancelled editions, delays and the fact that it's their first attempt at plastic like this (also the amount of plastic miniatures is very high relative to the funds raised, so that's worrying), I think the smart thing to do is to sit this one out.
Firebreak wrote: I love Heavy Gear, not Dream Pod 9, though I'd like to one day.
warboss wrote: I suspect for a lot of gamers they have that attitude because the customers have to keep repeatedly asking themselves "why does DP9 screw us over?" along with "why do they keep shooting themselves in the foot?" so often for multiple decades.
I think that's about the long and the short of it all, and everyone will find out a year or more from now whether or not the Pod can make good on their word.
BrandonKF wrote: Another key thing, which I have spoken about with others, is the attitude of the community.
Quite simply, you have achieved the exact kind of community that you wanted by being one of the architects who shaped it into the now - whatever happens with the KS is not going to change that apart from a possible increase or decrease in overall numbers.
Cergorach wrote: Because if your not a customer and not a potential customer due to your own words, your a disruptive influence for the rest of the customers, your pretty much kicked out of the store/forum.
Firebreak wrote: But this swaggering "Anybody else??" attitude doesn't do anything to help. "Look they made money that means you're wrong and everything is good now." Okay, whatever.
I think that mrondeau pretty much covered what if anything is left that can be said:
mrondeau wrote: If I wanted you to fail, I would simply shut up.
So, yeah.
Spoiler:
Some contributions made to HG over the past few years that may or may not be of interest.
(5) Aurora submissions, and (2) short stories. Cover & Concealment quick reference images for HGB! gameplay made in Sketch-Up. Defining Weapon Roles in HGB! thread. Desert Warfare information thread. HGB! Named Gear/Vehicle Variants Idea thread. Impromptu collaboration to figure out Time and Day Length on Terra Nova. Jungle Warfare information thread. Occasional updates for the Northern & Southern Regimental Registry threads. Quick Reference sheets for Field Manual rules Blitz! Tools of the Trade information thread. USS Columbia (SSN-771) thread, a multi-section vehicle for the 2E VCS.
About (100+) hours towards a new HG module for VASSAL. (90-100+) Southern model datacards for Blitz! on dA, updated for the Field Manual. (40-50+) Northern model datacards for Blitz! on dA, updated for the Field Manual. Gear height comparison image on dA: Northern Gear height comparison image on dA: Southern
Practical (real-world oriented) draft of a complete semi-canon tactical mapping symbol system on dA. Rough draft of a force construction system combining simplified HGB! ideas present in the before-Alpha concept material with a FoW style.
Southern Field Guide - (8+) pages of notes for first impressions and suggestions. - Southern Variants List by Chassis quick reference. - (50+) playtest model datacards. - (12) test games, Earned: pdf & physical book.
Paxton Field Guide - (7+) pages of notes for first impressions and suggestions. - Paxton Regiment types and benefits rewrite, used in the as published version. - Variants List by Chassis + Squad Availability (Paxton) document. - (7) Theory-craft force lists. - (65+) playtest model datacards. - (10) test games, Earned: pdf.
Northern Field Guide - (8+) pages of notes for first impressions and suggestions. - Variants List by Chassis + Squad Availability (North) document. - (8) playtest model datacards. - (5) test games, Earned: pdf.
(As senior assistant under-writer.) - Northern models & variants quick reference list. - Three months and (250-300+) hours editing developer source material & test group responses / recommendations into the as turned in draft. - Full end-notes for the test group version of the working rough draft. - Costing of included models and variants, completion of full spreadsheet for this data. - Triple-checking or better of individual model, variant, and combat group costs.
- Players Quick Reference Guide, including:
Quick Start page, Models & Variants by Combat Group, Comparative Model List, Organizational Matrix
Spreadsheet explaining specific rules, option lines, and model swaps organized by combat group and faction.
Field Support Guide - About a week of collating Gear Up source material and editing to Field Manual rules. - Costing of included models and variants. - Double-checking individual model, variant, and combat group costs. - Inserting post-proofreading corrections.
BrandonKF wrote: What assurances you have that Mr. Dubois and Dave are going to change can be found in the fact that I and a lot of other folks are putting money in the hat, so to speak, on good faith that the Pod will deliver.
That's... no assurance at all that they will or won't do anything. It's just assurance that you think they will.
Some of the 3D models are looking really good, like the Iguana, and some clearly need some tweaks, like the Cobra
You really think so? Like, really, really? Because so far I would rate no single render I've seen on the KS much above the category of "doodle", honestly. If you think that some of those are already done, it is an ill omen for me. But I'll take you at your word when you say that these are only for proportions' sake, and the detailing will come later. You have the change to throw it out of the park. Take it, you need to.
@Albertorius, I guess it isn't an assurance, but whatever works for you.
@JohnHwangDD, I don't know how plastic works, but I would prefer not requiring so many separate pieces for this size of a miniature. I mean, respectfully, that is a crud load of pieces.
At the very least I would hope the V-engine could be adequately formed and molded without requiring the cylinders being glued on separately.
I know that Robotech did very well, but I have no skin in that game, or the thread that resulted from it here on Dakka. I told warboss I appreciated him sticking as long as he has with Heavy Gear and I think he (and anyone else in the Robotech Backers) should be commended.
I also know there was a lot of fallout here on Dakka in that thread from the updates. Again, no skin in it.
But if what you are trying to get at is you would like Heavy Gear to match that, I would like that.
Smilodon_UP wrote:
BrandonKF wrote: Another key thing, which I have spoken about with others, is the attitude of the community.
Quite simply, you have achieved the exact kind of community that you wanted by being one of the architects who shaped it into the now - whatever happens with the KS is not going to change that apart from a possible increase or decrease in overall numbers.
I am PMing you my response.
Edit: I can say that this KS being my first, I already am looking forward to more. I learned quite a bit from veteran Backers and from ya'll. Peace.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Close. My position is that HG2 should leverage the basic structure of 40k and FoW to maximize potential adoption and growth. This strategy worked very well for Flames. I don't believe that Flames is necessarily the "best" ruleset, but it is the most playable for the vast majority of gamers who started with 40k and wanted something a little different.
I don't know. On the one hand, yes, getting closer to the basic structure of 40k/FoW would help in people who like those games to at least try HG out. On the other hand, people could end up wondering why play a game like HG that has a lot smaller playerbase than 40k/FoW if the end result is playing a game that plays pretty much like one of those.
Is it fair to compare HG's renders with the Robotech ones, and/or the production Robotech plastics now in backer hands?
I'd say pretty fair, personally... and we all know by now how those ended up (Spartan nipple launcher, anyone?)
It wasn't that long ago that BattleFront was a complete unknown, and nobody was playing it at all. I recall a lot grognards deriding Flames for not being "crunchy" enough to be a "proper" WW2 game, so it couldn't possibly succeed. In the years since FoW 1E released, we now have FoW 3E, and it's the largest tabletop miniatures version of WW2 game in the world by a significant margin. We have 3rd parties (i.e. PSC) doing full lines of Flames-compatible scale miniatures in hard plastic, from metal molds. We have Battlefront themselves moving to plastic, because the profits and volumes allow them to invest in long-term metal molds to support high volume sales with superior margins. BF started small, leveraged 40k gameflow into a huge, profitable franchise.
Robotech, I raised that because I think HG will be in a similar situation going from render to production. Preserving the 3-D detail with steel molds is going to be a challenge, with very similar results. Lots of parts, or much simplification. Either way, managing to the budget will make things tougher, roughly $ 6k per mold to cut. In America.
I start to feel like this project will be very challenged to deliver within budget.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrandonKF wrote: @JohnHwangDD, I don't know how plastic works, but I would prefer not requiring so many separate pieces for this size of a miniature. I mean, respectfully, that is a crud load of pieces.
At the very least I would hope the V-engine could be adequately formed and molded without requiring the cylinders being glued on separately.
Hard plastic is that - HARD. It has no "give", so you can't have any undercuts - if you do, the plastic gets stuck in the mold. So molds have to be straight up and down, like a metal stamping. That's probably the easiest way to visualize how plastic molds work. So when I look at the renders, I look at where the part can be stamped on 2 sides, and where it can't.
These models were not designed for injection molding, which is why the parts count is really high.
Let's look at the feet, as an example. The feet are mainly detailed as a side-to-side stamping, except for the undercut between the toe blocks, undercut in the heel tracks, and the undercut under the top of shoe. This can be solved a few different ways, by making a multi-part foot, or using slide molds - regardless, it's more complex and more expensive.
OTOH, the gun arm is easy, even though it's got lots of detail. This can be molded pretty accurately side-to-side, with basically no loss of detail. You can go from the shoulder to the tip of the barrel, and even have a sort of ball joint at shoulder to facilitate posing options.
But that shoulder pad? It's not going to translate well, due to the spikes on the front. That has to mold separately, front-to-back, with a slide mold somewhere. Ugh.
The V-engines can probably mold front-to-back, but the ends have vertical detail that create undercuts if molded that way - better to make the caps something that molds on-end, for a 3-part V-engine.
And this is on a really tiny little model. It's not going to be 3-5 pieces like the current metal models.
John, it's also important to note that there is only one company that has good consistant results using slide core molds for minatures and they definatly aren't a company based in America whose most familar with relativly large flat surfaces.
Actually the spikes aren't the problem part, it the indent in the round thing on the front is.
A two part mold doesn't have to have a flat horizontal moldline, but it would still mean a separate shoulder part and that is already more then was indicated.
You can have the whole mini in one part and have some sort of 100 part sliding mold engineered, but the cost of that is way out of this KS ballpark ;-)
There's a video on Lego's (Megafactories?) that has a very complex mold that does multiple materials.
ps. GW has also been using sliding molds, I know that they did with the Baneblade (the barrels where hollow and not two parts).
And this is on a really tiny little model. It's not going to be 3-5 pieces like the current metal models.
But think of the bitz box filling and conversions! We'll finally get to see all of Terra Nova's "lost" Gears thanks to never before seen kitbashing opportunities.
Catyrpelius wrote: John, it's also important to note that there is only one company that has good consistant results using slide core molds for minatures and they definatly aren't a company based in America whose most familar with relativly large flat surfaces.
Is this an oblique reference to WarGames Factory in China, and their out-fething-standing work on the DreamForge Games Leviathan Crusader?
I have the DFG Titan from their KS, and it built up beautifully.
Fan-fething-tastic kit!
And no, Heavy Gear being made in the USA precludes them working with WGF like Wyrd (Malifaux) or Kingdom Death.
Catyrpelius wrote: John, it's also important to note that there is only one company that has good consistant results using slide core molds for minatures and they definatly aren't a company based in America whose most familar with relativly large flat surfaces.
Is this an oblique reference to WarGames Factory in China, and their out-fething-standing work on the DreamForge Games Leviathan Crusader?
I have the DFG Titan from their KS, and it built up beautifully.
Fan-fething-tastic kit!
And no, Heavy Gear being made in the USA precludes them working with WGF like Wyrd (Malifaux) or Kingdom Death.
It was an oblique reference to Games Workshop who really is the best when it comes to plastic minatures production with WGF being a very close second. I'm pretty sure WGF can't reliable to slide core yet especially on smaller stuff, thats why the models they produce for Wyrd tend to be in so many tiny peices. A three peice head on a gremlin is common in that line.
Cergorach wrote: Actually the spikes aren't the problem part, it the indent in the round thing on the front is.
A two part mold doesn't have to have a flat horizontal moldline, but it would still mean a separate shoulder part and that is already more then was indicated.
You can have the whole mini in one part and have some sort of 100 part sliding mold engineered, but the cost of that is way out of this KS ballpark ;-)
There's a video on Lego's (Megafactories?) that has a very complex mold that does multiple materials.
ps. GW has also been using sliding molds, I know that they did with the Baneblade (the barrels where hollow and not two parts).
Yes, I agree, you can do the spikes any way you like but the round bit requires front-to-back molds; I combined the two details in my head. Sorry.
I think the shoulder pad actually needs a 2-part slide for the interior. That's the most obvious way of molding the part as rendered. Expensive, though...
I'm pretty sure that render has undercuts that are so deep that you can't mold that thing in one part styrene, even with lots of slides. But I'd like to see someone try!
I used to love the multi-gate mono-sprue stuff that Bandai did. Very clever way of cutting down the final sprue count for shipping, while still molding everything in color.
GW did use slide molds on the Baneblade, I have the kit, too. Not a bad kit, but the mecha design is a bit "off", which hurt conversion ease.
Catyrpelius wrote: John, it's also important to note that there is only one company that has good consistant results using slide core molds for minatures and they definatly aren't a company based in America whose most familar with relativly large flat surfaces.
Is this an oblique reference to WarGames Factory in China, and their out-fething-standing work on the DreamForge Games Leviathan Crusader?
It was an oblique reference to Games Workshop who really is the best when it comes to plastic minatures production with WGF being a very close second. I'm pretty sure WGF can't reliable to slide core yet especially on smaller stuff, thats why the models they produce for Wyrd tend to be in so many tiny peices. A three peice head on a gremlin is common in that line.
GW rarely uses slide molds. GW has gotten very, very good at designing for conventional flat molds. They have been doing injection plastic for a long time, and their digital sculptors are getting very good at knowing how to manage draft angles and separations to get very good, complex models without needing slides.
Wyrd is not as deeply informed to design for separations, so they make dynamic models, and leave it to the hobbyist to assemble. Big pointy ears / antennae are tough on any model, whether it's a VF-1S, Spitting Cobra, or Goblin.
Actually, GW isn't the best, and Dreamforge (WGF China in this case) is actually technically making more advanced kits (the Leviathans are beyond anything GW is selling at the moment).
I have a metric ton of plastic GW minis, I love em, but they can do better. But with GW just good enough is good enough.
Bandai is one of the best, if not the best in model making. They produce complex multicolored plastics in different materials on the same sprue. Minimal moldlines, no slippage, and can be assembled without glue. Those 1/144 modern kits are a joy to assemble!
Cergorach wrote: Bandai is one of the best, if not the best in model making. They produce complex multicolored plastics in different materials on the same sprue. Minimal moldlines, no slippage, and can be assembled without glue. Those 1/144 modern kits are a joy to assemble!
Years ago I thought about a gaming project with 1/144 Gundams fighting in space in an asteroid field with lots of floating debris and whatnot for terrain. I think my posts about how larger heavy gear miniatures would be cool was expressing that idea that I never brought to fruition. Twice a month I have gaming club meetings where I can have huge tables available, so perhaps instead of 1/144 on the ground with Heavy Gear, it's time for 1/144 in space with Gundams from Bandai. I'll probably get a more satisfying modeling experience and won't have to wait for a year (plus delays) to get started.
Thanks for reminding me! Time to get a couple Real Grade 1/144 kits and getting the project moving forward enough to run a duel at the New Year's club day.
I hope this KS project turns out for everyone involved. Maybe when it makes it to retail I'll add some tiny power armour guys to my gundam games if the gears turn out nicely enough.
Cergorach wrote: Actually, GW isn't the best, and Dreamforge (WGF China in this case) is actually technically making more advanced kits (the Leviathans are beyond anything GW is selling at the moment).
I have a metric ton of plastic GW minis, I love em, but they can do better. But with GW just good enough is good enough.
Bandai is one of the best, if not the best in model making. They produce complex multicolored plastics in different materials on the same sprue. Minimal moldlines, no slippage, and can be assembled without glue. Those 1/144 modern kits are a joy to assemble!
Scale matters though, most of the Bandai kits I've seen are much larger and use a much less densely packed sprue then what were used to in the minature wargaming world.
Regardless of which order you choose GW and WGF (I always mess up their name) are number one and two when it comes to injection molded plastic minature wargaming models on a sprue.
Every manufactuer has their strengths and weaknesses. GW and WGF make excelent plastic minature wargaming kits. Bandai and the other company I'm drawing a blank on now make excelent large colored plastic models. An unamed company in America makes high quality plastic airplane kits. I wouldn't ask Bandai to make me a 28mm minture sprue and I wouldn't ask WGF to make a multicolored large model, having an expertise in one thing doesn't nessacarily translate to an expertise in something else. While the basic mechanics and machinery might be similiar the details and engineering are completly different. Sure you could have Bandai, WGF or GW, all leaders in their feilds, create the needed expertise but it wouldn't be cheap or fast. But it seems to me that DP9 belives that an America based producer of plastic model planes has the needed expertise and capability...
And that pretty much sums up why I'm not backing the project. If everything turns out ok in the end and I see the models in person I'll probably buy some.
Catyrpelius wrote: Scale matters though, most of the Bandai kits I've seen are much larger and use a much less densely packed sprue then what were used to in the minature wargaming world.
Gundams are huge mecha while gears are basically armoured transforming humanoid motorcycles. As for sprue density here's a pic:
Spoiler:
There's quite a big difference between separating out parts for model builders and for miniature gamers, isn't there? The Gundam sprue doesn't really look like the type of thing you want to see if you want to build miniatures for wargaming.
But it seems to me that DP9 belives that an America based producer of plastic model planes has the needed expertise and capability...
And that pretty much sums up why I'm not backing the project. If everything turns out ok in the end and I see the models in person I'll probably buy some.
So you're saying that a model vehicle company just likely doesn't have the expertise to make 28mm miniatures to the same standards as their larger kits? It's just outside of their area of expertise?
I think that's a fair reason to take a wait and see approach on this KS.
Catyrpelius wrote: Scale matters though, most of the Bandai kits I've seen are much larger and use a much less densely packed sprue then what were used to in the minature wargaming world.
Gundams are huge mecha while gears are basically armoured transforming humanoid motorcycles. As for sprue density here's a pic:
Spoiler:
But it seems to me that DP9 belives that an America based producer of plastic model planes has the needed expertise and capability...
And that pretty much sums up why I'm not backing the project. If everything turns out ok in the end and I see the models in person I'll probably buy some.
So you're saying that a model vehicle company just likely doesn't have the expertise to make 28mm miniatures to the same standards as their larger kits? It's just outside of their area of expertise?
I think that's a fair reason to take a wait and see approach on this KS.
Don't forget that with this kickstarter isn't even dealing with 28mm miniatures, but something smaller. Look at it in terms of clocks... You've got a craftsman who makes grandfather clocks and a craftsman who makes watches. They both make generally the same thing but they couldn't preform the others job as well as they could.
Cergorach wrote:GW isn't the best, Dreamforge (WGF China in this case) is
with GW just good enough is good enough.
Bandai is one of the best, if not the best in model making.
I generally agree: Bandai is 10/10, WGF China is 9.5/10, GW is 9/10. ____
frozenwastes wrote:Years ago I thought about a gaming project with 1/144 Gundams fighting in space in an asteroid field with lots of floating debris and whatnot for terrain.
The game you are looking for could have been DP9's Jovian Chronicles, except DP9 let that game languish. It had a small splash, then nothing. <sad trombone>
Bandai, OTOH, as stepped things up, with a game around their 1/144 Gundam - Gundam Build Fighters. ____
Catyrpelius wrote:Regardless of which order you choose GW and WGF (I always mess up their name) are number one and two when it comes to injection molded plastic minature wargaming models on a sprue.
An unamed company in America makes high quality plastic airplane kits. DP9 belives that an America based producer of plastic model planes has the needed expertise and capability...
And that pretty much sums up why I'm not backing the project. If everything turns out ok in the end and I see the models in person I'll probably buy some.
Who is DP9 using? I don't follow scale model aircraft, so I'd like to know if you know who it is. .
____
Catyrpelius wrote:Gundams are huge mecha while gears are basically armoured transforming humanoid motorcycles.
Don't forget that with this kickstarter isn't even dealing with 28mm miniatures, but something smaller. Look at it in terms of clocks... You've got a craftsman who makes grandfather clocks and a craftsman who makes watches. They both make generally the same thing but they couldn't preform the others job as well as they could.
On the tabletop:
- Gundam are 5" to 7" tall.
- Gears are 1" to 2" tall.
Titans vs Terminators, in 40k terms.
Based on my experience with their product, I'm pretty sure the House of Wilsdorf could make one heck of a grandfather clock, if they so desired. They'd probably produce the first grandfather clock that you could use while swimming across the English Channel, or at the bottom of the ocean.
Bandai makes a couple of kits that actually have 1/144 figures, a tank, a hovertruck and a hover bike on them. Sure the 1/144 models are large, but not larger then the recent GW models. Those Gundams might be huge compared to the Gears, those tanks and hover trucks are not. Are they two piece models? No, but still far fewer components and easier to build then a Gundam.
Bandai's main property is Gundam, that's about big stompy robots, so they make models for that in all kinds of different scales. 1/144, 1/100, 1/60, 1/48, 1/35, all the way up to 1/1 ;-) But I've also seen 1/220, 1/300 and I've bought a ton relatively cheap on ebay in 1/400, at that scale they are as tall as a Cobra or Grizzly. They are colored, have decals applied, are sharp in detail and cheap!
Bandai is a Watch maker that makes components the size for watches, but usually makes belltower clocks with the components, just very complex belltower clocks. ;-)
A lot of the model plane manufacturers also make/made 1/72 scale figures, 1/48, 1/35. Heck 40k is getting close to 1/48. Some of those manufacturers made far more detailed kits the GW at the time. There are folks that have been using 1/48 or 1/35 scale APCs for Rhinos...
How is a 1/48 Modern US infantry man different from a Hunter Gear? How is a 1/144 Harrier different from a HG VTOL in the same scale? The only difference is that the model kit companies have been doing that for decades...
I feel that a Gear sized kit in hard model plastic can even be made to be assembled without glue, it would just need more components then previously envisioned...
That give us a Ferret in every set and a step on the way to the BF2-25 Frame for the CEF.
There are some very complicated pieces. Some will simply have to be broken down into more parts. One example is the cobra. Those little spikes on the shoulders will not play well in a mold so they are probably going to be all or mostly parts that will have to be glued into place. Following the basic premise of "As few parts as possible but no cams" as a good rules of thumb.
Battlefront's stuff is very impressive. Games Workshop have spent the most for talent in the area of mold making as far as I can tell though Wyrd seems to be the ones to beat for sheer detail though their quality seems to be a bit hit and miss. Hawk wargames has an advantage in that it was designed from the get go in 3D so all the tolerances are already there, and their stuff is alwasy nicely broken down into very flat parts. I haven't had a chance to examine the Mantic sprues but it looks very close to GW back in 5th edition Warhammer. Bandai will always be the gold standard. They must have a phenominal team of designers to design their models with as much articulation as they do. I look forward to the day when we can get our little drone Gundams out of the box and fight live with remote cams to a real world combat sim. I'm sure they have that in the planning stages somewhere, probably funded by the JDF.
Who doesn't like a little buttwheel? It's the grot of the Heavy Gear universe.
I like buttwheel as much as the next guy but I think I'd prefer some mount love personally. The caprice set is looking by far the skimpiest of the bunch. Even CEF get a ton more stuff!
JohnHwangDD wrote: It wasn't that long ago that BattleFront was a complete unknown, and nobody was playing it at all. I recall a lot grognards deriding Flames for not being "crunchy" enough to be a "proper" WW2 game, so it couldn't possibly succeed. In the years since FoW 1E released, we now have FoW 3E, and it's the largest tabletop miniatures version of WW2 game in the world by a significant margin. We have 3rd parties (i.e. PSC) doing full lines of Flames-compatible scale miniatures in hard plastic, from metal molds. We have Battlefront themselves moving to plastic, because the profits and volumes allow them to invest in long-term metal molds to support high volume sales with superior margins. BF started small, leveraged 40k gameflow into a huge, profitable franchise.
That is true, but no complete, really.
WWII is very ingrained in the imaginations of... well, pretty much the whole wide world, so merging the 40k gameflow with WWII has a lot of appeal, even if historics grognards get their pants in a knot. Simply put, the potential market for a "simplified" wargame with lots of reconigzable parts in the rules for current GW customers to latch on.
So in the case of FoW, I'd say that using a recognizable and internalized by a lot of wargamers base ruleset and coupling it with WWII was both a pretty good idea and a very shrew move on their part.
But I'm not sure that doing the same in this case would be a strength for DP9 and HG (and hopefully, JC, I'd love me some JC action). The IPs, although well beloved among a certain subset of players (and even then, more roleplayers than wargamers, honestly), are nowehere near popular, and the main eye candy minis of the game, the gears, look pretty much like technified space marines of some sort (and are the same size). So, if you couple a "space marine" aesthetics with a mostly unknown IP with a ruleset reminiscent of Warhammer 40.000 (THE space marine game, by definition)... well, I'm just not sure that it would be as good an idea as in the case of WWII.
OTOH, Kings of War pretty has pretty much mined the "WFB-like battles, but faster and easier" for all it is worth, so what do I know.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DP9Dave wrote: Hawk wargames has an advantage in that it was designed from the get go in 3D so all the tolerances are already there, and their stuff is alwasy nicely broken down into very flat parts.
1) Basically every company design its stuff in 3d from the get go nowadays, when plastic is involved (except mainly historical 28mm, I think), so that's no advantage of Hawk Wargames.
2) Not really flat at all... have you seen their new Resistance stuff, for example? I'd call that anything but flat, and given the actual finished minis, I don't think the parts would be much flat either.
Kidou Senshi GUNDAM came out in 1979, and Robotech came to the US in the early 80s, so mecha robots are just as ingrained in people's consciousness over the past 30-odd years. There is just as much potential for a "simplified" wargame with lots of recognizable parts for GW customers.
Yet nobody has yet had the brains to merge mecha with a 40k-like ruleset, preferring to hold on to arcane and clumsy CBT / Silhoutte / RIFTS-based mechanics from various failed RPGs.
One has to wonder whether the notion of mecha battles is so cool, that the rules designers are thinking that their robots are so good, that players will suffer to play pure crap.
And in the case of DP9 compared to Robotech and Battletech, the combination of an unknown IP property with terrible mechanics would naturally succeed, right?
Of course, as DP9's awesome success to date shows, this thinking is completely flawed. And yet they persist in their fool's errand...
The Gears have never been the problem - people are always wanting to play them. It's consistently been the rules that have driven players away, running and screaming. The fact that HG (and JC) is a dying property shows how incredibly bad the rules are.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Kidou Senshi GUNDAM came out in 1979, and Robotech came to the US in the early 80s, so mecha robots are just as ingrained in people's consciousness over the past 30-odd years. There is just as much potential for a "simplified" wargame with lots of recognizable parts for GW customers.
Yes and no. Yes, "mecha" is recognizable, no doubt. But the people that like it, and want to play with them is , I think, a much lower percentage compared with the people that want to wargame WWII. So there would be potential, but I wouldn't say that there's "as much potential".
And then there's the fact that HG is no Robotech, or Gundam. The scale is completely off, the designs are not the ones that people know. It's as if someone develops an X-Wing clone, only with a new IP and completely unknown fighters. Will it be a good game? Possibly. Will it be somewhere near to as marketable and successful as X-Wing? I really don't think so. Will people struggle to play with it instead of just play X-Wing with the dozens of players at the FLGS? Maybe, maybe not.
Yet nobody has yet had the brains to merge mecha with a 40k-like ruleset, preferring to hold on to arcane and clumsy CBT / Silhoutte / RIFTS-based mechanics from various failed RPGs.
There's Mobile Frame Zero, IIRC, which seemed like an easy game, and CAV, I think. I also think that fans of mecha might have a liking for "nuts and bolts" games with lots of moving parts. Dunno.
One has to wonder whether the notion of mecha battles is so cool, that the rules designers are thinking that their robots are so good, that players will suffer to play pure crap.
That might certainly have some to do with it, yes. Many games are seen only as a way to sell the minis, and I think that DP9 have suffered this a lot (as in not really giving a feth about the rules as long as people buys minis).
And in the case of DP9 compared to Robotech and Battletech, the combination of an unknown IP property with terrible mechanics would naturally succeed, right?
Just that, and objetively terrible mechanics? No, of course not. Good rules and unknown IP? Probably not either, just with that. But then again, look at Warmachine. Unknown IP (to non-D&D fans), a ruleset (and a gaming philosophy) completely at odds with GW's... and there they are now, the second biggest fantasy wargame (maybe not the second anymore, by now, actually). What did they do right, then? I'd say that they had great rules support, that they listened to their fans. Also the minis are very distinctive, and the setting is absolutely great, but they also marketed themselves really well.
Of course, as DP9's awesome success to date shows, this thinking is completely flawed. And yet they persist in their fool's errand...
Although the ruleset probably has to do with it, it is nowhere near to the only cause. Changing rulesets at the drop of a hat, having non-existent rules support, really, really high prices, very bad distribution channels, no presence at all in game stores, no publicity whatsoever, frakking god expensive softbound books, quality problems with the minis casting, a history of not giving a feth about their players... that might also have to do something with it.
The Gears have never been the problem - people are always wanting to play them. It's consistently been the rules that have driven players away, running and screaming. The fact that HG (and JC) is a dying property shows how incredibly bad the rules are.
See above. The rules are a part of a whole, big mess.
IMO, it's still the rules. If the game had been playable, at least people would play, rather than run for the hills.
Then the other issues would rear their heads. But players don't get past the first game, so the poor support, etc. doesn't show up until later. Like with the GW complaints.
In the GW case, people play, and then, they complain and complain and complain about what they're playing. For years at a stretch. While still buying more and more stuff. That's a very different place from not even getting past a demo game.
I think GW has a lot of traction, what with being the game with most players in most places, so many people complain and complain, but still play it. The fact that is fething expensive to build an army would make people even more invested in it, probably.
And IMHO, HG rules have been getting worse with every new release: 2nd edition would be an involved game, but it works, and does some interesting things. Latest Blitz, OTOH...
Catyrpelius wrote:Regardless of which order you choose GW and WGF (I always mess up their name) are number one and two when it comes to injection molded plastic minature wargaming models on a sprue.
An unamed company in America makes high quality plastic airplane kits. DP9 belives that an America based producer of plastic model planes has the needed expertise and capability...
And that pretty much sums up why I'm not backing the project. If everything turns out ok in the end and I see the models in person I'll probably buy some.
Who is DP9 using? I don't follow scale model aircraft, so I'd like to know if you know who it is. .
____
I don't think they've said anything other then its a producer of plastic aircraft models based in the USA. A quick google search suggests that it could be Revell or Probuilt.
Revell does make plastic wargaming models but every review of them I've read has mentioned their bendyness and excessive flash.
Albertorius wrote: And then there's the fact that HG is no Robotech, or Gundam. The scale is completely off, the designs are not the ones that people know. It's as if someone develops an X-Wing clone, only with a new IP and completely unknown fighters. Will it be a good game? Possibly. Will it be somewhere near to as marketable and successful as X-Wing? I really don't think so. Will people struggle to play with it instead of just play X-Wing with the dozens of players at the FLGS? Maybe, maybe not.
Well that's good, because a bunch of us don't like Robotech or Gundam. If you're a Patlabor or VOTOMS fan the size is just right. Or to use your example, even if Star Wars is well known, there are a large amount of people who don't like Star Wars fighters. Maybe the market isn't large enough for lots of different games, but that doesn't mean people shouldn't try.
The rest of this isn't a response to you Albertorius.
And in the case of DP9 compared to Robotech and Battletech, the combination of an unknown IP property with terrible mechanics would naturally succeed, right?
Of course, as DP9's awesome success to date shows, this thinking is completely flawed. And yet they persist in their fool's errand...
The Gears have never been the problem - people are always wanting to play them. It's consistently been the rules that have driven players away, running and screaming. The fact that HG (and JC) is a dying property shows how incredibly bad the rules are.
You want to know a game that succeeded inspire of horrible rules... Warhammer 40,000. For most in this hobby they are the first set of rules they come across and set a benchmark. It not unlike D&D in RPGs, the introduction to the hobby is by way of a poor set of rules. So lets just drop the subjective assault that Heavy Gear has bad rules.
I posit that the gears are the problem. It's not the size, shape, price or anything like that. It's that the mecha market is too small to support more than one game, Battletech I'm looking at you. Even Battletech waxes and wanes and appeals to a non-anime crowd. The real problem is that Heavy Gear is and will always be a niche game while supports hope it will be the next big thing and detractors point out it will soon be dead. Warzone, Chronopia, Void, Confrontation, AT-43... they all came and went while Heavy Gear is still here. The 'Net is littered with failed and dead miniatures games and yet DP9 still has a market, mayb a small one, but a viable one so long as they don't get delusions of grandeur.
At the end of the day, DP9 hasn't killed anyone, they've done nothing illegal and probably know their window to be the next great tabletop game has past. Lots of neat minis are saddled with rules people don't like. DP9 has found a viable niche catering to people who can live with the rules and actually put down money on the models.
40k succeeded because they had the best models at the time, bar none, and the 3E rules were completely adequate for playing games on a scale that nobody else could. Period. 40k's 3E ruleset was not horrible. We had a pre-teen in the shop who could play 40k just fine (delightful little kid, so great). There is no way you would have gotten him to play 1st Ed Heavy Gear - the math would have been completely beyond him. Claiming subjectivity about HG's rules is a load of crap. Objectively, HG's rules require a lot more work.
Just shoot at something to hit it.
In 40k, you need to know three things:
- shooter's last movement
- shooter Ballistic Skill
- weapon type (e.g. Heavy 3)
The BS and weapons are basically fixed and limited by army, so you can memorize it. Easy.
In the current version of Heavy Gear, you need to know the following pieces of information, at a minimum:
- shooter Gunnery Skill
- shooter stance
- target Pilot Skill,
- target stance,
- weapon range band.
- difference in die rolls
- secondary successes
I hope I didn't miss anything, but that is basically twice as many things to know and figure, and it's more steps. Just to see if we got a hit.
And that's without the earlier multiplication bits.
Heavy Gear's rules are objectively worse. They are objectively bad. It's not a mere preference, and you should stop claiming otherwise.
The Gears are fine. There is not a single gamer I've shown the minis to that doesn't think they're cool.
As for the market, CBT has its own issues.
But DP9 chooses not to make a clean 2nd Edition, when they have the chance to do so. This is a 10% solution, not a major revamp.
Compare that to what you need to know for Infinity:
- weapon type (number of shots, ammo type, etc.)
- attacker skill
- cover status
- range
- various special skills of the attacker or target
Not every game company decides that the removal of range modifiers and other mechanics is a good idea. Especially when the primary game mechanics are still "one model activating at a time" instead of "activate these five to thirty models to move/shoot/attack" where the game just starts becoming mass dice rolling.
The intended scale is key to that though. Infinity is meant to be played with less than a dozen minis per side. The goal for the initial version of the rules was 2-3x that per side but that has since been (wisely) amended downward to up to 20. We'll see what the community actually ends up collectively deciding is the real sweet spot in a year or two.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Infinity wants to be a half-dozen models per side, not 20.
What works for 1 model (D&D) doesn't work for 6 (Infinity) doesn't work for 20 (Heavy Gear) doesn't work for 50 (40k).
Granted, although Infinity is more in the 9-12 range, I think? If their sample lists are any indication, they seem to think that their "sweet spot" is about 10 minis per side.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Chairman Aeon wrote: Well that's good, because a bunch of us don't like Robotech or Gundam. If you're a Patlabor or VOTOMS fan the size is just right. Or to use your example, even if Star Wars is well known, there are a large amount of people who don't like Star Wars fighters. Maybe the market isn't large enough for lots of different games, but that doesn't mean people shouldn't try.
Yeah, of course, Heavy Gears are basically ATs. What I meant to say, though, is that HG, unlike Robotech or Gundam that already have a fanbase, and a big one at that (even after all Harmony Gold shenanigans), have a smaller pool of potential customers, one from it just being a mecha game, which is a niche already, and another from being an unknown IP for many people, unlike those others.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Infinity wants to be a half-dozen models per side, not 20.
What works for 1 model (D&D) doesn't work for 6 (Infinity) doesn't work for 20 (Heavy Gear) doesn't work for 50 (40k).
Is anyone stating otherwise? I'm certainly not but I'm not sure if your post is directed (incorrectly) at me or just happened to be posted right after mine.
They give a nice explanation on why they want to change this, but in the end it's a broken promise on the primary goal of a big (46 model) starter core set for Heavy Gear. That pretty much shakes most confidence out of this KS. What's next? They couldn't do hard Polystyrene gears, so they went with PVC? The 'Living' rulebook hurts their rulebook sales to much, so they aren't doing it? Making another new edition a year and a half down the road because "the fans where asking for it"?
I'm seriously considering pulling my $2081CAD pledge entirely, imho everyone should reconsider this KS. Because if this is how dp9 operates this early in the KS, what's going to happen in the nex 12 months?
Cergorach wrote: Hmm... You know about the whole "dp9 doesn't keep their word" story folks kept telling and I've been saying "They've changed with this KS!"...
They give a nice explanation on why they want to change this, but in the end it's a broken promise on the primary goal of a big (46 model) starter core set for Heavy Gear. That pretty much shakes most confidence out of this KS. What's next? They couldn't do hard Polystyrene gears, so they went with PVC? The 'Living' rulebook hurts their rulebook sales to much, so they aren't doing it? Making another new edition a year and a half down the road because "the fans where asking for it"?
I'm seriously considering pulling my $2081CAD pledge entirely, imho everyone should reconsider this KS. Because if this is how dp9 operates this early in the KS, what's going to happen in the nex 12 months?
inb4smildonsezitolduso.
While I can see some folks seeing this as responding to the community/retailer feedback, it is also fair to say that it wasn't well thought out in the first place and that it is more accurately classified as reactionary. I've been telling them that the whole 3 player starter that turned into 4 factions/two players or four players is a bad idea for MONTHS.
There is nothing stopping them from making further changes as "needed" as long as they deliver something that can be construed as meeting their KS obligations, even if they're mould line ridden messes of PVC minis.
You pledged over $2k on this? Wow. I'm still struggling whether to pledge the $130 CAD, or just wait for retail.
I'm not surprised at all about the retailer issues. I do believe the $500 for 5x $115 pledges to be fair, because that KS-only "46"-mini (actually only 42 bases) set will not retail for $115 CAD.
My concerns tie to DP9 being able to stay on task to meet the Nov 2015 deadline they estimated. Hard styrene plastic is new technology and new process for them. $100k CAD isn't that much money to design, proof, and produce 18+ new model kits, especially if they're staying faithful to the renders.
I would not be surprised if actual fulfillment didn't occur until 2016. The only question is how late it will be. If they run a year late (which is very possible, given the novelty and challenges), what then?
Yeah, Cerg, you may want to drop down to $1. If things progress as you want during the intervening months/years then you can always increase the pledge back to $2k. You can't, however, go the other way around from $2k to zero if you're unhappy except at DP9's sole discretion. If you do switch to $1, you're basically trusting DP9 not to change their statement about keeping the pledge manager open until manufacturing begins and since trust is at the heart of the issue... well... that is your call.
If you're not familiar with it, I'd suggest you take a look at the Robotech KS to see how a company with a history of trust issues and public image problem handled a similarly ambitious KS which has only now delivered over a year late (for US backers) only around 1/3 of the sculpts they unlocked. Granted the HG project is probably at half the sculpts total that robotech finished at but the comparison has merit.
warboss wrote: While I can see some folks seeing this as responding to the community/retailer feedback, it is also fair to say that it wasn't well thought out in the first place and that it is more accurately classified as reactionary. I've been telling them that the whole 3 player starter that turned into 4 factions/two players or four players is a bad idea for MONTHS.
There is nothing stopping them from making further changes as "needed" as long as they deliver something that can be construed as meeting their KS obligations, even if they're mould line ridden messes of PVC minis.
I'm not surprised either. I think DP9 is now starting to consider the cold, hard reality of having to deliver all of this stuff on a $100k budget (after fees), and that reality is starting to scare them a bit. For their budget, designing 18 different scale models is a lot of work to do. For comparison, Robotech finished with a roughly comparable number of hard styrene plastic models to design, but pulled more than 10x the budget. Granted that Robotech ran off larger production runs, but Heavy Gear is looking like it could be a nightmare.
Let's look at the "buttwheel" that DP9 is all excited over. This is a small model, no less complex than the other minis. It takes just as much effort to sculpt, cut and bring into production. Each backer gets 1 model, so that would be 800-1000 copies? If it were one of the double models, 1,600-2,000 models to produce in the initial run. Standard production wants to be 5,000 copies for best price, but DP9 is short 4,000 units. Cutting a steel mold to run 800 copies is tough. Only the 4x models are likely to cover their cost of $ 6k per model.
Normally, the last 72 hours would be a time to firm everything up, and let the machine run its course. If DP9 needs to make revisions, now is the time, before pledges lock. Moving from styrene to PVC would be a major change in materials, and they had best get that type of change announced immediately.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
warboss wrote: I'd suggest you take a look at the Robotech KS to see how a company with a history of trust issues and public image problem handled a similarly ambitious KS which has only now delivered over a year late (for US backers) only around 1/3 of the sculpts they unlocked. Granted the HG project is probably at half the sculpts total that robotech finished at but the comparison has merit.
Let's look at the "buttwheel" that DP9 is all excited over. This is a small model, no less complex than the other minis. It takes just as much effort to sculpt, cut and bring into production. Each backer gets 1 model, so that would be 800-1000 copies? If it were one of the double models, 1,600-2,000 models to produce in the initial run. Standard production wants to be 5,000 copies for best price, but DP9 is short 4,000 units. Cutting a steel mold to run 800 copies is tough. Only the 4x models are likely to cover their cost of $ 6k per model.
Just to clarify, the "buttwheel" mini is a gear that is basically a fan favorite mascot type of gear. It's not particularly good or visually appealing but has taken on a bit of a cult status along with previously the Asp for the south.
Producing that mini as an insider favorite versus a bulk seller only makes things worse! That mini now moves from a potential cash cow / cost cutter item to a loss-leader dog that will never recoup its mold cost.
Cergorach wrote: I'm seriously considering pulling my $2081CAD pledge entirely, imho everyone should reconsider this KS. Because if this is how dp9 operates this early in the KS, what's going to happen in the nex 12 months?
Who the hell backs $2k on a Kickstarter in the Tabletop section ?
Cergorach wrote: I'm seriously considering pulling my $2081CAD pledge entirely, imho everyone should reconsider this KS. Because if this is how dp9 operates this early in the KS, what's going to happen in the nex 12 months?
Who the hell backs $2k on a Kickstarter in the Tabletop section ?
While I can see some folks seeing this as responding to the community/retailer feedback, it is also fair to say that it wasn't well thought out in the first place and that it is more accurately classified as reactionary. I've been telling them that the whole 3 player starter that turned into 4 factions/two players or four players is a bad idea for MONTHS.
There is nothing stopping them from making further changes as "needed" as long as they deliver something that can be construed as meeting their KS obligations, even if they're mould line ridden messes of PVC minis.
Smildon was probably right.
The two faction (Alliance vs. Invaders) that can turn into four factions was brilliant imho! The pricing drek issue is bogus imho, the Dark Vengeance starter costs $110 and has 49 miniatures and a full rulebook. At least a year from now a $115 46 miniatures box with introductory rules would fit right in after another GW price raise. Not to mention that with this KS all the setup costs would have been paid for, so every retail sale of that starter set would be a LOT of profit.
My major problem with this is indeed that they have shown they will change the KS at a moments notice and/or haven't done enough (market) research, not to mention the goal of a big mini filled starter for all the fans.
Cergorach wrote: I'm seriously considering pulling my $2081CAD pledge entirely, imho everyone should reconsider this KS. Because if this is how dp9 operates this early in the KS, what's going to happen in the nex 12 months?
Who the hell backs $2k on a Kickstarter in the Tabletop section ?
I think there are several 4-figure backers of Kingdom Death : Monster. Heck, I backed at "Herald of Death" level for $300+. If you went all-resin, all options, I think you'd be over $1,000 for sure. Marrow's Journey : Wrath of Demons also had lots of beautiful resins to buy, and I think some people backed 4 figures there, too.
Cergorach wrote: I'm seriously considering pulling my $2081CAD pledge entirely, imho everyone should reconsider this KS. Because if this is how dp9 operates this early in the KS, what's going to happen in the nex 12 months?
Who the hell backs $2k on a Kickstarter in the Tabletop section ?
I think there are several 4-figure backers of Kingdom Death : Monster. Heck, I backed at "Herald of Death" level for $300+. If you went all-resin, all options, I think you'd be over $1,000 for sure. Marrow's Journey : Wrath of Demons also had lots of beautiful resins to buy, and I think some people backed 4 figures there, too.
Yeowzer!. I never really thought of that as an actual Miniatures game but as display models. reading the 4 digit sections there's a lot of limited and unique things that no one else would be able to get. For the Heavy Gear one there really isn't a unique or limited edition model being added.
Cergorach wrote: I'm seriously considering pulling my $2081CAD pledge entirely, imho everyone should reconsider this KS. Because if this is how dp9 operates this early in the KS, what's going to happen in the nex 12 months?
Who the hell backs $2k on a Kickstarter in the Tabletop section ?
Someone who planned to pull the plug all along.
I've pledged more for the CAV KS ($2093US), if you don't believe me, ask the Reaper crew or wait for the eventual pictures of me swimming in CAVs ;-) The Robotech KS happened in a very low cash flow period, but I later upped my pledge through the pledge manager to somewhere around $1000 (just started getting out of the low cash flow period). Not believing me is your prerogative.
I wanted to make the Desert Sharks regiment and wanted to support this KS in a big way, because dp9 was doing exactly what I always wanted: a relatively cheap and versatile hard model plastic core starter set for retail. Now that they don't, I've lost most interest for backing.
Edit: Hi, I'm Cergorach. I'm a miniatures collector ;-) I was late with the Kingdom of Death KS, was able to get one during their Black Friday sale at $850, all plastic, every expansion. If that gave me access to the pledge manager, it would have been higher.
Enigma Crisis wrote: Who the hell backs $2k on a Kickstarter in the Tabletop section ?
I think there are several 4-figure backers of Kingdom Death : Monster. Heck, I backed at "Herald of Death" level for $300+. If you went all-resin, all options, I think you'd be over $1,000 for sure. Marrow's Journey : Wrath of Demons also had lots of beautiful resins to buy, and I think some people backed 4 figures there, too.
Yeowzer!. I never really thought of that as an actual Miniatures game but as display models. reading the 4 digit sections there's a lot of limited and unique things that no one else would be able to get. For the Heavy Gear one there really isn't a unique or limited edition model being added.
KD:M is basically the nightmare horror miniatures game of Monster Hunter. It's definitely conceived as a game, hence the 100s of cards that are being created.
Go count the different models Robotech offers. It's basically the same 20 sculpts, same hard plastic material, same issues.
What Robotech did different was to run off a lot more copies of things. That's why backers are getting 9 Valkyries instead of 5.
3x Valkyrie sprues (1 for each mode)
2x Destroid sprues
Mac II
Ghost
Lancer
Super Valkryie
Armored Valkyrie
VEF/VT
Vf-4
Jotun
Rick Hunter
Roy Fokker
Battlepod
Officer Pod
Recon Pod
Recovery Pod
Artillery Pods
Glaug Sled
Male Power Armor
Female Power Armor
Gnerl Fighter
Miriya
Khyron
Zentraedi Light Infantry
Zentraedi Heavy Infantry
2 objectives packs with 6 different objective models
SDF-1
Depending on how you add that stuff together (and I'm not counting the various "experimental" unlocks as they're part of the regular sprues now and counting the 3 objectives in each pack as one sprue/sculpt), that comes to roughly 30 different products. Heavy Gear has 16 currently according to this graphic:
These are resin:
2 objectives packs with 6 different objective models
SDF-1
These might be metal:
Rick Hunter
Roy Fokker
Miriya
Khyron
The LAMs, oh excuse me, veritechs have three modes, would consider it three different minis, there are four different Destroids, so easily 30+ minis @$1,442,312US. Over $1.6 million Canadian.
Plus sprues for templates, tokens, etc.
Part of the problem is that there's a lot of parties involved in the plastic minis, Palladium, Ninja, Harmoney Gold, Chinese manufacturer, all having a say. With HG it'll be dp9 and US manufacturer.
Go count the different models Robotech offers. It's basically the same 20 sculpts, same hard plastic material, same issues.
What Robotech did different was to run off a lot more copies of things. That's why backers are getting 9 Valkyries instead of 5.
3x Valkyrie sprues (1 for each mode)
2x Destroid sprues
Mac II
Ghost
Lancer
Super Valkryie - add bitz
Armored Valkyrie
VEF/VT
Vf-4
Jotun
Rick Hunter - different stats, same Valk
Roy Fokker - different stats, same Valk
Battlepod
Officer Pod
Recon Pod - add bitz
Recovery Pod
Artillery Pods - add bitz
Glaug Sled
Male Power Armor
Female Power Armor
Gnerl Fighter
Miriya - different stats, same Valk
Khyron - different stats, same Valk
Zentraedi Light Infantry
Zentraedi Heavy Infantry
2 objectives packs with 6 different objective models
SDF-1
Depending on how you add that stuff together (and I'm not counting the various "experimental" unlocks as they're part of the regular sprues now and counting the 3 objectives in each pack as one sprue/sculpt), that comes to roughly 30 different products.
Heavy Gear has 16 currently according to this graphic:
Spoiler:
Robotech has 21 models, plus bitz and and terrain.
Heavy Gear has 16 models, plus bitz and terrain.
Go count the different models Robotech offers. It's basically the same 20 sculpts, same hard plastic material, same issues.
What Robotech did different was to run off a lot more copies of things. That's why backers are getting 9 Valkyries instead of 5.
3x Valkyrie sprues (1 for each mode)
2x Destroid sprues
Mac II
Ghost
Lancer
Super Valkryie - add bitz
Armored Valkyrie
VEF/VT
Vf-4
Jotun
Rick Hunter - different stats, same Valk
Roy Fokker - different stats, same Valk
Battlepod
Officer Pod
Recon Pod - add bitz
Recovery Pod
Artillery Pods - add bitz
Glaug Sled
Male Power Armor
Female Power Armor
Gnerl Fighter
Miriya - different stats, same Valk
Khyron - different stats, same Valk
Zentraedi Light Infantry
Zentraedi Heavy Infantry
2 objectives packs with 6 different objective models
SDF-1
Depending on how you add that stuff together (and I'm not counting the various "experimental" unlocks as they're part of the regular sprues now and counting the 3 objectives in each pack as one sprue/sculpt), that comes to roughly 30 different products.
Heavy Gear has 16 currently according to this graphic:
Spoiler:
Robotech has 21 models, plus bitz and and terrain.
Heavy Gear has 16 models, plus bitz and terrain.
The workload is essentially similar.
I've listed them out for you and it isn't 21. You can keep sticking your head in the sand to not see the facts but that doesn't mean they're not right in front of you. Even if you subtract the 3 "bitz and terrain" stuff I included, it comes to 27... which is significantly more than 16.
Dude, if you insist to compare apples to oranges, then the "correct" count is 21 Robotech models (ignoring the Robotech bitz) vs 23 Gears (16 base models +7 bitz variants). In that case, Heavy Gear has more models but less revenue.
Otherwise, if you don't count a Gear with an Antenna (which HG names as a different thing), then you can't count a Pod or Valk with an antenna, simple as that. In which case, we are at 21 Robotech models vs 16 Heavy Gear models, as above.
I'm not counting any of those as separate. Here.. I'll put it in all caps... EVERY SINGLE KIT I LISTED IS A FULLY INDEPENDENT PRODUCT THAT DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY OTHER PRODUCT TO BUILD AND REQUIRES IT'S OWN SPRUE/MOULD. There are no "variants" that I listed as individual products. Any variants or combo sprues were listed as a SINGLE item (see the VEF/VT entry). The artillery pods are on a completely separate sprue, not just bits on the standard pod sprue and required separate moulds. The 3 valkryie sprues are not "variants" with different antenna but each significantly different mode that requires it's own sprue and is its own model. The glaug sled is a completely separate and independent model from the glaug and is not just a "bit" thrown in to the normal glaug kit. I'm not counting each variant of the veritech as separate which would correspond to your completely inaccurate comparison. Your argument is based completely on ignorance despite being presented with the facts. I'm not comparing apples to oranges but rather you're declaring apples to be a vegetable because you saw a red vegetable once.
To anyone looking to back the project the newest update has a recap of the most relevant Updates for new backers to make it easy for you to find the content you need.
Here is the image of the current set for backers. Over a $300 value for only a $115 CAD (approx $100USD).
There are 68 hours remaining in the Kickstarter.
There has been some controversy about the make up of the final starter set since for retailers we started with a basic 16 miniatures: 6 boxes for $350 for FLGS retailers, with an option now unlocked for 46 miniatures or 6 boxes for $500 for retailers. This deal was alos to allow free shipping in North America.
We've had some feedback from retailers and clients who, though liking the set, have pointed out that the price point is quite high compared to a lot of the market. We've agreed that we will provide the rewards as written but will evaluate the mass market starter set that the Kickstarter is supporting to be in line with what is offered. This may mean a more restricted number of factions or miniatures in the final starter set as we do all the planning that will finalize the contents.
There was concern raised that this was Dream Pod 9 changing the terms of the kickstarter. That we were bound by the stated goal of a 46 miniature starter set to produce that set for retail and are somehow contractually obligated to produce that for the market even if the market would then tell us that we had to draw back our plans. We understand completely that our rewards cannot change in any way and we will fulfill those conditions to our backers by giving them an awesome set of miniatures for their support of the kickstarter.
However in our FAQ we clearly state:
Q) Will there be a retail version of the Core Starter Set and how much will it cost?
A) Yes, we will have a Retail Basic Pledge level at the start with 6 copies of the Basic Starter Set of 16 miniatures for a $350 CAD pledge, with a SRP of $79.99 USD ($92 CAD) each.
We'll be announcing an updated retailer package after the Kickstarter is done and we see how may stretch goals have been unlocked.
No matter how many stretch goals are unlocked, our business plan of producing a new core starter set to rejuvenate the Heavy Gear Blitz brand has not changed, and that is what our backers are helping us to do. If the new starter set has to be scaled back from the originally intended number of figures to something friendlier to beginner players then that is the correct thing to do. It's a business decision and one that we're OK to make. The Starter set for retail might be near the same number of miniatures our backers are getting as a reward for more $ or it might be significantly less. If we decide that the North versus South is the best kit to make then maybe we get a 12 v 12 starter set for $80-100 depending on what's in there. Maybe we get a North and South Leagueless tag team versus CEF with Caprice Support with 12 v 10 in the set for $80-$100. It's a question of complexity versus ease of play for a new player. Value versus Cost.
The backers will get their rewards of all the models that get unlocked, and after that there will be a new starter set released for the mass market. That's pretty much what we've covenanted with our backers to do and it's what we will do.
Cheers!
Dave
Automatically Appended Next Post: PS Gentlemen the conversation you are having about other kickstarters is very off topic and in danger of starting a flame war. Please keep the conversation on the topic of news about the Kickstarter as that is this thread's purpose.
We've had some feedback from retailers and clients who, though liking the set, have pointed out that the price point is quite high compared to a lot of the market. We've agreed that we will provide the rewards as written but will evaluate the mass market starter set that the Kickstarter is supporting to be in line with what is offered. This may mean a more restricted number of factions or miniatures in the final starter set as we do all the planning that will finalize the contents.
There was concern raised that this was Dream Pod 9 changing the terms of the kickstarter. That we were bound by the stated goal of a 46 miniature starter set to produce that set for retail and are somehow contractually obligated to produce that for the market even if the market would then tell us that we had to draw back our plans. We understand completely that our rewards cannot change in any way and we will fulfill those conditions to our backers by giving them an awesome set of miniatures for their support of the kickstarter.
However in our FAQ we clearly state:
Q) Will there be a retail version of the Core Starter Set and how much will it cost? A) Yes, we will have a Retail Basic Pledge level at the start with 6 copies of the Basic Starter Set of 16 miniatures for a $350 CAD pledge, with a SRP of $79.99 USD ($92 CAD) each. We'll be announcing an updated retailer package after the Kickstarter is done and we see how may stretch goals have been unlocked.
No matter how many stretch goals are unlocked, our business plan of producing a new core starter set to rejuvenate the Heavy Gear Blitz brand has not changed, and that is what our backers are helping us to do. If the new starter set has to be scaled back from the originally intended number of figures to something friendlier to beginner players then that is the correct thing to do. It's a business decision and one that we're OK to make.
Dave, I'd point out that that feedback is EXACTLY what you got prior to the kickstarter from certain posters including myself. I've said all along that the $115 price point was too high and was pretty much ignored as was the poll you yourself specifically set up to see what fans wanted in the starter despite the results being overwhelming and the direction wanted crystal clear. As for your FAQ where you "clearly state" the above, you added that just a few days ago when you also started hinting at the changes. You may be surprised to find out that KS time stamps changes/additions to the FAQ portion. It wasn't clear because it specifically contradicts what was stated for a month prior to the KS and for 80% of the duration of the KS right up until just a few days ago.
In the lead up to the Kickstarter there were many voices telling us many things and we made the choice that a two side (Terra Nova vs Invaders) box would be more interesting than another North v South box. We had to face the fact that if the kickstarter barely took off and we only got our basic goal that we would only get two factions. In that case we knew that for sheer popularity we would have to have the North and South factions since that is what would have the greatest long term benefits for production costs.
We underestimated how much players really gravitate to one faction or the other. The reality of what we have to do with the Blitz starter is getting clearer to us. If anyone's good advice was overlooked then all I can do is ask for your sympathy. Making decisions like that is hard because we can try to be innovative or we can can follow the flow. I'd compare it to trying to follow a forum thread that is growing faster than you can read it, there's just no way to catch everything being said.
@Cergorach I have read your comments here, in the KS, and DP9 discussion threads for the KS.
I respect your decision, and I respect you for laying out your decision clearly to everyone. It is your investment. If you do change your mind, or don't, it won't change the fact that you are clearly a fan of the game. So I hope to continue to see you around. God bless.
Edit: Firebreak, just a decision by the Pod concerning retail sets.
As for your FAQ where you "clearly state" the above, you added that just a few days ago when you also started hinting at the changes. You may be surprised to find out that KS time stamps changes/additions to the FAQ portion. It wasn't clear because it specifically contradicts what was stated for a month prior to the KS and for 80% of the duration of the KS right up until just a few days ago.
We update the FAQ for typos for how the phrasing matches the question being asked. IIRC on the 16th we had only just reached the 13th stretch goal where we had originally stated we would open up a larger retail set as a reward level for the brick and mortars.
I'll get the original text from Rob tomorrow as it is on his computer at the office. Then it can be compared side by side.
A good quote from the Kickstarter comments section in relation to this: "I think it's a far more valuable, to me as a consumer, to know that the company I am purchasing from is flexible and willing to make changes than knowing that they're not going to budge from a point come Hell-or-high-water."
Even though the kickstarter is not going to finish as high as we would have hoped the good news is that it means we might be able to shorten our schedule due to less models needing to be 3D sculpted and a shorter production run being required. It's not a great consolation prize but worthy of note.
Cheers!
Dave
@warboss - stop being ridiculous. SPM didn't reinvent the basic Valk or Pod for the ELINT versions. They didn't say "welp, throw all of that work on the basic Pod away, because this one has an antenna." They're not as ridiculous as you are proving yourself to be.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DP9Dave wrote: PS Gentlemen the conversation you are having about other kickstarters is very off topic and in danger of starting a flame war. Please keep the conversation on the topic of news about the Kickstarter as that is this thread's purpose.
Cheers!
Dav
Dave, the comparison with Robotech is very relevant.
Compared to Robotech, DP9 has 1/10 the revenue to do 80-90% of the same design work.
Ninja Division / Palladium ended up running over a year late on initial delivery of their project, despite vastly greater financial resources to work with.
With the 4-fold increase in scope, from 4 models to 16, what makes you think you can deliver on time in November, 2015? What are you going to do better, faster (12 months vs 18 months), and cheaper (1/10 the budget) compared to those guys, so that this project doesn't drag far into 2016? Or even 2017?
Does the quoted price still hold for a short production run of 1000-2000 units to support <1000 backers vs a standard production run of 5000+ units?
JohnHwangDD wrote: @warboss - stop being ridiculous. SPM didn't reinvent the basic Valk or Pod for the ELINT versions. They didn't say "welp, throw all of that work on the basic Pod away, because this one has an antenna." They're not as ridiculous as you are proving yourself to be.
And you're being incredibly ignorant thinking that the 3d modelling is the end all and be all off the work and cost involved in bringing a model to the tabletop. Having some parts of a 3d model that you can reuse saves you nothing on the new mould or the cost per shot in making those models. If anything, the 3d modelling cost is the smaller compared with the other two. Take your blinders off before responding next time. You've shown a consider lack of common sense and reading comprehension since you started posting again after all those years away.
We update the FAQ for typos for how the phrasing matches the question being asked. IIRC on the 16th we had only just reached the 13th stretch goal where we had originally stated we would open up a larger retail set as a reward level for the brick and mortars.
I'll get the original text from Rob tomorrow as it is on his computer at the office. Then it can be compared side by side.
No need, I've found it.
Will there be a retail version of the Core Starter Set and how much will it cost? Yes, we will have a Retail Basic Pledge level at the start with 6 copies of the Basic Starter Set of 16 miniatures for a $350 CAD pledge, with a SRP of $79.99 USD ($92 CAD) each. If we reach stretch goal #13 a Retail Core Pledge Level with 6 copies of the new Core Starter Set Retail Version will become available for Retail Backers, with 46 minis and color quick start rulebook for a $500 CAD pledge, with a SRP of $114.99 USD ($132 CAD). It would not include any additional miniatures past those of stretch goal 13, that our normal backers would get.
Retailer Core Pledge Level $500 CAD (Unlimited Retail Backers) (Available after Stretch Goal 13 Unlocks) Retailer Core Level – This reward level gets you 6 copies of the War for Terra Nova - Core Starter Set retail version. The contents of the retail version will include all miniatures up to and including Stretch Goal 13, including 46 miniatures with a variety of eighteen figures and all materials required to play. Proof of brick and mortar retailer status is required to select the Retailer Core Pledge Level. Pledge reward will ship out in our 4th wave. Includes shipping for USA and Canadian Retailer Backers. International Retailer Backers pay actual shipping costs.
And more recently from the KS comments from November 2nd in regards to specifically this same question of what the retail version will be:
Creator Dream Pod 9 on November 2 @ William. Right now the retail version will only be the Basic Starter Set with 16 miniatures. It is our desire the have one the would include the miniatures up to the $105K stretch goal, and we need everyone's support to pay for the plastic molds and make that and higher stretch goals a reality.
and the earlier question that this answers:
"@DP9, was reading the front page again, will the original 16 model starter set be available at retail addition to the 46 model starter set? The core set we end up with here will be the final retail version? (up to the $105k stretch goal) or have I misunderstood something?"
Dave, don't get me wrong. You have the right to change the retail version to whatever you want legally as long as you still meet the KS obligations. Just let's not pretend that it is "clear" or that this isn't a big change. For over a month in this current version of the KS plans (I won't go back to check on the previous two previews posted on the forums but it may go back even further), we've been consistently told that the stretch goals unlock extras in the retail version as well up to goal #13/$105k. Some folks pledged based on the premise that they were improving the retail version that would grow the community and future customers would get. That changed sometime over the last couple of days when things like the FAQ question and update started singing a different tune. Again, you have the right to change anything you want in the retail version as a company but not to pretend that it has been what you've been saying all along. You quoted someone who praises the company for being responsive but the above can also be construed as a lack of a clear vision and planning. For a company with a history of broken promises and short sighted decisions stretching back decades that is supposedly turning over a new leaf (again), this type of a change this late in the KS game is troubling. If this is in response to retailer feedback, why the heck wasn't that feedback elicited in the MONTHS preceding the KS? Or at least last month when the same issues were brought up by fans/customers/future and potential pledgers? Why did this only happen in the final week of the campaign? That isn't proactive but reactive bordering on procrastination. For a company that is asking for the money upfront a year ahead of time, that isn't a good thing. It begs the question of what other seemingly common sense things were missed.
With the 4-fold increase in scope, from 4 models to 16, what makes you think you can deliver on time in November, 2015? What are you going to do better, faster (12 months vs 18 months), and cheaper (1/10 the budget) compared to those guys, so that this project doesn't drag far into 2016? Or even 2017?
A good question... and one IIRC that I asked about a half dozen times in two separate KS preview threads to no avail. Unless they (correctly) budgeted the time for ALL the stretch goals to be completed by the delivery due date of Nov 2015, there is no way that the quadrupling of the workload from the initial "funded" level won't delay the KS further. If it is delayed, they can't say they weren't warned.
DP9Dave wrote: PS Gentlemen the conversation you are having about other kickstarters is very off topic and in danger of starting a flame war. Please keep the conversation on the topic of news about the Kickstarter as that is this thread's purpose.
I'd say that comparing one KS with other similar ones, to try and ascertain possible challenges and troubles that might arise is pretty much on topic, Dave.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JohnHwangDD wrote: @warboss - stop being ridiculous. SPM didn't reinvent the basic Valk or Pod for the ELINT versions. They didn't say "welp, throw all of that work on the basic Pod away, because this one has an antenna." They're not as ridiculous as you are proving yourself to be.
Hm, I don't really think that gauging the project's complexity and above all costs involved by the amount of different sprues needed to be made is all that ridiculous. I mean, yes, the different valks' and regults' sprues can share most of the 3d design, but they still needed to be made into separate sprues, so at least cost wise is important to differentiate them.
As far as we know, the current HGKS project (with the current achieved SGs) needs to make a grand total of 16 different, separate sprues, as they are rolling the variant mini stretches into the original sprues. If I'm not mistaken, the Robotech project is going to need more than 16 separate sprues to complete all the designs. The problem for HG, of course, is that they'll need to do a very significant amount of separate sprues in a very tight budged, whereas the Robotech project had a lot more dough to spare (and... well, see how well the Robotech project is doing right now).
Finally there is a chance that we cannot provide a model that has been included in the kickstarter due to problems with the molding process or simply not enough interest in that figure as an add on sale. If that is the case then we will provide backers with the opportunity to use some credit to choose from the other models produced.
Should that happen, will you also offer reimbursements ?
Finally there is a chance that we cannot provide a model that has been included in the kickstarter due to problems with the molding process or simply not enough interest in that figure as an add on sale. If that is the case then we will provide backers with the opportunity to use some credit to choose from the other models produced.
Should that happen, will you also offer reimbursements ?
I would hope so. If they have difficulty with the caprice frankensprue as I suspect, dropping that would pretty much decimate the value for anyone who pledged specifically for that faction (whether on the $115 pledge or the smaller 1 faction level).
The major plus point DP9 has is the ability to change their designs (slightly) is they need to for ease of manufacture,
as a licenced product (with extra complications) the Robotech stuff had to be done to match old animation cells with no wiggle room for stuff that was a pain to mould or requires fiddly bits to add on...
plus all the time and money spent on back and forward from ninja divison to palladium to harmony gold and back.. repeat as many times as needed
this SHOULD allow DP9 to save considerable time and money and quite possibly come up with an easier to assemble product
whether they've asked enough to do so I'm uncertain but I think they do have a shot
Finally there is a chance that we cannot provide a model that has been included in the kickstarter due to problems with the molding process or simply not enough interest in that figure as an add on sale. If that is the case then we will provide backers with the opportunity to use some credit to choose from the other models produced.
Should that happen, will you also offer reimbursements ?
Backers will be able to Choose from what is available. There is no reason at this time to believe that there will be any problems. We were originally planning to offer a couple of figures as only add-on sales and wanted the option to not offer them if there was too little interest.
Just in case there are problems the backer will be offered an alternate selection. We cannot offer reimbursements on a project like this due to most of the money being invested in molds.
Finally there is a chance that we cannot provide a model that has been included in the kickstarter due to problems with the molding process or simply not enough interest in that figure as an add on sale. If that is the case then we will provide backers with the opportunity to use some credit to choose from the other models produced.
Should that happen, will you also offer reimbursements ?
Backers will be able to Choose from what is available. There is no reason at this time to believe that there will be any problems. We were originally planning to offer a couple of figures as only add-on sales and wanted the option to not offer them if there was too little interest.
Just in case there are problems the backer will be offered an alternate selection. We cannot offer reimbursements on a project like this due to most of the money being invested in molds.
Cheers! Dave
If you were originally planning that but are now (from the wording of the post above) not planning it anymore, wouldn't it make sense to remove that catch all disclaimer instead of leaving it in since the original reason is moot? As it stands, you can pretty much choose unilaterally to not make whatever ends up inconvenient or costly no matter what you promised in the KS with that blanket statement. That caprice frankensprue is too troublesome? You can just drop it and force folks to pick more minis that they already have in all likelihood.
Will there be a retail version of the Core Starter Set and how much will it cost?
Yes, we will have a Retail Basic Pledge level at the start with 6 copies of the Basic Starter Set of 16 miniatures for a $350 CAD pledge, with a SRP of $79.99 USD ($92 CAD) each.
If we reach stretch goal #13 a Retail Core Pledge Level with 6 copies of the new Core Starter Set Retail Version will become available for Retail Backers, with 46 minis and color quick start rulebook for a $500 CAD pledge, with a SRP of $114.99 USD ($132 CAD). It would not include any additional miniatures past those of stretch goal 13, that our normal backers would get.
Here is the current updated text in response to feedback:
Yes, we will have a Retail Basic Pledge level at the start with 6 copies of the Basic Starter Set of 16 miniatures for a $350 CAD pledge, with a SRP of $79.99 USD ($92 CAD) each.
We'll be announcing an updated retailer package after the Kickstarter is done and we see how may stretch goals have been unlocked. Last updated: Sun, Nov 16 2014 8:31 PM EST
Note that one of the current available reward levels is a Retailer reward level for six sets at $500 with shipping included for North America. So the condition is met.
48 Hours left!
Cheers!
Dave
Automatically Appended Next Post: @Warboss - Most kickstarters have a statement like that - Cav had one. It's a prudent move for situations that come up. What you seem to be insinuating is gross and wilful negligence on our part and I feel that is unwarrented and insulting.
It's a kickstarter. It's economic democracy in action. Back it now, or not, the choice is yours.
*shrug*
@Warboss - Most kickstarters have a statement like that - Cav had one. It's a prudent move for situations that come up. What you seem to be insinuating is gross and wilful negligence on our part and I feel that is unwarrented and insulting.
It's a kickstarter. It's economic democracy in action. Back it now, or not, the choice is yours.
*shrug*
Cheers!
Dave
No, what I'm flat out stating is that DP9 does what is best in the short term for DP9 regardless of the negative long term consequences to themselves or the immediate and lasting negative consequences to the community. It is absolutely the pattern that the company has displayed for two decades that is supposedly changing with this Kickstarter. Disappointing surprises are a common complaint with DP9 and that blanket disclaimer pretty much leaves any change you feel is good for the company open with no refund option for the customer. You've just "amended" what you previously had stated for over a month in the last days of the KS... and you're surprised that a catch all "get out of jail free with no refund" clause is raising an eyebrow? You're right... it is democracy in action. It is my choice to back it or not and it is yours (and Robert's) to fulfill or ignore significant portions since you feel strongly about leaving the supposedly unnecessary disclaimer in. We'll see how this all turns out a year from now at the estimated delivery date.
JohnHwangDD wrote:
Dave, the comparison with Robotech is very relevant.
Compared to Robotech, DP9 has 1/10 the revenue to do 80-90% of the same design work.
Ninja Division / Palladium ended up running over a year late on initial delivery of their project, despite vastly greater financial resources to work with.
With the 4-fold increase in scope, from 4 models to 16, what makes you think you can deliver on time in November, 2015? What are you going to do better, faster (12 months vs 18 months), and cheaper (1/10 the budget) compared to those guys, so that this project doesn't drag far into 2016? Or even 2017?
The revenue to tooling ratio does seem very iffy here. So much design and tooling to make injection moulded plastics, but a small amount of money to cover it.
JohnHwangDD wrote: SPM didn't reinvent the basic Valk or Pod for the ELINT versions. They didn't say "welp, throw all of that work on the basic Pod away, because this one has an antenna."
Hm, I don't really think that gauging the project's complexity and above all costs involved by the amount of different sprues needed to be made is all that ridiculous. I mean, yes, the different valks' and regults' sprues can share most of the 3d design, but they still needed to be made into separate sprues, so at least cost wise is important to differentiate them.
As far as we know, the current HGKS project (with the current achieved SGs) needs to make a grand total of 16 different, separate sprues, as they are rolling the variant mini stretches into the original sprues. If I'm not mistaken, the Robotech project is going to need more than 16 separate sprues to complete all the designs. The problem for HG, of course, is that they'll need to do a very significant amount of separate sprues in a very tight budged, whereas the Robotech project had a lot more dough to spare (and... well, see how well the Robotech project is doing right now).
I believe the hard work is the sculpting and separation, not sprue layout; although there is additional cost to cut a new tool to mold from. Sprues can be reconfigured, or mini-sprues added. Or tools designed with gates. For example, I might lay out a sprue as [A [BASE] C] with the ability to gate off A and/or C when I run the machine. This allows me to have a BASE, BASE+A, BASE+C, or BASE+A+C as 4 "different" sprues. If the base is a Valk, A is Super, and C is ELINT, I can cover all 4 combinations of ELINT Super Valkyrie with a single smart tool, even though I produce 4 separate SKUs for 4 "different" models. The incremental cost of Super and ELINT are very small, as their complexity is relatively low.
Or I could GW it and always produce everything, including Armored as part of that sprue, and sell it as a "4-in-1" kit, leaving a ton of "bitz" left over.
As of this morning, DP9 is now obliged to make 17 models. It's a lot of work, despite having what appears to be a full calendar year to work with. Robotech was a year late, and has only delivered Wave 1. I'm very curious how DP9 proceeds and delivers on a shoestring budget. Especially with these later units being large models requiring larger tools to be cut.
Or I could GW it and always produce everything, including Armored as part of that sprue, and sell it as a "4-in-1" kit, leaving a ton of "bitz" left over.
Finally there is a chance that we cannot provide a model that has been included in the kickstarter due to problems with the molding process or simply not enough interest in that figure as an add on sale. If that is the case then we will provide backers with the opportunity to use some credit to choose from the other models produced.
Should that happen, will you also offer reimbursements ?
Backers will be able to Choose from what is available. There is no reason at this time to believe that there will be any problems. We were originally planning to offer a couple of figures as only add-on sales and wanted the option to not offer them if there was too little interest.
Just in case there are problems the backer will be offered an alternate selection. We cannot offer reimbursements on a project like this due to most of the money being invested in molds.
Cheers!
Dave
What the feth is this "choose from what is available" gak? If the only thing you make available are Jagers, because Spitting Cobras become too expensive to produce, are we to presume that swapping in more Jagers is a suitable resolution to not getting Spitting Cobras? Especially if we are only backing due to the sheer variety of models? Or maybe the whole thing becomes a mess, so we get 90% credit in the DP9 store against a dramatically reduced number of existing metal models at then-current MSRP?
At this time, there is plenty of reason to believe there might be problems, both for manufacturing / production Kickstarters in general, and DP9's total inexperience with the particulars of styrene model design and production.
This YMMV / CYA stuff does not engender confidence. What you are literally saying is that you can unilaterally change the terms of delivery at a whim, and that you refuse to refund for product not delivered. Either DP9 is committed to producing all of the things that they have promised (17+ types of models in hard styrene plastic), or they are not. If everything is up in the air, because you don't know what you're doing, then none of these stretch goals matter.
So which is it? What is DP9's actual commitment? What is DP9 really promising?
DP9Dave wrote: PS Gentlemen the conversation you are having about other kickstarters is very off topic and in danger of starting a flame war. Please keep the conversation on the topic of news about the Kickstarter as that is this thread's purpose.
Cheers!
Dav
Dave, the comparison with Robotech is very relevant.
Compared to Robotech, DP9 has 1/10 the revenue to do 80-90% of the same design work.
Ninja Division / Palladium ended up running over a year late on initial delivery of their project, despite vastly greater financial resources to work with.
With the 4-fold increase in scope, from 4 models to 16, what makes you think you can deliver on time in November, 2015? What are you going to do better, faster (12 months vs 18 months), and cheaper (1/10 the budget) compared to those guys, so that this project doesn't drag far into 2016? Or even 2017?
Does the quoted price still hold for a short production run of 1000-2000 units to support <1000 backers vs a standard production run of 5000+ units?
Dave, how come you refuse to answer this question?
I see that you very deliberately skipped over the question of scope expansion against a fixed timeframe.
Are you just assuming that your "Get out of jail, free" clause covers it?
From what I can tell about the Robotech kickstarter, since I am not a backer, is that they realized going into production that the planned level of articulation would take up a lot more space for parts in their molds than they had planned. Then it sounds like they got stuck in morass of dealing with overseas production issues. It's been bewildering trying to figure out what exactly went wrong there but a lot of money like that means that they probably had to scale up production to a much higher level than they thought they needed to at first. It sounds like they are in the process of shipping out to backers and are being given the run around by customs. It's clear that they've had a lot of unexpected problems but that happens, people get their stuff, and life goes on. 85000 comment is however a lot of comments...
How can we produce as much as we are planning in the time frame, in the quantity required?
By listening to the guidance of our plastics producer, who we have a very close relationship to now. We know we're inexperienced, so we're getting the guys with the best expertise we can on our side. They think that November 2015 for delivery of the rewards is ludicrous, they expect to be up and running much faster than that. They're used to much faster turnaround speeds than that and they are appalled at the length of time other kickstarters have taken to ship.
We used the numbers we were given by the best experts we could find and then added a healthy safety margin to be sure. Plus we started designing our 3D models only after finding the tolerances and discussing how many parts to make them in and how they would cast with the most detail. Most companies that I can see start with a raw digital model, then go to manufacturing and get laughed at for what they are trying to do and have a long process of redesign and review. We've sidestepped all that with planning, something we're getting better with all the time.
The assurance you have that we can produce?
You have the best assurance possible. You have the assurance that we still want to be in business after the rewards ship.
We know that it's no good creating these expectations and then not meeting them. But we also know that there's going to be problems. Problems happen. And we'll solve them. And what we learn from the process will make future crowd funding projects we do run smoother and better than this one. None of these models are something that we can't produce in metal or resin and even if disaster hits and the molds are destroyed by Godzilla there will be insurance and we'll be able to fix the problem by re-making the molds or in a pinch we can produce in metal or resin as a last resort. Unlike some companies who have no backup production we know that come hell or high water these models are getting made if we have to do them ourselves, again, as a last resort.
If the plastics company tanks, say, then the backers get all their minis from the KS in metal or resin without any added cost? Hell, that sounds fair to me. I mean, I'd prefer even bad plastic to metal, but still, that's a decent disaster scenario plan.
Dave, thank you for the reply. I appreciate you taking the time to give a complete response, and I appreciate the corporate commitment. That is very helpful.
Firebreak wrote: If the plastics company tanks, say, then the backers get all their minis from the KS in metal or resin without any added cost? Hell, that sounds fair to me. I mean, I'd prefer even bad plastic to metal, but still, that's a decent disaster scenario plan.
It would suck Armadillo Beast to have to do that but yeah, in case of Act of God, we have a backup plan that we'd prefer never to use.
It's always better to have a plan and not need it, than it is to need a plan and not have it.
I always wonder how much earthquake insurance companies operating in China have to keep...
We know that it's no good creating these expectations and then not meeting them. But we also know that there's going to be problems. Problems happen. And we'll solve them. And what we learn from the process will make future crowd funding projects we do run smoother and better than this one. None of these models are something that we can't produce in metal or resin and even if disaster hits and the molds are destroyed by Godzilla there will be insurance and we'll be able to fix the problem by re-making the molds or in a pinch we can produce in metal or resin as a last resort. Unlike some companies who have no backup production we know that come hell or high water these models are getting made if we have to do them ourselves, again, as a last resort.
Cheers!
Dave
That would be a much more acceptable alternative in the case that you can't for some reason come through on a particular design in plastic. It is much better than forcing a player to switch to minis that they don't need nor want.
Firebreak wrote: If the plastics company tanks, say, then the backers get all their minis from the KS in metal or resin without any added cost? Hell, that sounds fair to me. I mean, I'd prefer even bad plastic to metal, but still, that's a decent disaster scenario plan.
It would suck Armadillo Beast to have to do that but yeah, in case of Act of God, we have a backup plan that we'd prefer never to use.
It's always better to have a plan and not need it, than it is to need a plan and not have it.
I always wonder how much earthquake insurance companies operating in China have to keep...
Cheers!
Dave
Thank you for answering. I hope it doesn't come to that, but it's good to know there's a plan, and it's even better to get the communication and interaction. I might sound like a broken parrot, but you're doing a lot more for Heavy Gear and Dream Pod 9 by answering these questions than a Kickstarter ever could.
DP9Dave wrote: the good news is that it means we might be able to shorten our schedule due to less models needing to be 3D sculpted and a shorter production run being required.
DP9Dave wrote: By listening to the guidance of our plastics producer, who we have a very close relationship to now. We know we're inexperienced, so we're getting the guys with the best expertise we can on our side.
They think that November 2015 for delivery of the rewards is ludicrous, they expect to be up and running much faster than that. They're used to much faster turnaround speeds than that and they are appalled at the length of time other kickstarters have taken to ship.
I would think it might be wise to seek out a few more second or third opinions from some other anonymous experts with ten years of experience not working for that unnamed company, but that's just me.
One facet of human behavior I find interesting as well as frustrating is how for quite a few folks perception can become unshakable belief.
In other words, your comments here and elsewhere could quite easily be perceived by a number of backers as a firm commitment on the part of Dream Pod 9 to deliver ahead of schedule (Before Nov 2015) whether or not that was your actual intent.
Let's not forget that a lot of companies oversell themselves to other companies in B2B dealings, often conveniently forgetting certain aspects of a project or getting an incomplete picture of the project due to the client not communicating the project completely/correctly. I see this often in IT land, projects regularly running late and significantly over budget.
Late I don't really have a problem with, I'll assume that I'll get the goodies eventually. Over budget isn't my problem, that's the KS organizer's problem, I still expect the product I ordered (at the price I ordered and the material I ordered).
Lets be realistic. It takes a minor miracle for absolutely nothing to go wrong in projects this big and we can only hope that we've been conservative enough in our estimates to meet the expectations of our backers.
That said it would kick ass to be able to go to Gencon next July and have the new plastics to show off. We could never sell starters there unless we'd already shipped out all the rewards to backers but just being able to hit that con in a big way would be sweet. (Really don't want to join the Gencon Kickstarter fiasco club with Palladium).
I am really not concerned with who the plastic manufacturer is. A big name isn't going to change much this late in the Kickstarter.
What happens from here on out, I leave it to the manufacturer and Dream Pod 9 and the rendering artists to do what they can. Ultimately, what will change the perceptions of folks will be the continued work of the company to fulfill the KS, as well as the Beta rules.
I look forward to seeing the new update, Dave.
We're down to the last day. I will not be making any predictions, since I am not the Almighty, but the number of Backers who have joined is pretty great to see.
You can always back for $1 now and kick in later before the deadline for choosing rewards. It does not help us to break any stretch goals but it will get you a helping of the deals.
By the way guys, I'm committed to sticking around to answer rules questions after the kickstarter so you don't have any worries about holding back, not like you do! I like the raw reactions since it helps me to review my own thinking.
As much as I'd like to get in on this, my finances suck right now. I picked up HG way back in first edition (the books at least) and always loved the story and rich world DP9 built.
I have a Southern force in boxes, never got around to putting them together. Maybe some day soon, so I can try out the new edition.
DP9Dave wrote: You can always back for $1 now and kick in later before the deadline for choosing rewards. It does not help us to break any stretch goals but it will get you a helping of the deals.
OK, fair enough. I threw a buck in the jar to keep the option open. Hope mine counted toward the $150k goal...
If the rules clean up as you say they will, and the projection goes more-or-less according to plan, then I'll bump it to the full $115 CAD.
If not, it's only a buck, and not the worst buck I'll ever have spent.
____
BTW, you really need to get rid of the opposed roll for targeting. In lieu of shooting, allow a 2d6 Piloting test to increase difficulty of enemy Gunnery by the number of successes.
Thank you everyone for making our first Kickstarter an amazing success. We raised over $150,000 CAD in Pledges from over 1000 Backers to get molds made for new plastic miniatures.
We will be doing an update on the Kickstarter page at least once a week for our Backers, from now on. Early next week we'll make the Pledge Manager active and import the Backer information supplied by Kickstarter. Once that's done we'll send out a few test invites to make sure everything works right and then you will get an email invite to setup your account. The Pledge Manager is where you will decide on the composition of your rewards and pledge for additional add-ons.
We will announce plans for the still locked Kickstarter models in a future update.
Thanks Again!
Robert Dubois (President Dream Pod 9)
Dave McLeod (Line Developer and Game Designer)
I'm going to be starting HG up soon, just because I want a mech game. Some first impressions of the beta rules(can't speak for balance yet)
1) Too damn many abbreviations. Seriously guys, don't use abbreviations in the ruleset. Or at least give both so we can have it indoctrinated into our brain as we read. IE: instead of just saying "MOS", say "Margin of Success(MOS)"
2) Very very detailed. This is both good and bad. Good in that I love options and depth. Bad in that the game seems to want to be a battle game, but the minute details could easily drag it down. This could be solved by giving a handy dandy 1 page reference.
3) Model stat blocks and lists are information overload. There could be a lot of condensing done. IE: Have one entry for each type of model, and have optional upgrades for point costs attached to it. Don't give me separate lines for the basic model, the anti-infantry, the anti-tank, the long range, and the command version when the only difference is weapon loadout.
IMO, even after raising a pretty decent $150k, DP9 still has a lot of work ahead of it to convert the $1 pledges into $115 pledges, and the $115 pledges into $200+ pledges...
Grey Templar wrote: I'm going to be starting HG up soon, just because I want a mech game. Some first impressions of the beta rules(can't speak for balance yet)
1) Too damn many abbreviations. Seriously guys, don't use abbreviations in the ruleset. Or at least give both so we can have it indoctrinated into our brain as we read. IE: instead of just saying "MOS", say "Margin of Success(MOS)"
2) Very very detailed. This is both good and bad. Good in that I love options and depth. Bad in that the game seems to want to be a battle game, but the minute details could easily drag it down. This could be solved by giving a handy dandy 1 page reference.
3) Model stat blocks and lists are information overload. There could be a lot of condensing done. IE: Have one entry for each type of model, and have optional upgrades for point costs attached to it. Don't give me separate lines for the basic model, the anti-infantry, the anti-tank, the long range, and the command version when the only difference is weapon loadout.
Thanks for giving Heavy Gear a go! I've matched my answers here for you:
Thanks for the feedback!
1) The Abbreviations were placed there originally to give it a very military feel but it went overboard in the previous editions. The feedback from non-military background players agrees with your assessment. There is a major update due by Dec 12th, and a lot of the abbreviations are spelled out as you suggest. There is a list of standard abbreviations available in the back so that players can write concisely and using standard jargon when they converse on the forums.
2) The December update is the first update that will actively cut some rules from the system and significantly simplify others. The complexity level is medium to high because we believe that the core model of the game, the Gear is a significant piece. We are watching the game experience closely to try to ensure that what players experience is a tactical challenge, and doe not bog down in rules exceptions. There are update previews on the forums listing some of these changes as they stand now.
3) The Quick Start rules that will be shipped with the Kickstarter rewards will only include the model attributes for the models in the core game. The game suffered from very complex army construction in the previous edition and the attributes shown are a working copy that is also being used to create a Force construction and reference website that will be a database for all the models. The various options for presenting the different models that are available are being examined from individual cards per variant to a variant that has multiple options on it. Multiple options is useful to an experienced player but can be confusing to a beginner, and due to the special formatting required they can be prone to transcription errors. Since the rules is still in beta the formatting will be a little rough and get better over time as we move closer to the locked living rule book.
Thanks for taking the time to make your comments.
Cheers!
Dave
JohnHwangDD wrote: The fewer rules in the game, the fewer exceptions one needs to worry about.
Making it literally a coinflip is the simplest. Doesn't make it fun. Complexity for the sake of complexity isn't great, but as long as it doesn't bog down too much, and represents some level of differentiation, that's fine by me.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Chess does just fine with roughly a dozen rules total.
And that's fair enough. But simplicity itself doesn't equate to tactical complexity. Checkers has less rules than Chess. Chutes and Ladders even less so. Some people crave a more complex game. MtG, arguably the most popular CCG on the market, has a fairly complex string of mechanics and exceptions. And that's one of it's selling points. That while the basics are relatively simple, the interactions make the game.
You seem to be hung up on simplification to the point of mass crowd appeal. When there are already several entrants (and more than a few catastrophic failures) in that market, and an 800lb gorilla. For some, mechanics that are a little more complex than GW are not just different, they're a reason to try. And instead of DP9 attempting to go head to head with appealing to the GW crowd (which would likely get them crushed), carving out a substantial niche where they can still make a nifty profit isn't necessarily a bad thing. Battletech seems to have had it's ups and downs with what is definitely a more niche system, and while they've had their share of failures and poor decisions (often not related to the product itself), the game still manages to eke out a decent following most years.
That's not to say some things can't be improved. I just don't want to see all games developing towards lowest common denominator. I gave up on GW specifically BECAUSE I felt it was blanding itself into a miniatures showcase, where the rules were just an excuse to put models on the table. I'm not a conversion modeller, and I'm barely a painter, so those aspects of the hobby have no appeal for me. I want the games I play to be more than what GW offers. Else, I wouldn't play those, and I'd play GW, which already has an established playbase.
Just downloaded the beta rules and I'm liking what I've seen so far. It looks like a much more solid ruleset than the older books did, or at least it's easier to read!
Does DP9 usually do Black Friday deals?
Also, anyone in the D.C. area play and want to run through a game or two?
Morgan Vening wrote: And that's fair enough. But simplicity itself doesn't equate to tactical complexity. Checkers has less rules than Chess. Chutes and Ladders even less so.
It goes both ways: go has quite a bit less rules than chess, and it is a lot more tactically complex.
As always, I'd follow greater minds, as Einstein's: "It can scarcely be denied that the supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience", or paraphrasing: "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler".
I'd say that right now Nublitz is a long way from as simple as possible.
Morgan Vening wrote: And that's fair enough. But simplicity itself doesn't equate to tactical complexity. Checkers has less rules than Chess. Chutes and Ladders even less so.
It goes both ways: go has quite a bit less rules than chess, and it is a lot more tactically complex.
As always, I'd follow greater minds, as Einstein's: "It can scarcely be denied that the supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience", or paraphrasing: "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler".
I'd say that right now Nublitz is a long way from as simple as possible.
Oh, agreed. My point was that simplification beyond a certain point starts to become sameness. One of the things I hated about the change to 40K was that cover was removed as a penalty to hit, and applied as a penalty to save. Meaning highly armored models didn't need to bother with it against weapons that could still potentially kill them. It's one thing to be immune to smallarms fire, but something that's still vulnerable, getting no benefit from cover from those weapons (yes, I know against Lascannons etc it still helps) seemed like a bad choice. Similarly, the change to ranges irked me. Granted, I've never liked "invisible shield" ranges, but worst case, I'm liking the "optimal range" that DP9 has, that acts as a mod.
JohnHwang (the person I replied to) has put up 40K as a game systems that DP9 should aspire towards. And I look at the games system and simplicity as a primary reason I don't play 40K. While I agree that it shouldn't be NEEDLESSLY complex, I still want more "oomph" to my gaming system. Granted, I prefer a smaller scale of game (20 models a side as a general upper limit). I don't need the system to scale up to 50-100+ (the other reason I don't play 40K). I want what an individual model does, to be important. And if you simplify it down too far, that can get lost.
JohnHwangDD wrote: The fewer rules in the game, the fewer exceptions one needs to worry about.
Making it literally a coinflip is the simplest. Complexity for the sake of complexity isn't great, but as long as it doesn't bog down too much, and represents some level of differentiation, that's fine by me.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Chess does just fine with roughly a dozen rules total.
And that's fair enough. But simplicity itself doesn't equate to tactical complexity.
MtG, arguably the most popular CCG on the market, has a fairly complex string of mechanics and exceptions. And that's one of it's selling points. That while the basics are relatively simple, the interactions make the game.
You seem to be hung up on simplification to the point of mass crowd appeal. For some, mechanics that are a little more complex than GW are not just different, they're a reason to try. And instead of DP9 attempting to go head to head with appealing to the GW crowd (which would likely get them crushed), carving out a substantial niche where they can still make a nifty profit isn't necessarily a bad thing.
That's not to say some things can't be improved. I just don't want to see all games developing towards lowest common denominator.
That Heavy Gear resolution is still pretty close to a coin flip, just a really complex and opaque one, with a large amount of randomness. It is very close to being the definition of "complexity for complexity's sake". It is different for the sake of being different, I'll grant them that, too.
Chess doesn't need extra complication to make for an engaging game. It's pure Igo-Ugo, with a dozen rules and only a handful of unit types per side, on an identical playing board each time. Yet, it has a lot of tactical complexity, such that stronger players nearly always win against weaker ones.
MtG was exceedingly complex, if you go back to the original timing chart, simplified greatly since then. Not a lot of rules were required, and easily teachable to a pre-teen.
In theory, DP9 is aiming toward more of a mass appeal. You need to sell a lot of plastic to recover your investment costs; otherwise, there is no need to push into plastic. None. As a lot of people have shared, there is / was considerable appeal for a robot battles game. But "a little more complex than GW" grossly understates things, unless you also believe that Star Fleet Battles is only "a little more complex" than X-wing. GW doesn't do pure robot battles, so HG isn't going head-to-head with them. HG goes head-to-head with Robotech, Battletech and CAV in the tabletop miniature robot battles.
I think a clean sheet game with mass appeal is possible without dropping to the "lowest common denominator", versus preaching to the choir.
Albertorius wrote: It goes both ways: go has quite a bit less rules than chess, and it is a lot more tactically complex.
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler".
I'd say that right now Nublitz is a long way from as simple as possible.
Oh, agreed. My point was that simplification beyond a certain point starts to become sameness. One of the things I hated about the change to 40K was that cover was removed as a penalty to hit, and applied as a penalty to save. Similarly, the change to ranges irked me. Granted, I've never liked "invisible shield" ranges, but worst case, I'm liking the "optimal range" that DP9 has, that acts as a mod.
JohnHwang (the person I replied to) has put up 40K as a game systems that DP9 should aspire towards. And I look at the games system and simplicity as a primary reason I don't play 40K. While I agree that it shouldn't be NEEDLESSLY complex, I still want more "oomph" to my gaming system. Granted, I prefer a smaller scale of game (20 models a side as a general upper limit). I don't need the system to scale up to 50-100+ (the other reason I don't play 40K). I want what an individual model does, to be important. And if you simplify it down too far, that can get lost.
I don't feel that 40k is too much "sameness". I was not bothered by folding of cover saves parallel to armor / invulnerable saves, as players still just take the best allowed. I'm pretty sure the HG maximum weapon ranges also result in an "invisible shield", and that Rapid-Fire is the same concept as "optimal range".
I have said that 40k has excellent workflow and is *the* model for learning "how to play a miniatures battle game", and proposed Flames of War as the game system that DP9 should aspire toward. I believe that the current version of 40k has become overly complex. There is nothing wrong with HG having rules that are simple enough to allow immediate play out of the box.
Considering how DP9 counts "models", and purports to be a combine arms game, it is strange that non-powered infantry are not part of this Kickstarter. If we're using DP9 model counting, and we have infantry, then 50-100 "models" per side might only be 20-35 bases - that's not too complex.
In case the DP9 guys are still watching this, I've got a few suggestions that might make things a little simpler.
Basic models have a TON of weapons. Too many actually. I realize a fixture of Mecha are suits brimming with guns, but you can strip down some of the numbers without taking away from that vibe. And nearly all basic models have the same weapons stock. This creates almost no tactical variation between factions. A Warrior and a Hunter are almost the same, only difference being the Warrior has ECM and a better EW stat. Not enough faction differentiation. And honestly the hunter having a LPZ over the Warrior would actually make it worth the same IMO. If I really need ECM I will take a dedicated ECM gear, so the value of that ability is minimal.
But back to weapon overload. Lets take the basic Hunter as an example.
Its got 5 weapons. The LAC, LRP, APGL, LPZ, and LVB.
The Panzerfaust in particular is a problem. Its presence on a 6 point platform makes the Destroyer Hunter almost pointless.
The trade is basically 3 stock Hunters for 2 Destroyer Hunters. The 3 Hunters are actually better. I'll take the reduced range, and very minor damage reduction, in exchange for 50% more bodies and keeping my autocannons.
A better weapon loadout would be to remove the LPZ and the LRP from the basic hunter and reduce its point cost by 1. Reduce the point cost of the Destroyer by 1 and change its MBZ into a LBZ, and give the option to upgrade to a MBZ for another point.
This type of change would give every variant a good focus. The stock model doesn't do anything particularly well, but its cheap. The Gunner would be the upgunned long range general purpose model. The Assault is the close combat model. And finally the Destroyer is the dedicated anti-armor.
Rinse and repeat for the other factions and gear models as needed.
What further amuses is how the Field Gun, Tank Gun, and Artillery Gun are all different versions of the exact same thing, and they still need to split as Light / Medium / Heavy.
Or, despite a laundry list of abilities, PanzerFaust aren't 1-shot weapons?
Or why PanzerFaust are really powerful weapons that are just as powerful as Tank Guns, while Bazookas are marginally less powerful.
Well I suppose having a max range of 12 and optimal range of 0-6 might be the rational. Although nothing stops you from spamming cheap 6 point Hunters and just bum rushing them with Panzerfausts. Someones going to get a hit in.
Grey Templar wrote: Well I suppose having a max range of 12 and optimal range of 0-6 might be the rational. Although nothing stops you from spamming cheap 6 point Hunters and just bum rushing them with Panzerfausts. Someones going to get a hit in.
Yeah the Panzerfaust is getting a range of 2-6/9" in the update. The 0" range was too excellent.
The Panzerfaust is also being reduced slightly in PEN.
Panzerfausts are not limited ammo because we assume that the model has enough to last for the engagement. There is no limited ammunition becasuse don't care enough about tracking ammunition to do it except in very special cases.
Sorry Grey Templar, but the Hunter will not be losing any weapons. It is the equivalent to telling Space Marine players that they don't need anything but Twin Lascannons on their Dreadnoughts so we're getting rid of the other weapons.
On the bright side most models in the game have no more than 4 weapons. Just don't look too closely at the Drake...
JohnHwangDD wrote: Not "limited" ammo, one-shot. As in "one and done". Just like a 40k Hunter-Killer missile or combi-weapon. Use it and lose it.
It's pretty much the defining characteristic of the actual WW2 panzerfaust. It was a one shot disposable weapon.
The HG Panzerfaust is not a WW2 panzerfaust. It is not a large prominent bazooka weapon when carried by a HG but rather a small bit usually modeled as multiple on a figure. I'm glad they're largely going away with limited ammo (and that included one shots). Making it one shot when a model carries multiple doesn't make sense IN HEAVY GEAR. It makes sense for a ww2 nazi trooper who is carrying something the size of his leg. The less you have to track in HG, the better.
Have to disagree. The defining characteristic of a Panzerfaust is that it's a one-shot weapon. This is important. Sure, you could carry multiple 'fausts, but it wasn't hard to track them individually.
But, given my bad experiences with DP9 in the past, I'm staying out of this. So I suppose it's not really my argument.
JohnHwangDD wrote: If you leverage WW2 nomenclature in an ostensibly non-ironic way, then the items must conform to the names.
Otherwise, don't leverage the name.
This only seems to work if we assume everyone thinks of the same thing when they hear the word, which doesn't pan out. When hearing Panzerfaust outside a WW2 setting I would think of a 'anti-tank weapon' before thinking 'one shot weapon'. It was a one shot weapon, of course, but at that place and time.
Perhaps the problem is that you don't know enough about the PanzerFaust. For many who grew up on WW2 stuff, this is a *very* specific reference. Just like Nebelwerfer and StuG.
For you, it's just another Bazooka-like Panzerschreck device, which would have been a fine name for it. It was, and is bad form for DP9 to use the name this way.
JohnHwangDD wrote: If you leverage WW2 nomenclature in an ostensibly non-ironic way, then the items must conform to the names.
Otherwise, don't leverage the name.
This only seems to work if we assume everyone thinks of the same thing when they hear the word, which doesn't pan out. When hearing Panzerfaust outside a WW2 setting I would think of a 'anti-tank weapon' before thinking 'one shot weapon'. It was a one shot weapon, of course, but at that place and time.
Even in the context of "WWII" it isn't exactly a given:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JohnHwangDD wrote: Perhaps the problem is that you don't know enough about the PanzerFaust. For many who grew up on WW2 stuff, this is a *very* specific reference. Just like Nebelwerfer and StuG.
For you, it's just another Bazooka-like Panzerschreck device, which would have been a fine name for it. It was, and is bad form for DP9 to use the name this way.
A "panzerfaust" is a very specific weapon, used at a very specific time in Earth's history. If DP9 wants to muck around with it and make it something that it never was, then they should have called it an RPG, as that's a more general term for the weapon-type.
Eumerin wrote: Have to disagree. The defining characteristic of a Panzerfaust is that it's a one-shot weapon. This is important. Sure, you could carry multiple 'fausts, but it wasn't hard to track them individually.
But, given my bad experiences with DP9 in the past, I'm staying out of this. So I suppose it's not really my argument.
They're still one shot.. it's just that gears carry MULTIPLE panzerfausts usually since they're basically no bigger than a baton relatively to your average gear. That generally isn't practical at the human scale you're using to form your opinion.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Eumerin wrote: A "panzerfaust" is a very specific weapon, used at a very specific time in Earth's history. If DP9 wants to muck around with it and make it something that it never was, then they should have called it an RPG, as that's a more general term for the weapon-type.
It is a cool sounding name so why shouldn't they use it for something that is functionally similar but NOT exactly the same thing? You do realize that gears like Jaegers and Hunters don't look like mechanical cogs despite using the same word "gear", right??? It is a sciFI (emphasis on fiction) universe so things can evolve a bit in the multiple millennia between WW2 and the timeline of HG.
JohnHwangDD wrote: I'm pretty sure that the Nazis weren't fielding wierd robot things in WW2.
Pretty sure they weren't fielding Gears either . Also, according to DP9, they were xD. They have a whole game around the premise (Gear Krieg).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Eumerin wrote: A "panzerfaust" is a very specific weapon, used at a very specific time in Earth's history. If DP9 wants to muck around with it and make it something that it never was, then they should have called it an RPG, as that's a more general term for the weapon-type.
That is true... they also have bazookas, though, and those aren't "one-shot and reload" guns either (also, as said above, HG's panzerfausts are actually one-shot.... only the Gears can carry multiples).
All that said, I personally would be all about trooper Gears only being able to carry around one PZF (read "one" here as "enough to do only one significant attack during an engagement". I'd personally do the same with grenades. That, or I'd change them to be melee weapons, probably). Multiples could be cool for dedicated AT variants and the like.
@ Warboss, the multiple one-shot launcher idea is what I was thinking of actually. All it would have to be is a bazooka round in a tube, thinking about the size of a normal bazooka magazine. I got the idea that it was like the later model pazerfaust, which could be reload if you got the thing back to base.
Another possible departure is that the whole game takes place in what? 6100 AD? Who says there are still Germans left, or at least a cultural group that is both descended from, and similar to Germans? It could very well be that whoever designed the weapon in universe took a name for an anti-tank rocket not knowing of the historical version's one shot nature. Can we even assume anything more than a few general details of WWII would be known? It's 4000 years later. How much can you tell us about the 30 years war? That war was only a few hundred years ago, was REALLY important, but most people haven't even heard of it.
JohnHwangDD wrote: I'm pretty sure that the Nazis weren't fielding wierd robot things in WW2.
Pretty sure they weren't fielding Gears either . Also, according to DP9, they were xD. They have a whole game around the premise (Gear Krieg).
Hahaha. That's too goofy.
Albertorius wrote: All that said, I personally would be all about trooper Gears only being able to carry around one PZF (read "one" here as "enough to do only one significant attack during an engagement". I'd personally do the same with grenades. That, or I'd change them to be melee weapons, probably). Multiples could be cool for dedicated AT variants and the like.
If the WW2 had gone on for 1-2 more years the Nazis might have tried landships and ICBMs so who could really have predicted the crazy that might have been.
Gears have no problem carrying around a supply of *PZs.
It's the same issue as if you called a weapon a bolt action rifle and then had it be automatic. It makes no sense. If you're going to do a call back to history, it should make sense.
I like the solution of a model being assumed to be equipped with enough to last them the engagement.
frozenwastes wrote: It's the same issue as if you called a weapon a bolt action rifle and then had it be automatic. It makes no sense.
That analogy isn't even close to being accurate to the situation involved. What makes no sense is being upset that a portable anti-armor weapon is named after a portable anti-armor weapon. As someone else pointed out earlier as well they eventually became capable of more than one shot, so complaining that they should always be one shot doesn't make sense either.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Actually, I'm sorry I mentioned it. DP9 apparently knows so little about WW2, they probably would.
Because they did an alternate reality WWII game? I'd say that's more than a bit uncharitable...
As to the actual "fluff" of the weapon in-setting, here it is:
PANZERFAUSTS Panzerfausts (Eurogermanic for "armored fist") are used for hard-hitting firepower and one-shot-one-kill capacity in combat situations. They are composed of a heavy anti-armor warhead mounted on a quick-burning propellant charge. The projectile is held within a simple launch tube equipped with an electric trigger. The Gear only has to point the panzerfaust toward the target and thumb the ignition; recoil is counteracted by a stream of gases ejecting out of the launch tube.
Panzerfausts require the presence of a functional Manipulator Arm in order to be used. They are HEAT weapons and are affected by both anti-missile fire and HEAT-resistant armor.
LIGHT PANZERFAUST Light Panzerfausts were originally manufactured by the early settlers during the chaotic years of the Age of Isolation. By modifying standard shaped-charge digging explosives and mounting them on simple rockets, the settlers produced a cheap but effective weapon that could breach almost any kind of armor. In those troubled times, it was not uncommon to see modified Work Gears carrying several of these weapons on top of their makeshift armor.
MEDIUM PANZERFAUST As the city-states emerged on Terra Nova and started assembling armies, it was found that the classic makeshift weapon called Panzerfaust was an excellent and inexpensive way to deal with enemy armored forces. Although their simplicity made them poor conventional vehicular weapons, panzerfausts proved very popular with the new soldiers known as Gear pilots, who finally found a weapon that took full advantage of the humanoid nature of their combat vehicle. Panzerfausts allow even a simple Gear to hold its own against much larger opponents, though its operating range is too short for comfort.
The PKSF-65 is a standard Medium Panzerfaust manufactured by Republic Weapon Technology Its technical simplicity allows Republic to manufacture it with unskilled labor and simple robot machine tools. Many MILICIA units have been issued this inexpensive weapon.
HEAVY PANZERFAUST Although the Panzerfaust proved useful when dealing with lightly armored units, the extremely heavy composite armor of the large Main Battle Tank simply soaked up the light warhead used by most panzerfaust designs. To resolve the problem and still keep the low cost advantage of the panzerfaust weapon system, engineers modified a field mortar shell to serve as warhead on a heavier and deadlier version of the panzerfaust. The resulting weapon can now take on even large tanks, although its short range and inaccuracy make it dangerous to use.
The UBP-100 is a typical Heavy Panzerfaust derived from the well-known UBM-100-6 mortar shell used by several Northern forces. Although the warhead lost much of its area effect, the projectile is still feared by tankers for its ability to penetrate even the heaviest armor.
In-setting they are one-shot weapons just like most of the ones seen during WWII, but Gears are able to carry multiples (one thing that got lost in translation is that when a Gear did that (as in, carrying multiples), it also got the "Hazardous Ammo/Fuel Storage" defect unless it was designed with a built-in ammo compartment for them, of course, which made it a somewhat involved decision).
If you don't understand how language works, fiction works, references work, allusions work, and any other myriad of things at play maybe you should stop contributing.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Would you call something in Heavy Gear "Katyusha", but have it refer to a mortar, simply because it's capable of indirect fire?
It would be closer to the situation if one were silly enough to complain that an fictional unit had an indirect fire system using that used rockets but didn't have a railing, because the historical one did, and thus shouldn't be allowed to reference the older system.
JohnHwangDD wrote: DP9 apparently knows so little about WW2, they probably would.
And yes, loads of fun. Pizza, Pepsi, chewing fat and rags with some awesome older players (both of whom are big on Warhammer Epic and Battletech, and great commission painters), Warphound kept everything in the Beta straight.
A couple things I would like to suggest changes for, but I also learned that being timid with Strike Cadres is unwise. The suggestion by Awash is pertinent. Had we played short edge to short edge we probably would have seen a lot more contact.
But for a two hour game with four players talking and one young Magic player interested and asking loads of questions, we were well off. Just preliminary introductions went on longer than the actual game while we admired their work and talked old military times.
I look forward to our next get together when the holidays shake out. The South will rise again! (Coming from a Yankee Hoosier that sounds so wrong somehow... LOL)
I thought it was fine. We almost had finished the third turn.
We arrived at around 1830, everyone there at 1900. We started jacking and jawing, and introducing, you know how it goes. We finally set up around 2130, and played until 2330. We finished two turns and we're into our third turn.
We spent a great deal discussing the rules, learning Postures and traits. That, and the board was really just too long to adequately cover at Combat Speed, which I used to try and keep myself from overextending. Foolish on my part, you have to risk something to win something.
One big suggestion Warphound made was datacards, which I probably will make some. I had forgotten entirely about Burst adding 1d6 to rolls for autocannons, I might have gotten his Strike Jaguar in that second turn.
But shoulda, coulda, woulda. I will remember next game.
Adding and subtracting dice for cover and concealment and sub-optimal range is intuitive after a few minutes learning it, just remembering all the varieties requires you have the list out.
Edit: Sorry, excitement made me forget. Happy Thanksgiving ya'll!
An hour per turn of 10 models per side? 3 minutes per model seems like it'd be OK, but is actually kinda slow.
It sounds like the game caps out at a dozen models, not 20 per side, and it still wants to be more like a half-dozen for a standard 2-3 hour game block.
JohnHwangDD wrote: An hour per turn of 10 models per side? 3 minutes per model seems like it'd be OK, but is actually kinda slow.
It sounds like the game caps out at a dozen models, not 20 per side, and it still wants to be more like a half-dozen for a standard 2-3 hour game block.
For a beginning game I thing that is reasonable.
Once you have the system I think it will get a lot faster. Its fairly intuitive as far as what effects the dice pool.
Brandon, was that the first game with the new style rules for most or all of the players? If you're just learning a new ruleset, I see no problem with the timeframe you posted in a 2v2 game. That sounds typical, not slow.
Warboss, yeah. First game ever for three of us, Warphound had some prior experience. But it was me, not the new guys, who really slowed it down by going short edge to short edge. I promise to play on a smaller table the next time.
I had hoped that my explanation was clear enough that I should have started us on a smaller table.
But Warphound also suggested that we follow the rules and go with a third of the way up the board. At that time I was unaware of that small deployment issue, and the others and myself agreed that we would start where the tape started. So it was my fault for saying, "Let's just start here."
But either way, the update is on the verge of coming out, and by that point we should see some very major changes in the make-up of the rules. Most particularly tracking of damage.
But either way, the update is on the verge of coming out, and by that point we should see some very major changes in the make-up of the rules. Most particularly tracking of damage.
-Brandon F.
Haven't been keeping current with the news so I had to see what you were talking about. It looks like the damage system is changing radically again. I don't obviously have any experience with it (no one but Dave likely does) so I can't comment if it is for better or worse. I do hope folks seriously spreadsheet the hell out of it to see if the *ACTUAL* damage results reflect what HG says *SHOULD* be the results unlike with Blitz where supposedly tough units (like -1 Man FS super gears like Kodiaks) were less survivable than obsolete trooper or even recon gears. If there is another big update, I'm curious to see what army building changes occurred (if any) as well. I'm always fearful of a two steps forward, one back (or even the reverse) situation. Looks like Dave has been busy since the KS.
"Our second Post Kickstarter Update is to announce that the Pledge Manager is now live and that Invites are being sent out. We imported all the Backer info received from Kickstarter (Backer name, email address, pledge level and amount pledged) into the Pledge Manager. Backers will receive an email invite to login to the Pledge Manger and setup their account, with their full name, address and phone number.
Before you do that we want to give you a quick preview of the Pledge Manager and how to use it after you have setup your account. When you start you will have a Balance of what you pledged on the Kickstarter minus the Reward Pledge Level you selected and the $15 shipping for US and Canadian Backers. If your an International Backer the shipping is deferred until we know the exact weight of your Backer Reward Package later in 2015. If your a $500 Heavy Gear Universe Level Backer the Reward Level includes free shipping.
Below is a screen capture of the Pledge Manage with a $500 Heavy Gear Universe Pledge, and a $0 Balance remaining, after the Reward level and add-ons had been selected using the total balance. At this point you should click the "Save Selections - Blue Button" below the Balance, this will save your reward level and all the add-ons you have selected and allow you to make changes or additions later on. Don't click the "Submit & Lock Order - Green Button" for now as we plan to do some additional crowd sourcing to unlock a few more of the stretch goals.
If you hit the Green Button it will lock you order and send you a confirmation email, and you won't be able to make any changes. The Fundafull team is working on an update for us that will allow Backers to unlock an order that was submitted and locked by accident, and it should be ready in the next week or two, until then you would need to send in a request to Dream Pod 9 to get it unlocked.
If you only pledged the basic $115 CAD for the Core Starter Set during the Kickstarter and your in the US or Canada the Pledge Manage will add the $15 shipping and show you a Balance Due of $15 in Red and a new "Pay Balance Now - Gold Button" will appear. The "Pay Balance Now - Gold Button" will appear as soon as you add more rewards than you have money pledged in your Balance.
If you click the button with ask for your info and credit card number, we are using an online service caller Stripe to process credit cards securely. Once its paid the Balance will show $0.00 in Green and the "Submit & Lock Order - Green Button" will appear again.
Please note that all additional pledges made and added to your account to cover the shipping or for additional rewards are non-refundable. We are able to keep track of these additional pledges and see what applies to shipping. This information will be used later for unlocking some of the stretch goals not reached during the Kickstarter. We'll announced all the details in next week's update.
The Pledge Manager will remain open until all the Backer Reward Packages are shipped out later in 2015. And you'll be able to make changes and get more add-ons for the next several months while we are working the 3D Models and getting the plastic injection molds produced.
Thank you again everyone for your amazing support."
There have been some teething problems with the pledge manager but they are sorted now.
The Changes to damage in the update are relatively minor. Since the two ratings are called Hull and Structure we're renaming the Attribute H/S instead of Damage Capacity (DC). Literal in this case can be good.
Also I've nudged the damage values to a more stable point. 4/2 for Hunters instead of 5/1 and 3/3 for Jaguars rather than 4/2. Support Gears stay at 4/2 which is nominally worse than the Hunter since their defense skill is one point worse. Recon Gears are getting bumped to 3/3. Notice how all the Gears are a range of 6 Hull and Structure in total? That's intentional. It lets you see the difference a lot easier. There's a whole table giving the values now so that a Fragile Gear is 2/4, a regular Gear is 3/3, a tough gear 4/2 and a Rugged Gear is 5/1 (Black Adders and such, pretty rare).
Tanks add one point to Hull and another to structure so a fragile vehicle is a 3/5 model (VTOLs), a standard one is 4/4 (APCs), tough is 5/3 (Aller) and a rugged tank (Visigoth) is 6/2. They are also defined by their armor ratings so an AR:11 Strider with S/H:4/4 is fairly similar to an AR:10 Strider with S/H:5/3.
Standardizing the breakdown of the values is a fairly minor change but does make it easier to catagorize the models.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Why the fetish with creating acronyms (i.e. "DC", "H/S")?
What's wrong with "Hull 3+3"?
Does "Hull 3+3" not convey the notion clearly enough to the layperson?
Because the Military loves acronyms 40k also uses a lot of acronyms themselves WS, BS, S, T, I, A, Ld, Sv. It''s the statline of the models and on a chart you want to use acronyms to save trees.
"The Pledge Manager has now been live for a week and we wanted to update everyone on the Kicksarter and its final total. We have 801 Backers now registered in the Pledge Manager and have sent out reminder invites to the 219 who still need to register. We need everyone to register so we can see the exact up to date totals of pledges, add-ons and shipping in the Pledge Manager.
At the close of the Kickstarter we had $150,406 CAD Pledged for Kickstarter to collect. During the following 2 weeks Kickstarter processed everyone's Pledges but was unable to collect about $3000 CAD from some 20 Backers. This could be due to problems processing the credit cards or other factors. We have added those Backers to the Pledge Manager with $0 Balances and their original Pledge Level. They just need to register and make their Pledge via our Stripe credit card processing on the Pledge Manager. If they or anyone else is not able to pay via credit card they are now able to make a direct PayPal payment to our account at (rdubois@dp9.com) for their pledge, add-ons, and shipping, just make sure to include a description of what the payment is for in the message with the payment. We also had a few US and Canadian Backers include the $15 Shipping in their Pledges, which the shipping did not count towards unlocking stretch goals, as it just goes to the post office and not towards the molds needed.
At present with the uncollected Backers and shipping removed we have $147,000 CAD Pledged towards the Kickstarter and unlocking the Stretch Goals. We plan to run an additional Crowd Funding Campaign using the Dream Pod 9 Website, Facebook Page, and Forum, plus other external websites to reach out to more players and potential Backers. The campaign would be to secure the stretch goal #18 for the Southern King Cobra which was already unlocked at $150K (adding 1 to the Core Starter) and to unlock #19 for the Northern Kodiak at $160K (adding 1 to the Core Starter), #20 for the Caprice Ammon Mount at $170K (adding 1 to the Core Starter), and #21 for the Extra Weapons and Parts Sprue at $185K (making it available for a $10 Add-on reward purchase). Unlocking all of these would require $38,000 in additional funding, which would be 330 new Backers each Pledging for a $115 CAD Core Starter Set. We have limited the extra stretch goal funding to the goals we feel are needed and that can still be delivered to Backers by our original November 2015 delivery date. We will start the additional campaign next week and it will run for the next month or two to unlock the desired stretch goals.
After that we'll still have the Pledge Manager open and allow additional Backers to join and existing Backers to change or add to their rewards for the several more months that we are working on the 3D Models for the plastic injection molds. Also, once the additional funding is secured and the stretch goals are unlocked, we will then allow backers to make Dream Pod 9 Online Store orders and have them added in with their Backer Reward Package when it ships later in 2015.
If you don't want to wait you can place a Dream Pod 9 Online Store order now (Click Here), US and Canadian orders have a basic $12.65 USD shipping and free shipping for orders over $100 USD. International orders have a flat $24.95 USD shipping on all orders.
If you have a friend or family member that wants to get a War for Terra Nova Core Starter Set for $115 CAD and have access to the Pledge Manager, just have them email me directly at rdubois@dp9.com with their full name and email address and request to join. We'll then get back to them with a PayPal money request and an invite to the Pledge Manager once the payment is received."
Hopefully the next small crowdfunding effort will get folks their much-desired Kodiaks and all those who missed out on the Kickstarter in the first go-round.
The new changes won't be until Christmas, but the Houston Group plans to meet up and have another go with the basics next week.
So now the King Cobra that was unlocked in the KS is now being relocked? A few percentage points of funds not going through is typical in KS and should have been incorporated into the plan for the kickstarter instead of relocking an unlocked stretch goal. There is also no mention of the pledge manager where the funding total ONLY can go up, not down. I'd be very surprised if they didn't make that $3,000 from folks increasing there pledge at that point but there is no mention of that.
While I can understand why things got "relocked" (failed funding dropped them below the goal), I don't think I've ever seen any other campaign do this...
warboss wrote: A few percentage points of funds not going through is typical in KS and should have been incorporated into the plan for the kickstarter instead of relocking an unlocked stretch goal. There is also no mention of the pledge manager where the funding total ONLY can go up, not down. I'd be very surprised if they didn't make that $3,000 from folks increasing there pledge at that point but there is no mention of that.
You'd best be prepared to be the recipient of serious tooth marks on your a$$ for pointing out such an obvious failing and/or oversight.
Alpharius wrote: While I can understand why things got "relocked" (failed funding dropped them below the goal), I don't think I've ever seen any other campaign do this...
IMO, DP9 ought to realize that Kickstarter creates a legally-enforcible contract with each individual backer, and that they should not change the terms after Kickstarter close. Given that reality, there are very strong legal contractual reasons not to do this.
What DP9 doesn't get is that one backer's failure to pay does NOT affect another backer's pledge. If DP9 made an offer that includes a King Cobra to Peter, and Peter accepts that offer by paying in good faith, then Paul's failure to complete their payment shouldn't harm Peter.
It is like paying someone for a car, and the dealer suddenly deciding that they aren't going to include all 4 wheels on your car, because some other guy decided not to buy a different car.
Technically, any and all backers who feel that they are being shorted by DP9 have the immediate right to pull their pledges via Credit Card Chargeback due to DP9 no longer holding up their end of the agreement. Backers who feel disgruntled have the option to report DP9 to Kickstarter for changing the offer.
The hassles associated with breaking the promise after campaign close are why most campaigns suck it up and deal with the shortage on the back end. Keep the noise down, and don't depend on post-campaign dollars to unlock more things.
What worries me about this is that it suggests higher risk:
1. That DP9 didn't do their homework on pledge collection rates,
2. That DP9 didn't build in proper margin for short payments, and/or
3. That DP9 didn't plan their campaign to absorb minor setbacks.
If this is an issue now, does DP9 need all of the stars to line up perfectly for the rest of the campaign to deliver?
If there is another budget issue or cost overrun, will DP9 decide they are going to cut other unlocks to fit their budget?
The whole thing is a red flag, and highlights just how much risk is involved in this campaign. It is not the sort of thing that suggests to a backer that they should be happy to throw more money into the pile.
What worries me about this is that it suggests higher risk: 1. That DP9 didn't do their homework on pledge collection rates, 2. That DP9 didn't build in proper margin for short payments, and/or 3. That DP9 didn't plan their campaign to absorb minor setbacks.
If this is an issue now, does DP9 need all of the stars to line up perfectly for the rest of the campaign to deliver?
If there is another budget issue or cost overrun, will DP9 decide they are going to cut other unlocks to fit their budget?
The whole thing is a red flag, and highlights just how much risk is involved in this campaign. It is not the sort of thing that suggests to a backer that they should be happy to throw more money into the pile.
In case this is a complete surprise for anyone reading this thead, here is a post from earlier in the thread when the entire premise of the KS was changed after being advertised for weeks on their forum and going through 80% of the campaign only to change in the last few days.
Dave, don't get me wrong. You have the right to change the retail version to whatever you want legally as long as you still meet the KS obligations. Just let's not pretend that it is "clear" or that this isn't a big change. For over a month in this current version of the KS plans (I won't go back to check on the previous two previews posted on the forums but it may go back even further), we've been consistently told that the stretch goals unlock extras in the retail version as well up to goal #13/$105k. Some folks pledged based on the premise that they were improving the retail version that would grow the community and future customers would get. That changed sometime over the last couple of days when things like the FAQ question and update started singing a different tune. Again, you have the right to change anything you want in the retail version as a company but not to pretend that it has been what you've been saying all along. You quoted someone who praises the company for being responsive but the above can also be construed as a lack of a clear vision and planning. For a company with a history of broken promises and short sighted decisions stretching back decades that is supposedly turning over a new leaf (again), this type of a change this late in the KS game is troubling. If this is in response to retailer feedback, why the heck wasn't that feedback elicited in the MONTHS preceding the KS? Or at least last month when the same issues were brought up by fans/customers/future and potential pledgers? Why did this only happen in the final week of the campaign? That isn't proactive but reactive bordering on procrastination. For a company that is asking for the money upfront a year ahead of time, that isn't a good thing. It begs the question of what other seemingly common sense things were missed.
That last sentence is the most telling. If DP9 expected that somehow 100% of the funds pledged would get into their coffers then they absolutely missed something incredibly basic about crowdfunding.
To answer your question, John, DP9 will do whatever is best for themselves in the short term even if it is at the expense of both their long term health and their customer base. If there another setback, the deal will change however they see fit to best benefit themselves in a vader-like "pray I don't alter the deal further" fashion. It's a 20 year tradition that this KS was supposed to be breaking. The smart thing would have been to just pad the next phase stretch goal by an extra $3,000 that they'll likely get in the pledge manager phase over the next months since they're talking about pledges unlocking further stretch goals, not to give a middle finger to those who already pledged and break each contract they had with backers who DID pay.
@warboss, wasn't the change to retail announced during the campaign? If I were backing to enhance retail product, and DP9 changed the plan, I could have changed (or withdrawn) my pledge accordingly.
This change is after DP9 took people's money. To me, it is a big deal to change the terms after accepting money.
In my case, I'm glad I only backed for 1 CAD, for PM access. At the rate things are going, I won't decide until the last minute.
JohnHwangDD wrote:This change is after DP9 took people's money. To me, it is a big deal to change the terms after accepting money.
Definitely.
Sorry DP9, but if you told the backers the stretch goal was unlocked and they pledged accordingly, you need to be an honest operation and keep your word.
Honestly, I think this might just be a poor choice of phrasing. Notice that they never actually say that backers need to "re-unlock" the King Cobra...but instead they say that the need to "secure funding" for it. That runs opposite of the language for all the other stretch goals which specifically note that they need to be "unlocked".
Of course, I'm just arguing semantics...but I think DP9 is being less dastardly (at least in this case) then you all might think. I think they probably just wanted to point out they won't start towards unlocking new stretch goals until they make up that missing 3,000 bucks.
Might be wrong, that's just the vibe I got when I first read it. If this is, in fact, the case, well...unquestionably, they didn't do a great job of communicating it.
The problem with DP9 communicating poorly is their history. Unfortunately, the way the company has behaved in the past has created a culture of, at worst, dishonesty, and at best, scatterbrainedness. So when it happens again, and happens during the course of something meant to restart everything new and shiny.... Well, it's very difficult to accept that it's just worded badly.
Although, as that too has been one of DP9's hallmarks for over a decade (poor wording and consistent lack of editing), it would surprise no one if that were the case.
Tronbot2600 wrote: Honestly, I think this might just be a poor choice of phrasing. Notice that they never actually say that backers need to "re-unlock" the King Cobra...but instead they say that the need to "secure funding" for it. That runs opposite of the language for all the other stretch goals which specifically note that they need to be "unlocked".
Of course, I'm just arguing semantics...but I think DP9 is being less dastardly (at least in this case) then you all might think. I think they probably just wanted to point out they won't start towards unlocking new stretch goals until they make up that missing 3,000 bucks.
Might be wrong, that's just the vibe I got when I first read it. If this is, in fact, the case, well...unquestionably, they didn't do a great job of communicating it.
I think it is a poor decision AND poor phrasing. The post of mine I quoted above was when they changed the entire premise of the KS in the last few days of it (unlocking a specific retail set) and tried to pass it off as it was like that all along. I predicted that it would just be the first of the changes due to poor planning and they didn't wait long to prove me right. As for not actually saying they need to be unlocked...
The campaign would be to secure the stretch goal #18 for the Southern King Cobra which was already unlocked at $150K (adding 1 to the Core Starter) and to unlock #19 for the Northern Kodiak at $160K (adding 1 to the Core Starter), #20 for the Caprice Ammon Mount at $170K (adding 1 to the Core Starter), and #21 for the Extra Weapons and Parts Sprue at $185K (making it available for a $10 Add-on reward purchase). Unlocking all of these would require $38,000 in additional funding, which would be 330 new Backers each Pledging for a $115 CAD Core Starter Set.
$185k-$38k=$147k which is where we're at right now so the King Cobra needs to be unlocked *AGAIN*. Don't get me wrong, I understand their reasons but as usual they decided to yet again put their foot in their mouth right before they try to put it up customers' backsides and it's unfortunately typical DP9. They should have just added $3k to the following goals (so the Kodiak at $163k, Ammon at $173k, etc) to make up for it and never even hinted that they'd be breaking their almost 1,000 individual contracts with the backers who did pay fully to unlock the King Cobra.
They obviously didn't do their homework *AGAIN* just like with the retail version flip flop if they expected to get every dollar from every pledger and didn't account for it with a buffer that at least included 1-2% of the funding. As John said, if this entirely predictable situation knocked out the backers who DID pay from getting an entire stretch goal, what happens when there is another hiccup like the manufacturer upping their price by 1-2% because oil prices skyrocketed up in 2015 from their 5 year lows they currently are at in 2014? I guess we'll lose Tiger unless they get an addition 1-2% in off site funding. I've now participated as a customer in a grand total of 2 kickstarters and *I* know that you should only expect around 90% of what you raise (5% KS fee, 3% credit card fee, 2% nonpayment) and I don't need the future of my livelihood to find that out. I expect amateur hour from a company being run out of a garage, not one with a 20 year history (albeit fraught with exactly these types of situations in DP9's case). This sadly indicates that the project has literally no funding buffer if they can't afford to absorb 1-2% of the cost without publicly stating it and requiring more money upfront to fulfill their existing promises.
I think it's time we stop treating DreamPod 9 like a twenty year veteran of the industry. The IP they are currently trying to sell is twenty years old, but the company, may as well be a garage startup.
Dave, Rob, if you're still reading and we haven't pissed you off such that you'll go back to not talking, this is fixable. You've both been doing very well with engaging with the community and addressing concerns, and that's been a very important step in repairing and creating anew DP9's reputation.
This specific concern needs to be addressed quickly. And kindly. Cos hey, things went south, you wound up with less money then you expected. Happens. No biggie. Or, maybe it really is just bad wording. That - let's be honest here - has been one of your problems for a long time. But some of the other problems have been failed or outright broken promises. So people who just volunteered you the cost of a luxury car on essentially nothing but good faith are going to get wary when promises start changing.
Now, maybe there has just been an honest misunderstanding. Maybe that really is the case. But if it is (or, frankly, even if it's not) please don't treat the people asking questions about this like angry nerds who can't read and are just trying to hurt the company. You've been doing very well with customer interaction, and regardless of what's going on with the KS, I hope that continues.
Firebreak wrote: I think it's time we stop treating DreamPod 9 like a twenty year veteran of the industry. The IP they are currently trying to sell is twenty years old, but the company, may as well be a garage startup.
That would be fine if they didn't play up their long history to prop up their reputation. From the first line of the KS's risks and challenges section:
Non-Completion of project: As a company with almost twenty years experience in completing game development projects the biggest risks to this project fall under the category of act of God.
I guess they should amend that to include "Non-fulfillment of stretch goals: As a company with almost twenty years of experience, we failed to account for basic and standard entirely predictable and commonplace complications. If anything increases the cost on our end, we will pass on those costs you to. If not paid, we will unilaterally decrease your previously agreed upon rewards." I don't think it is likely that they'll be unable to raise $3k but in the event that they can't, backers will not get the King Cobra according to the recent update. That is not an "act of God" but simply poor planning and budgeting. Again, what if oil prices go up (and they're currently at record lows), will we lose yet another stretch goal when the manufacturer is forced to pass on the increased prices to dp9?
I'm not an unreasonable person. If DP9 had experienced an abnormally high pledge drop rate like 5% or more then I'd support their decision to drop the stretch goal because it wouldn't be their fault in that case. It may not be an act of God but rather a reflection on their fanbase in that case... but they didn't. What happened was commonplace, predictable, and should have been accounted for. Unfortunately for the folks who did pay, it wasn't and they're the ones left holding the bill. That is a reflection on the company that didn't show (yet again) due diligence for a project of this scope.
DP9 made a couple of obvious errors, by asking backers to pledge with fixed shipping and allowing it to count toward stretch goals during the campaign, and then not counting those same dollars after the campaign. It's basically DP9 trying to have their cake and eat it, too.
The correct response is to say nothing about the 1.5% shortfall, and simply open the campaign to late backers. When the $3k (or whatever it is) is met, then note that additional funds will be used to unlock other items, and simply announce if/when something extra unlocks. Like the Southern King Cobra being "unlocked":
Now, I wonder if DP9 considered Amazon and KS fees as part of their plan. Are they aware that Amazon and KS are going to take roughly $15k of the $150k raised? Is that going to roll back another SG, and require another $15k to get us back to the end of the campaign? If DP9 is counting SGs against actual revenue after fees, backers are also going to lose the Northern Tiger ($140k) and 2 Demolition/Sapper drones ($135k).
I mean, yeah, you'd think that DP9 understood this before launching. But this update suggests maybe not. Could DP9 really be that clueless and naive? The mind boggles.
warboss wrote: I think it is a poor decision AND poor phrasing. The post of mine I quoted above was when they changed the entire premise of the KS in the last few days of it (unlocking a specific retail set) and tried to pass it off as it was like that all along. I predicted that it would just be the first of the changes due to poor planning and they didn't wait long to prove me right. As for not actually saying they need to be unlocked...
Firebreak wrote: Dave, Rob, if you're still reading and we haven't pissed you off such that you'll go back to not talking, this is fixable.
This specific concern needs to be addressed quickly. And kindly. Cos hey, things went south, you wound up with less money then you expected. Happens. No biggie. Or, maybe it really is just bad wording.
JohnHwangDD wrote: The correct response is to say nothing about the 1.5% shortfall, and simply open the campaign to late backers. When the $3k (or whatever it is) is met, then note that additional funds will be used to unlock other items, and simply announce if/when something extra unlocks. Like the Southern King Cobra being "unlocked":
[..] I mean, yeah, you'd think that DP9 understood this before launching. But this update suggests maybe not.
Amazingly, the Pod demonstrably cares more about the Chibi Hunter holidays miniature than anything to do with their own very probably essential KS after dropping such a potential bombshell on their backers.
I was on the fence about this kickstarter. Having a mess load of plastic mechs next year almost had me convinced to back.
Then I went back and looked over my Heavy Gear Arena rulebook. I remember how ripped off I felt over that load of garbage. It was enough to make me avoid this ks.
Looks like I made the right decision. DP9 continues down the same trail they have been blazing for so long now.
After Smilodon's rant in the 'why you don't' thread, I honestly don't care to 'discuss' what you think of it all.
Suffice to say, most of us are letting folks know that another crowdfunding effort will be opened for those who missed the Kickstarter. If it makes the rest of the miniatures available, I have no complaints.
Oh, and here is the link to our last battle report of the year 2014.
Is your comment earlier directed at everyone or anyone in particular? In any case, Smilodon did link that update in the other thread. It was a discrepancy in that update that was actually the focus of his "rant".
warboss, I invite you to read what Smilodon has written, and rewritten, 21 times.
Here is what it read after the ninth edit,
"Just, wow... Dave, ...you keep proving that you don't have a frakking clue about anything related to either HG fluff or legacy models, which makes it rather impossible for much anyone to provide that respectful criticism you claim to so crave.
Because I guarantee close to 99.9% of frag cannon-equipped Hunters in use by players do not have an LRP ever since Hammers of Faith came out for Blitz!, so you've now created yet another variation instead of codifying the already too confusing existing ones.
But hey, another bit on another model for folks to rip off and/or try to magnetize due to more whipsaw changes, so just blue-tack everything on them all in the meantime right.
Or just leave bits that way forever, so as to be ready for the next changes y'all decide to make that is the exact opposite of everything the company mandated with the last batch of changes -- then Rinse & Repeat.
[sarcasm] And classy job on the naming conventions, yet again. [/sarcasm]"
-
Now, after 21 edits,
Just... wow, Dave ...you keep proving that you don't have a frakking clue about anything related to either HG fluff or legacy models, which makes it rather impossible for much anyone to provide that respectful criticism you claim to so crave.
Because I guarantee a whole lot of frag cannon-equipped Hunters in use by players do not have a rocket pack ever since Hammers of Faith came out for Blitz! and allowed swapping for Stripped Down models.
Instead of streamlining existing and future models, you've mandated another change that does not equally affect both kinds of the Hunter miniature, after already making the implementation of "Stripped" faction specific but leaving it with the rocket pack.
We're not talking about remembering which model has not usually visible equipment such as grenades, machine guns, PZFs of some type, or melee weapons.
You've chosen to make every single SD Hunter given the [LAC & HG -> FGC & HHG] equipment swap within both the GP & Dragoon combat groups into a not WYSIWYG model, if not outright unusable.
Which is one of the of the most, if not the most, common variants of the Hunter that is already owned, assembled, and painted by more than a few existing Northern players.
And on top of all that it's not a piece that could maybe be removed and possibly touched up, but rather a bit that would have to be primed, painted, then added onto the model(s) if folks even have those bits in the first place and/or hadn't shaved down the mounting peg if converting!
But hey, in the end just another bit on another model for folks to rip off and/or try to magnetize etc etc etc due to more whipsaw changes, so just blue-tack everything on their entire collections in the meantime right.
Or just leave bits that way forever, so as to be ready for the next changes y'all decide to make that is the exact opposite of everything the company mandated with the last batch of changes -- then Rinse & Repeat.
[sarcasm] And classy job on the naming conventions, yet again, as well as continuing to ensure that yet another publication will never account for some variations simply due to page formatting. [/sarcasm]
-
Does that read like 'reasonable', or 'respectful', to you? Going on a rant about a rocket pod?
To me, it does not.
I have resolved not to play WYSIWYG. I would allow Khurasan miniatures and others in the 10-15mm range to be used to 'count as' as something. Heavy Gear's scale is middling enough that you can allow other players to play with other models in that range, and there really isn't any problem with it for me.
I am not about to argue what the company 'meant' when it writes the updates. I am going to give them as they are given to me.
I wish you all the best, and pray that this season is blessed.
Does that read like 'reasonable', or 'respectful', to you? Going on a rant about a rocket pod?
To me, it does not.
I have resolved not to play WYSIWYG. I would allow Khurasan miniatures and others in the 10-15mm range to be used to 'count as' as something. Heavy Gear's scale is middling enough that you can allow other players to play with other models in that range, and there really isn't any problem with it for me.
I am not about to argue what the company 'meant' when it writes the updates. I am going to give them as they are given to me.
I wish you all the best, and pray that this season is blessed.
Respectful? Absolutely not. I believe that train left Smilodon Station away steaming away from DP9town long ago. Reasonable? The expression is definitely severe for a relatively minor issue at first glance but it is also symptomatic of a larger one that a casual reader would miss. During the northern pdf, he took great pains to make sure existing variant models had *SOMEWHERE* to be used to avoid the issues in FIF where lots of gears suddenly were completely unavailable to most subfactions willy nilly and a few were available to NO ONE because the pod never bothered to check. Yes, there were variants that were statted out in the book twice (on the fancy gear page and then on the cards) and were not able to be used ANYWHERE for ANYONE in the first pdf release. For the northern pdf, he made mini flowcharts listing every possible variant for each squad (including faction swaps) as well as collating that info the other way around in a table listing each variant and exactly which squads it could go in. I know because I butted heads with him on a variant or two (where's my recon hunter!!??!).
That detailed work was then somewhat carelessly hacked apart by quick "edits" after submission. It wasn't just that the edits changed his work but that they did so without bothering to note the change in the other parts of the book (so you had incorrect info due to swaps being removed or added) as well as little to no attention paid to how those edits affected swaps both up and down the gear food chain. After all his work, his name would have been attached to work that yet again had phantom variants/models. That reflects on him as the primary author. I hope that little bit of backstory (which you may or may not know) gives some perspective to why he is so angry about the same thing happening seemingly again. The pod unfortunately doesn't think or prepare as much as they should. The kickstarter shows that (see the discussion above about them apparently being shocked that they didn't get 100% of each dollar pledged from 100% of pledgers as well as polling retailers only after fundraising started to wrap up and changing the premise of the KS in the last few days) and his experience working with them on their blitz era releases does as well.
While I suspect you'd probably express less anger publicly, you'd likely be quite displeased privately if one of your stories had typos and grammatical errors ADDED to the manuscript as well as key plot points completely removed yet still referenced elsewhere in the story.
edit: out of curiosity, how do you access the older versions of a post? Is that from an online archive like waybackmachine?
I copied and pasted it. I know Smilodon edits his posts a lot.
The symptom is easily curable.
Play 'count as'.
It is a game. I do not see tournaments popping up all over where there are Heavy Gear fans.
We have established that it is a niche market. So WYSIWYG is only compounding any problems for new players. This I have no interest in perpetuating. Folks talk about tournament scenes for Warhammer and PP and Infinity. Yet Infinity pulls just as much these days with 'counts as' miniatures in their lines, a deep ruleset, and friendly competition.
So I will keep up with my gaming group. Test the rules. Play. Have fun with folks. That is the intent.
Calling yourself a niche market is equivalent to not having an effective plan for growth. Heavy Gear could be on par with the big three (FoW, Warhammer and Warmahordes), but it isn't. The aggressive attitude towards people who have grievances with DP9 from previous interactions is less than professional. Its confrontational and dangerous for future growth, and I'm starting to regret putting 65 dollars into this kickstarter (or not, I'm unsure if my KS payment went through or not due to some issues on my CC company's end).
Just my opinion on the sidelines, because I never started this game when I was interested (due to high prices and lack of availability anywhere.)
This unwillingness to support legacy models that were legitimate loadouts or changing the rules so they're no longer an effective choice is also the same as what everyone complains about with GW. Do you want to be doing the same things as the company that people have been calling for death for the past decade that is showing signs of bleeding its userbase?
AegisFate, who from Dream Pod 9 has been confrontational?
Edit: As far as legacy models are concerned, Dream Pod 9 has been doing its best to keep up.
Smilodon's grievances, and those of the other playtesters from past iterations, are now played out.
I have known them on those forums quite a while. Previously, however, I lacked any such real-life forum to play the game. Now, I do. And this new ruleset's basics are simple enough that I can say the models play out rather well.
I may also be wrong, but you've had a rather aggressive stance towards people who've worked for Dream Pod 9 in the past who don't for various reasons, up to and including being ignored.
Regardless, the overall tone and feeling of Dream Pod 9 is a company that hasn't been around for decades, but one that's running by the seat of their pants and was put together a few years ago. Once again, there's a reason I never actually started Heavy Gear a few years ago, which was an issue that the company could've clearly solved.
The new starter is a good idea to gather new players, but player retention is a lot more pressing issue, and so far, I've seen no indication that DP9 wants to do that, even within the beta. I haven't read through the beta rules for a few reasons, one being that I'm not confident in a company with this track record, and I doubt I will actually ever play the game and I'll just fiddle with the minis I pledged for instead.
AegisFate wrote: I may also be wrong, but you've had a rather aggressive stance towards people who've worked for Dream Pod 9 in the past who don't for various reasons, up to and including being ignored.
You are absolutely correct. I have.
I am not a staff member of the company.
Hudson, mrondeau, and Smilodon all playtested at one point.
I have had personal disagreements with them that I have attempted to bury the hatchet on multiple occasions in private messages. That has not worked out.
Regardless, the overall tone and feeling of Dream Pod 9 is a company that hasn't been around for decades, but one that's running by the seat of their pants and was put together a few years ago. Once again, there's a reason I never actually started Heavy Gear a few years ago, which was an issue that the company could've clearly solved.
The new starter is a good idea to gather new players, but player retention is a lot more pressing issue, and so far, I've seen no indication that DP9 wants to do that, even within the beta. I haven't read through the beta rules for a few reasons, one being that I'm not confident in a company with this track record, and I doubt I will actually ever play the game and I'll just fiddle with the minis I pledged for instead.
I hope that the new ruleset coming out at Christmas will be closer to your expectations, and that you will download, peruse, and play them out. Respectfully, I understand your feelings about not getting into the game.
My issues, such as they are, are compounded by the fact that I would like to see the community grow more solvent. However, personal disagreements with the aforementioned individuals often have turned the predominant threads in Dakka into very harsh places.
I would much rather focus on the fun of the game however, hence my decision not to talk about business practices in a company that I have no control nor influence. As a playtester, a freelancer, I can only give my observations. I hope that this explanation suffices for an apology to those who find me offensive.
All I want is for the community, the company, and the game to grow out of this rut.
BrandonKF wrote: I copied and pasted it. I know Smilodon edits his posts a lot.
The symptom is easily curable.
Play 'count as'.
It is a game. I do not see tournaments popping up all over where there are Heavy Gear fans.
We have established that it is a niche market. So WYSIWYG is only compounding any problems for new players. This I have no interest in perpetuating. Folks talk about tournament scenes for Warhammer and PP and Infinity. Yet Infinity pulls just as much these days with 'counts as' miniatures in their lines, a deep ruleset, and friendly competition.
So I will keep up with my gaming group. Test the rules. Play. Have fun with folks. That is the intent.
I'll make sure that my original post is as close to the final as possible now that I know you're watching for edits.
Counts as is an inelegant stop gap measure most useful for trying out new builds for veteran players and trying to get a feel for the game for new players... it is NOT a replacement for well thought out and planned game design nor is it something to be lauded. In my limited experience with DP9 (congruent with what I've heard from those with more), the lack of backward compatibility for the MP Hunter that Smilodon mentioned is most likely due to Dave simply not bothering to check what the current loadouts have. We've seen those types of easily avoidable mistakes in this beta in the army making section (arbitrary changes that don't factor in players' collections) before and it illustrates a distinct lack of a system of making changes that deviate from the current loadouts. Likely Dave just copy pasted something from one to the next and didn't change the LRP; the same thing happened several times with the haphazard Northern PDF edits where things moved or got trimmed without any attention paid to the detail. Things got or lost weapons and/or features because what was copy/pasted next to them was that way... not because it was supposed to be that way.
As for the tourny comments, I'm not sure if you meant to but it comes off as a bit condescending. Casual players like yourself are no better than tourney players; you're both interested in having fun but just have mildly different ways of getting to it. You want to play peanut M&Ms as trooper gears and reeses pieces as gear striders? Go for it as long as your opponent feels that way. You want to play only with the latest sculpts on the latest bases with 100% wysiwig loadouts? Power to you and your opponent if they're agreeable. The lack of a HG tourny scene is only indicative of a lack of players and the ambiguity of the rules. If you can't get more than two people to play HG at the advertised championship at gencon where there are tens of thousands of gamers within 1 square mile, there is an underlying issue that needs to be addressed and it's not the attitude of the player base that is the problem. I hope you continue to have fun in your games (something I've been unable to achieve because no one wants to play locally) and I'd note that I haven't seen anyone tell you otherwise.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AegisFate wrote: Calling yourself a niche market is equivalent to not having an effective plan for growth. Heavy Gear could be on par with the big three (FoW, Warhammer and Warmahordes), but it isn't. The aggressive attitude towards people who have grievances with DP9 from previous interactions is less than professional. Its confrontational and dangerous for future growth, and I'm starting to regret putting 65 dollars into this kickstarter (or not, I'm unsure if my KS payment went through or not due to some issues on my CC company's end).
DP9 has been remarkably restrained here and on their best behavior. If this type of discussion was on their official forums, it would have been deleted LONG LONG ago like the last pages of their FEEDBACK thread for the kickstarter when things turned negative (and with them denying the deletions occurred, lol). I can't comment on what they do on facebook as I don't really do social media. In Brandon's defence, that's about the most aggressively I've ever seen him post. Smilodon's post in the other thread is par for the course and he's been feisty for a while now. It's one of the longest stages of post DP9 employment.
BrandonKF wrote: I copied and pasted it. I know Smilodon edits his posts a lot.
The symptom is easily curable.
Play 'count as'.
It is a game. I do not see tournaments popping up all over where there are Heavy Gear fans.
We have established that it is a niche market. So WYSIWYG is only compounding any problems for new players. This I have no interest in perpetuating. Folks talk about tournament scenes for Warhammer and PP and Infinity. Yet Infinity pulls just as much these days with 'counts as' miniatures in their lines, a deep ruleset, and friendly competition.
So I will keep up with my gaming group. Test the rules. Play. Have fun with folks. That is the intent.
I'll make sure that my original post is as close to the final as possible now that I know you're watching for edits.
You and I have never had much issue with one another, warboss. Or at least I have done my best not to feel that way when you comment. You are not only senior to me in age, but also in dedication to the game. You have also not chosen to remain in either camp of thought, but make your own way.
Counts as is an inelegant stop gap measure most useful for trying out new builds for veteran players and trying to get a feel for the game for new players... it is NOT a replacement for well thought out and planned game design nor is it something to be lauded. In my limited experience with DP9 (congruent with what I've heard from those with more), the lack of backward compatibility for the MP Hunter that Smilodon mentioned is most likely due to Dave simply not bothering to check what the current loadouts have. We've seen those types of easily avoidable mistakes in this beta in the army making section (arbitrary changes that don't factor in players' collections) before and it illustrates a distinct lack of a system of making changes that deviate from the current loadouts. Likely Dave just copy pasted something from one to the next and didn't change the LRP; the same thing happened several times with the haphazard Northern PDF edits where things moved or got trimmed without any attention paid to the detail. Things got or lost weapons and/or features because what was copy/pasted next to them was that way... not because it was supposed to be that way.
You are probably correct on all of that. I will keep my eyes open in the next iteration. If I can observe a mistake, I will e-mail Dave and offer a suggestion to correct it.
As for the tourny comments, I'm not sure if you meant to but it comes off as a bit condescending. Casual players like yourself are no better than tourney players; you're both interested in having fun but just have mildly different ways of getting to it. You want to play peanut M&Ms as trooper gears and reeses pieces as gear striders? Go for it as long as your opponent feels that way. You want to play only with the latest sculpts on the latest bases with 100% wysiwig loadouts? Power to you and your opponent if they're agreeable. The lack of a HG tourny scene is only indicative of a lack of players and the ambiguity of the rules. If you can't get more than two people to play HG at the advertised championship at gencon where there are tens of thousands of gamers within 1 square mile, there is an underlying issue that needs to be addressed and it's not the attitude of the player base that is the problem. I hope you continue to have fun in your games (something I've been unable to achieve because no one wants to play locally) and I'd note that I haven't seen anyone tell you otherwise.
No, I did not mean to come off as condescending, and I apologize.
Honestly, I meant it when I said on Facebook and the Dream Pod 9 forums that the Khurasan mid-level power armor miniatures look like they would fit the bill of FLAILs very readily. Here is that link (and the subsequent thoughts that they should instead count-as PILUM infantry for PRDF, which I wholly support and have not a single issue with):
And in fact, when I said that, I should rectify my previous post and also take it back. I would like a tournament scene to be created. I would like to see Heavy Gear become the rival of 'the Big Three' so to speak. I would like to go to a local tournament for a battle royale.
This newest iteration of the rulesets brought on the comment of 'my kingdom for a stable ruleset' in our last bout, in the link that I provided in my more aggressive post above. I shall provide that link here again (not in condescending, but rather in the hopes that others will not be so turned off by my attitude that they will read for themselves... truly, we had a blast... my Jagers in more ways than one......): http://dp9forum.com/index.php?showtopic=16773
Would I like to append these posts and make them in my general blog? Very much so, but my data usage limits my Internet access, so my mobile phone makes writing out full-blown battle reports rather tedious, so I apologize for redirecting back to the DP9 forums all the time. That is just where the larger portion of my interaction goes.
So, to summarize, I would very much like more players to try out the ruleset. Warphound and I both agree that this 'Christmas present', as DP9 assures us it will be, will provide a much stabler ruleset on which to playtest. (Edit: To clarify this statement because I did not peruse it carefully enough, Warphound and I both agree that we would like this ruleset to be the last major shake-up in the rules before we get down to brass tacks of clarifying what units can do what and what points' costs are reasonable and how the army sub-lists work)
On the point of 'counts as'. I would rather not go so far as to 'count M&Ms and Reese's', delicious as victory sounds for every overkilled unit.
During our gameplay, we counted a Basilisk and Rattlesnake with standard Jager stats. They did their job... which, as it turned out for the Basilisk, was turning into a flaming fireball when a railgun passed in its general direction from my friend's Coyote across the table. FOOMP. The Rattlesnake lasted a little longer, but I discovered that Rattlesnakes get bitten very hard by Jaguars wielding bazookas and Headhunters wielding snub cannons.
Such as it is, my GP Cadre did their job as bullet sponges, and had I decided to go so far as to roll with Command Points, perhaps they might have lasted longer or even done some damage.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AegisFate wrote: Calling yourself a niche market is equivalent to not having an effective plan for growth. Heavy Gear could be on par with the big three (FoW, Warhammer and Warmahordes), but it isn't. The aggressive attitude towards people who have grievances with DP9 from previous interactions is less than professional. Its confrontational and dangerous for future growth, and I'm starting to regret putting 65 dollars into this kickstarter (or not, I'm unsure if my KS payment went through or not due to some issues on my CC company's end).
DP9 has been remarkably restrained here and on their best behavior. If this type of discussion was on their official forums, it would have been deleted LONG LONG ago like the last pages of their FEEDBACK thread for the kickstarter when things turned negative (and with them denying the deletions occurred, lol). I can't comment on what they do on facebook as I don't really do social media. In Brandon's defence, that's about the most aggressively I've ever seen him post. Smilodon's post in the other thread is par for the course and he's been feisty for a while now. It's one of the longest stages of post DP9 employment.
Insofar as Facebook is concerned, I have yet to see comments in that forum be deleted or accusations made of such treatment occurring. The Terra Nova DMZ Group, in addition, is a great community that is holding a Christmas competition for the season and the New Year for painting our miniatures. We currently have 20 folks who are painting (myself included) in secret. There isn't any 'prize', other than having your miniature put up as the poster for the Group for the next month, but I am hopeful that folks will enjoy voting and looking at the miniatures.
And yes, I am an administrator there, as are quite a few others, but we prefer not to take down posts unless they are obvious junk (i.e. spam posts for sunglasses). Even one of the admins advised taking down a questionable post, and when I had a look at it, while I understood that the context was very questionable and could have been provocative, I also know I have seen as much or much, much worse elsewhere. So we do try to keep a good face and respect towards all concerned there.
I admit that if I were to let my aggression out, it would not be a pretty sight. It would not be professional for me, nor would it become me as a man.
warboss wrote: The pod unfortunately doesn't think or prepare as much as they should. The kickstarter shows that (see the discussion above about them apparently being shocked that they didn't get 100% of each dollar pledged from 100% of pledgers as well as polling retailers only after fundraising started to wrap up and changing the premise of the KS in the last few days) and his experience working with them on their blitz era releases does as well.
AegisFate wrote: This unwillingness to support legacy models that were legitimate loadouts or changing the rules so they're no longer an effective choice is also the same as what everyone complains about with GW.
Which of course the Pod keeps not honoring in full, illustrated by multiple "counts as" and no longer WYSIWYG models not in keeping with the goal of easing & speeding gameplay along with previously core or common models and variants no longer able to be used by existing players.
Dave 09 December 2013 - 01:08 PM wrote:One of our core goals with the new edition will be to retain all current army builds and options wherever possible, even expanding options. Again, more details will be coming once we have them locked down. If your squad could have a certain model yesterday then it will in the future too, have no worries about that. (Emphasis his own.)
Dave 10 December 2013 - 08:32 AM wrote:There will be significant differences, yes. What will not change will be squad availability. If a gear was available to a squad type (if say a Hunter can go in GP, Fire Support, Dragoon or Strike squad) then they will still be in that squad type.
If DP9 truly wants to break with everything towards a new direction they should outright say so and finally make the effort necessary to do that coherently, not keep limping along towards yet another exception riddled amalgamation of previous material while glad-handing the remnants of their playerbase.
Whether or not, and how, that might affect the current semi-stalled KS or any future campaign(s), /shrug.
warboss wrote: We've seen those types of easily avoidable mistakes in this beta in the army making section (arbitrary changes that don't factor in players' collections) before and it illustrates a distinct lack of a system of making changes that deviate from the current loadouts.
Just on that one preview page so many things have been kept unchanged from the Alpha material released back at the end of January, despite numerous folks pointing out problems and errors, that they seem now entirely intentional and irrevocable changes. And as per usual, to save page count in an electronic format publication no room has been left for additions or alterations in the future along with needless, and probably overwhelming, repetition of identical statistics when the exact opposite approach was suggested.
AegisFate wrote: The new starter is a good idea to gather new players, but player retention is a lot more pressing issue, and so far, I've seen no indication that DP9 wants to do that, even within the beta.
warboss wrote: The lack of a HG tourny scene is only indicative of a lack of players and the ambiguity of the rules. If you can't get more than two people to play HG at the advertised championship at gencon where there are tens of thousands of gamers within 1 square mile, there is an underlying issue that needs to be addressed and it's not the attitude of the player base that is the problem.
Almost eight thousand registered members on the official forum, and just over one thousand backers for the KS campaign, yet after talk about the Alpha died down this past Spring the community as a whole is lucky if a few dozen folks are talking and/or arguing about HG somewhere on the web. Let alone trying to get someone else to play a game, where most of those intrepid folks have had to provide both miniature forces themselves each time they make an attempt.
When that is the natural state of the game for close to a decade, factoring in what all of the models and bookscost, legacy can start mattering quite a bit - especially when things are continually cast aside within only a year or two. But somehow the lack of a player-base is always laid at the feet of a contradistinguished few who pointed out if not fought those failings, and not ever because the actions of the company itself drives folks away time and again.
Transformers Universe, an online game and low-budget clone of League of Legends, folded this week while still in beta. While the majority of fans understood that the writing had been on the wall almost since day one, a small group were quick to point out that the game folding was the fault of people not buying it.
A game which had not even launched yet.
Failed because people weren't paying enough money.
Sometimes, we can love something so much, or hope so strongly on its behalf, that we don't always look at the problems with that thing. There's a proverb about that, I think. Something about not seeing the pack of wolves for the forest.
For people that don't know better, it might look like Smilodon has a chip on his shoulder the side of a small moon, and really, he kinda does.
He's also experienced, knowledgeable, factual, and fully justified in his hostility, yet he doesn't fall back on passive-agressive intimidation and fact dismissal when confronted with contradiction.
When this thread started, some of us warned that DP9 had a shady history, and wasn't to be trusted. We were told to stop airing past grievances and let DP9 afford the opportunity for a "new start" (Yet another one, I might add, but I digress). We did.
I'm not going to say "we told ya so" yet, since there's still plenty of time for this project to fail, or succeed, however with each "incident" and "miscommunication", it's increasingly clear that DP9 is still its old self. Not the glorious old DP9 of the mid-90s, mind you, the one that think releasing things like Arena is quite ok...
I am not a staff member of the company.
Hudson, mrondeau, and Smilodon all playtested at one point.
No, you're not. You're also working, by your own admission, for Arkrite, an off-shot of DP9 created and managed by former DP9 staff members, that's intent on releasing official HG material.
We didn't just "playtest at one point", Smilodon and I were staff members that wrote actual material for the company. I am rather offended you chose to occult that fact while describing us.
HudsonD wrote: For people that don't know better, it might look like Smilodon has a chip on his shoulder the side of a small moon, and really, he kinda does.
He's also experienced, knowledgeable, factual, and fully justified in his hostility, yet he doesn't fall back on passive-agressive intimidation and fact dismissal when confronted with contradiction.
When this thread started, some of us warned that DP9 had a shady history, and wasn't to be trusted. We were told to stop airing past grievances and let DP9 afford the opportunity for a "new start" (Yet another one, I might add, but I digress). We did.
I'm not going to say "we told ya so" yet, since there's still plenty of time for this project to fail, or succeed, however with each "incident" and "miscommunication", it's increasingly clear that DP9 is still its old self. Not the glorious old DP9 of the mid-90s, mind you, the one that think releasing things like Arena is quite ok...
I am not a staff member of the company.
Hudson, mrondeau, and Smilodon all playtested at one point.
No, you're not. You're also working, by your own admission, for Arkrite, an off-shot of DP9 created and managed by former DP9 staff members, that's intent on releasing official HG material.
We didn't just "playtest at one point", Smilodon and I were staff members that wrote actual material for the company. I am rather offended you chose to occult that fact while describing us.
You were not staff. You were a freelance editor. Get that fact straight.
And I freelanced for Arkrite.
However, Arkrite is not 'an offshoot'. Arkrite focuses on the roleplaying game.
None of us were staff members. We signed NDAs.
Then we got paid for the small jobs we were asked to do. Simple.
Edit: And for the record, this isn't the 'why you don't' thread, Hudson. This is the Kickstarter thread.
Smilodon worked on the Hammers of Faith.
The Kickstarter is moving with the 5th edition rules, and having played with the basic rules, I enjoy them thoroughly. The fact that they need to open a second crowdfunding effort to retain the $3,000 is not so huge a deal that you can simply write them off as being shady. It also offers the opportunity for other folks to join in, get the full Starter set, and also perhaps even unlock the rest of the miniatures as promised during the initial 30 day period.
1st edition RPG, 2nd edition RPG, Tactical, Silhouette Core Minis rules, Blitz, L&L, FM, Alpha/Beta/KS/Living edition. That's eight editions by my count and I'm not sure how if the 3rd edition RPG fits in there as well or if they had split off the minis game rules from it (unlike 1st and 2nd ed) and I'm also counting the alpha, beta, "living" KS rules as a single entity even though they're not and will span the usual 2 year lifecycle DP9 gives rules before they invalidate your purchase.
I know all the past rules iterations. But I also know that alot of them were intended to be cross or reverse compatible within the RPG. The Silhouette CORE rules were supposed to span the entire RPG lines.
I am also aware of the issues with Blitz concerning your Southern Republican Army, warboss, but the most recent army-building system validates your combat groups from prior to Forged in Fire, yes? And Dave specifically mentioned that while he doesn't know all the particulars from past editions, he has laid out the plan for the rulebook to be made as a free edition, with the 'deluxe' edition including more of the setting background.
I was just correcting calling it a "5th" edition when they've replaced books/editions much more often than that. The inability of players to get more than a year or two of use out of their paid for rules has been a particularly constant and thorny issue so I felt it would be better to clarify it and not drop the count by almost half.
As for my southern army, you know about as much of how much of it made it through as I do. I picked my smallest force (my just finished NuCoal army) that was completely generic with no subfaction models to test out the new open army construction rules and I couldn't use half of it. I didn't bother trying out either of my Polar forces after that. In all fairness, Dave did correct the mistake of locking previously widely available models behind a single subfaction wall so (at least as of the September update) I can use my figs again. I haven't open the rules files much since though and probably won't until the next update comes out. At that point, I'll reassess the damage.
warboss wrote: I was just correcting calling it a "5th" edition when they've replaced books/editions much more often than that. The inability of players to get more than a year or two of use out of their paid for rules has been a particularly constant and thorny issue so I felt it would be better to clarify it and not drop the count by almost half.
Fair assessment. And I don't disagree that the rules editions need to end.
As for my southern army, you know about as much of how much of it made it through as I do. I picked my smallest force (my just finished NuCoal army) that was completely generic with no subfaction models to test out the new open army construction rules and I couldn't use half of it. I didn't bother trying out either of my Polar forces after that. In all fairness, Dave did correct the mistake of locking previously widely available models behind a single subfaction wall so (at least as of the September update) I can use my figs again. I haven't open the rules files much since though and probably won't until the next update comes out. At that point, I'll reassess the damage.
The September update kept a very wide number of both Northern and Southern models open for 4-action squads.
So long as this next update maintains that, most of your models are free to be swapped in and out for whatever force you wish to create.
From what he has been showing, Dave plans to change the Hull and Structure Points of the different models in an effort to change their 'resilience' to being Crippled.
The other is the major rules snags that have been voiced by others.
BrandonKF wrote: I am also aware of the issues with Blitz concerning your Southern Republican Army, warboss, but the most recent army-building system validates your combat groups from prior to Forged in Fire, yes?
I guess you could say that, in my case. Of course, problem is that he's done it by transforming half my Gears into Jägers, which doesn't really amuses all that much.
Many of the other half of the units are complete crap in the current beta version, but that might very well change.
BrandonKF wrote: I am also aware of the issues with Blitz concerning your Southern Republican Army, warboss, but the most recent army-building system validates your combat groups from prior to Forged in Fire, yes?
I guess you could say that, in my case. Of course, problem is that he's done it by transforming half my Gears into Jägers, which doesn't really amuses all that much.
Many of the other half of the units are complete crap in the current beta version, but that might very well change.
I would hardly call the change from Rattlesnakes/Basilisks into Jager stats amusing.
My own efforts with them in my most recent game was rather decisive in telling me that standard Jagers/Rattlesnakes/Basilisks are best kept to cover of some form, and against more optimized units of Arrow Jaguars or a Coyote they quickly fall prey to overkill. Though it is not surprising when you're escorting two very large Visigoths and hoping to be the picket line for them. And in truth, both my Caiman and my Rattlesnake (with Jager stats) absorbed the brunt of three or four attacks apiece before succumbing.
JohnHwangDD wrote: For how many kinds of things there are, why shouldn't units be more standardized? I don't see that as a bad thing for a miniatures battle game.
It's not a bad thing, per se. The problem here is the actual implementation. Why Basilisk/Rattlesnakes get transformed into Jägers, but other dozens of Gears don't get transformed into other generic designs, even when their stats are more similar than in the above case? Nobody knows. Doing a standarization for just those two but not anything else in the game, without rhyme or reason is... not good.
Then again standarization, in and of itself, it's not a bad thing, but it it is not a good thing either. It's just a thing.
OK, got it. I had thought someone had decided to get serious about simplifying things broadly across the board, versus arbitrary spot changes.
That's rather disappointing, but it is consistent with the notion that there is very little comprehensive concept behind what needs to be changed in the new edition, aside from this notion that the 1st edition RPG items need to carry through for all eternity in an excess of backward compatibility...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Smilodon_UP wrote: Almost eight thousand registered members on the official forum, and just over one thousand backers for the KS campaign, yet after talk about the Alpha died down this past Spring the community as a whole is lucky if a few dozen folks are talking and/or arguing about HG somewhere on the web.
Where are the other 7,000 forum members, and why didn't they back the KS?
Had DP9 simply captured their existing base, they would have raised $1M in revenue, and the current $3k would be moot. Has anyone asked "why not"?
Albertorius wrote:Most of those are dead accounts, from people long gone.
Which unfortunately pretty much says it all about Heavy Gear: - No matter how many times new product is released or a reboot occurs the IP never seems to reach a subsequent threshold where the community significantly grows with new and/or returning players, or at least maintains its numbers, instead of entering another period of slump.
Were something missing from the setting, presentation, or what have you in the title I do not think people would be so attracted in the first place. But as AegisFate, amongst a whole lot of others including y'all, pointed out here or elsewhere there is and always has been a very extreme situation with player retention as illustrated by the thousands of inactive if not dead accounts just on the official forum alone.
Even under the typical conditions where only 1-5% of members in any web venue are vocal folks there should be a hundred or more active posters on DP9, instead of just the few dozen scattered between five or six currently active sites/groups/conversations across the entire worldwideweb. Given how there isn't those numbers of vocal sorts though, well, that speaks volumes about Heavy Gear & Dream Pod 9.
So yes, I agree completely John, that when better than say 7,500 or so actual non-spambot individuals were interested enough in HG to register on the official forums since it started in like 2004'ish, yet only a handful are left, is a "why" that does need to be competently investigated.
Well we'll see how a new plastic starter set can reignite things.
Add in the Heavy Gear Assault computer game going full beta and the RPG work that Arkrite press is doing and I think we've got it covered for putting a lot of attention back onto Heavy Gear.
It's true that there is not a ton of traffic on the Forum right now, but that is to be expected in a post-kickstarter situation. The number of orders that we are receiving is a far better litmus test for interest right now for our forum.
Cheers!
Dave
Automatically Appended Next Post: And to paraphrase:
"Never doubt that a small and dedicated band of players can change the gaming world, in fact it is the only thing that ever has."
Dave, any comment on the much more important discussion of the last few pages regarding the unprecedented (in my experience following TTG kickstarters) of relocking an unlocked stretch goal despite relatively good pledge conversion rates? Did you and Robert think you were going to get every single dollar from every single pledge? I know you guys are busy chasing the next dollar (Chibi gears) and formatting the next update but some folks who just gave you money have posted some concerns.
DP9Dave wrote: "Never doubt that a small and dedicated band of players can change the gaming world, in fact it is the only thing that ever has."
But is all change, good change. Is all change done in a useful and coherent fashion, respecting both the existing players and published material as well as potential players.
Because when that quote is applied to HG the moral seems to be, "That players can no longer use a model, book, or other product they bought is entirely their own fault for purchasing it in the first place, but everyone please keep supporting the Pod regardless so we can continue our 20 years of gaming excellence."
The massive loss of initially attracted players that continues into the present, as retention and not attention has been the theme more commonly discussed through both threads here on Dakka, is indicative of an environment where the company has little or no reciprocal investment in their playerbase once product has been purchased.
Which I think rather reinforces the previous question(s) asked of you and/or Robert about your KS campaign experiencing either a shortfall or roll-back of funds that removed a previously unlocked goal, where the consensus of quite a few folks is that either case should have been foreseen.
"We wish everyone a Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays. The Dream Pod 9 office will be closed this coming week for Christmas, but we`ll still be checking emails and answering questions.
First a quick update on the Pledge Manager. Total pledges are now at $149,085 CAD with 931 Backers registered and we have sent out another round of invite reminders to the 93 who still need to register. The Fundafull team have also unlock the Pledge Manager to allow new outside backers to join for our additional funding campaign to reach $185K CAD in total pledges and unlock a few more desired stretch goals not reached during the Kickstarter.
Here is the new direct link to setup an account on the War for Terra Nova Pledge Manager, for new backers who missed the Kickstarter campaign. If you already backed the Kickstarter don't use this link, you need to register using the invite email that was sent out to you previously.
Its the Christmas Holiday season again and every year Dream Pod 9 makes an exclusive Xmas mini for our online store. This year during the Christmas Holidays (December 17th, 2014 to the morning of January 5th, 2015) all Dream Pod 9 Online Store orders over $100.00 USD will receive one of the Xmas 2014 Chibi Hunter resin miniatures (unassembled and unpainted) as a Christmas Gift at no charge (limit 1 free gift per customer). We are also offering the Xmas 2014 mini for sale at a cost of $19.99 USD for those that want extra copies. Please do not add your 'free' miniature to your cart. Any Xmas 2014 Chibi Hunters added to your cart will be charged the normal price. Here is a direct link to its ordering if you want to purchase one and have it shipped right away.
Special Note for all our Kickstarter Backers, after the Christmas Holidays are done on January 5th, 2015 we plan to make the Chibi Hunter resin miniature available as an Add-on the in the Pledge Manager for $23 CAD each. So Backers can get it added to their reward package when it ships later in 2015, and it will help raise more pledges to unlock the additional stretch goals.
We have been busy working on first layout of the Heavy Gear Blitz Living Rulebook Beta. We received lots of great feedback and suggestions on the layout from our Facebook and Forum pages. One of which was to try and make it more printer friendly and not have large black stripes with white lettering, which uses a lot of ink or toner. Below are sample of the North Forces and North Models List. The North Forces has a light blue North tab on the side of the page to find sections fast when flipping through a printout. We used the blue faction color with just a 20% tint to save ink or toner on the printout. The North Models List shows all the different faction tabs, but normally only the color tab for the faction would be on the page. Plus we added the text "Living Rulebook Beta Ver. 1.0" small under the Heavy Gear Blitz Logo, so players will always know on each page which version of the rules they are looking at. We still have a lot of work to do on the ebook layout and hope to get it finished up during the Christmas Holidays and released before the end of the year."
JohnHwangDD wrote: Maybe it has something to do with the Chibi Hunter being really ugly?
Plus the waste of time and resources its design, marketing, and promotion represents. I get that it's nice to have a... a.... a whatever, for Christmas, but there's bigger fish to fry right now. Throwing in an extra Gear of your choice with every order, or something, would've been a better Christmas gift than something new. Or just $20 off, since the chibi is apparently worth that.
But! Layout improvements! That's been a problem for a while now, and it's good to see steps being taken to address it.
I started playing Heavy Gear quite some time ago and stopped many months before Forged in Fire came out. I bought FiF, felt kind of lukewarm about it and never ended up playing a game with it. I watched this kickstarter but with no concrete answer of what material they were planning on using, with no actual models to show my what I'd be buying and with some renders that were laughably bad, I couldn't even begin to consider putting even a dollar in.
Henshini wrote: I started playing Heavy Gear quite some time ago and stopped many months before Forged in Fire came out. I bought FiF, felt kind of lukewarm about it and never ended up playing a game with it. I watched this kickstarter but with no concrete answer of what material they were planning on using, with no actual models to show my what I'd be buying and with some renders that were laughably bad, I couldn't even begin to consider putting even a dollar in.
Given that they've already reneged on unlocked stretch goals, I think you made the right move.
Henshini wrote: I watched this kickstarter but with no concrete answer of what material they were planning on using, with no actual models to show my what I'd be buying and with some renders that were laughably bad, I couldn't even begin to consider putting even a dollar in.
Putting down an option marker for the models is worth less than a dollar. Fortunately, Canadian dollars are worth less than real dollars, so it's fair.
The inexperience that is being revealed demonstrates that it would have been foolish for putting in more than that.
If the stars line up, and it looks like DP9 will actually have product to deliver, then I'd consider to buy the minis.
Of course, the game itself still looks terrible, but it's not like the game can't be adapted to a 40k3 engine for smooth play.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Maybe it has something to do with the Chibi Hunter being really ugly?
Plus the waste of time and resources its design, marketing, and promotion represents. I get that it's nice to have a... a.... a whatever, for Christmas, but there's bigger fish to fry right now. Throwing in an extra Gear of your choice with every order, or something, would've been a better Christmas gift than something new. Or just $20 off, since the chibi is apparently worth that.
But! Layout improvements! That's been a problem for a while now, and it's good to see steps being taken to address it.
Glad you like the layout and the printer friendly improvements. The Chibi didn't take any resources away from the Kickstarter since it was sculpted by Phil and he does stuff with plasticard and green stuff, not digitally. If you don't like it that's fine, the general response is that it is cute as heck and a fun change from yet another mod sculpt. Though I am seriously thinking of modding a Mammoth to match.
Henshini wrote: I started playing Heavy Gear quite some time ago and stopped many months before Forged in Fire came out. I bought FiF, felt kind of lukewarm about it and never ended up playing a game with it. I watched this kickstarter but with no concrete answer of what material they were planning on using, with no actual models to show my what I'd be buying and with some renders that were laughably bad, I couldn't even begin to consider putting even a dollar in.
Given that they've already reneged on unlocked stretch goals, I think you made the right move.
I think you have to check terms of service. Stretch goals are unlocked by pledges, but actual pledge levels reached are only determined after all the backers are contacted. There are always a few kickstarter trolls who pledge out of maliciousness and then renege on their pledge by blocking their payment, it just happens. We had less than 2% of our funding affected by this which is quite low, but significant. Regardless the people who have jumped in through the pledge manager should be covering more than the shortfall though I haven't seen the numbers in a week, due to vacation. We've already announced where the extended pledging period leads, hopefully to three more stretch goals (Kodiak, Ammon, Weapons sprue). The King Cobra was at risk only after the initial call out, now it's almost certainly a lock. I'll confirm that for you as soon as I can.
Certainly we've been listening to the comments on the sculpt quality and have sent some back to be reworked with a few more details. The tolerances of the mold mean that things like the crash bars on chins and such are only a millimeter thick, not too near the minimum allowed but getting on the thin side for issues like cracking or breaking parts. You also have to ask yourself about how busy the designs have to be. A model from infinity will have layers and layers of texture and detail. Frankly I find them maddening to paint since there's no space for decals or freehand work, it's all just basecoat/ink/highlights everywhere.
I think you have to check terms of service. Stretch goals are unlocked by pledges, but actual pledge levels reached are only determined after all the backers are contacted. There are always a few kickstarter trolls who pledge out of maliciousness and then renege on their pledge by blocking their payment, it just happens. We had less than 2% of our funding affected by this which is quite low, but significant.
Sorry, Dave, but that is trying to have your cake and eat it too. If the amount was actually lower than you knew about and expected, you SHOULD have planned for it in the funding buffer and it shouldn't have been significant enough to go back on your word about the last stretch goal at the expense of backers. If the amount was more than standard/expected, the situation would be different. What happens when your manufacturer increases costs a small amount in 2015? Will you roll the King Cobra back again due to that forseen but unaccounted for cost? Also, if 2% of your pledges didn't go through, I don't think it is fair to call folks "trolls" as that is 1 in 50 credit cards in effect... incorrectly entered numbers, spending limits reached during the intervening weeks during the holiday shopping season, or unexpected complications like not specifically enabling international purchases on your card are benign normal reasons for the miniscule amount of roughly 1 in 50 pledges not going through. You don't have to instantly resort to the paranoid idea that "malicious trolls" are out to get you and your little dog too.
After 12 months I would expect most of the folks here to have had their cake and eat it at least once.
Folks can also decide not to resort to instant 'Oh, they didn't plan this out and they are cheating us!', when half said posters didn't even chip in a full hundred dollars (less than American or not) into the plate.
For those who are so reserved, I say go ahead and keep your reservations and let Dream Pod 9 make their updates, but don't expect instant response on this forum as a result. If you would like to make your input directly, feel free to get on the DP9 forums in the KS forum and ask a few questions.
Any time you have to refer to technicalities in the terms of service or other fine print, things have already left a state of honest straightforward dealing.
November 22: "We passed $150K in Pledges and stretch goal 18 has been unlocked, we'll be adding 1 Southern King Cobra to the Core Starter Set."
Or you won't add one. Even though you said you would. Because of a technicality in the terms of service.
And you want to stay classy by putting in a little quote for yourself, frozenwastes?
I believe Dave explained that others could join in on the Kickstarter and not only add to the goal of the King Cobra, but also unlock the other three primary assets that were offered in the first 30-day run for those who wanted to get the miniatures.
Yet that particular part of the quote you seem to have conveniently forgotten.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Actually, I won't even demean your intelligence by saying you have forgotten. You read it. You didn't acknowledge this part because it does not suit your views. So be it.
As much as it might be in any TOS, it looks bad to say one thing over the KS and another thing after, and remember that promises made during the KS period are a binding contract.
It would have been a lot smarter to just maintain the next stretch goal levels on the post-KS pledging plattform but adding 3k to the first.
BrandonKF wrote: Folks can also decide not to resort to instant 'Oh, they didn't plan this out and they are cheating us!', when half said posters didn't even chip in a full hundred dollars (less than American or not) into the plate.
Last I checked, there was no $100 minimum buy in to call a spade a spade. The fact is that they took the unprecedented (in my KS tabletop watching experience) step of reneging on a stretch goal after being blessed with what they admit is a better than average/expected pledge conversion rate. There were better and fair alternatives that would have avoided this but they chose as usual to take worst road to the $3,000. That type of move is inline with the very unfriendly moves the company has taken with regards to their fanbase for decades and exactly the type of thing they were supposed to be not doing with the "new leaf" that this kickstarter was supposed to represent. In the end, what matters is if the pledgers get their contractually agreed upon models regardless of what self serving roadblocks and hurdles DP9 unilaterally decides to throw up in the meantime. If they deliver, they've met their legal obligations. How they get there will just determine what percentage of backers they keep as customers.
For those who are so reserved, I say go ahead and keep your reservations and let Dream Pod 9 make their updates, but don't expect instant response on this forum as a result. If you would like to make your input directly, feel free to get on the DP9 forums in the KS forum and ask a few questions.
And if Dave doesn't like your input then he'll just prune the thread and lock it like he did with the Kickstarter Feedback thread.
BrandonKF wrote:Yet that particular part of the quote you seem to have conveniently forgotten.
No, I left it out because it was off topic. The part of the 22nd update I quoted was where they specifically said the item was unlocked and will. be. included. You know, the relevant part.
Actually, I won't even demean your intelligence by saying you have forgotten. You read it. You didn't acknowledge this part because it does not suit your views. So be it.
My views are that when you say you do something and then point at fine print in a terms of service agreement to excuse not doing it, you have demonstrated a lack of integrity. I really can't see how any of the text of the November 22nd update that I left out could possibly make that okay.
Folks can also decide not to resort to instant 'Oh, they didn't plan this out and they are cheating us!', when half said posters didn't even chip in a full hundred dollars (less than American or not) into the plate.
Into the plate? DP9 is not a church passing a collection plate (at least they're not my church, maybe they are yours?). They are not a charity. They are not even a local community group. They are a for profit business.
When people point out issues, you claim they have an agenda and look for ways you can accuse them of intellectual dishonesty or lump them into a group of haters or something. It's a very us-vs-them mentality. The real thing you (and more importantly DP9) should be asking is why there are so many ex-customers/supporters of DP9 at all?
No, I left it out because it was off topic. The part of the 22nd update I quoted was where they specifically said the item was unlocked and will. be. included. You know, the relevant part.
No. The relevant part was the entire thing, which you conveniently ignore.
Into the plate? DP9 is not a church passing a collection plate (at least they're not my church, maybe they are yours?). They are not a charity. They are not even a local community group. They are a for profit business.
When people point out issues, you claim they have an agenda and look for ways you can accuse them of intellectual dishonesty or lump them into a group of haters or something. It's a very us-vs-them mentality. The real thing you (and more importantly DP9) should be asking is why there are so many ex-customers/supporters of DP9 at all?
The 'real thing' you bring up has been discussed. It has been argued. It has been dredged up and gone over more times than is feasible within the context of the 'why you don't' thread.
Since then, Dream Pod 9 has now begun opening up dialogue with folks concerning the Kickstarter, and they have been addressing the issues.
After the direction that this discussion took, I opened a poll on the Terra Nova DMZ Facebook Group.
During the course of the discussion, several of the members pointed out that yes, it would be 'shady' of Dream Pod 9 to renege on the purchases, especially for those who had specifically put in money for additional King Cobras. I can understand that concern. Others expressed that while it was not shady, it was very disappointing. Again, I agree.
Over the course of the discussion, however, it was pointed out that Dream Pod 9 has been very honest, and was willing to take a hit by admitting upfront that the original pledge level had been reached. Many agreed that it was disappointing. Those who were worried about where their money would go offered several alternative means of gaining additional miniatures.
Then Mr. Dubois interjected with the following post:
"Here is a quick update on where the funding stands right now with the Pledge Manager we are at $149,656 CAD just $344 short of the $150K. We have not removed the King Cobra from the Core Starter KIt or from the Pledge Manager as an add-on available, and we have no intention of doing that. In fact we opened up the Pledge Manager to new backers, so we can try to get a few more stretch goals that were not unlocked during the Kickstarter campaign. We'll be making a big push after the holidays when we are back in the office to get more Backers.
As it stands right now we just need 3 new Backers at $115 each to hit $150K. Just 87 more backers after that at $115 each will unlock the Kodiak at $160K and add one to the Core Starter Set. And another 87 gets the Ammon unlocked at $170K and one added to the Core Starter Set.
After that is the final additional goal at $185K or 131 new backers at $115 to unlock the Extra Weapons and Parts Sprue which would then be available to all Backers as a $10 Add-on reward if they want to get it. So we need a grand total of 308 new backers at $115 each to make this happen without existing Backers pledging more. We think that will be easily to accomplished over the next 2 months, with a little help from all the Backer in getting the word out, the Core Starter Set is a pretty amazing deal. Hope you all had a Merry Christmas and have a Happy New Year. Robert Dubois (President Dream Pod 9)"
One of the Backers asked: "What I'm not sure of is: How do we get updates on the pledge total now that it's all being done in the pledge manager and not KS?"
Mr. Dubois' response: "The pledge manager was not designed to run a funding campaign, so we are going to have to things manually for now, we have a dashboard when we login that shows the total pledges and another number that shows how much is set aside for shipping on US and Canadian Backers so far. We then manually subtract the shipping number from the total pledges to get the real total pledge number. I have asked our webmaster to get the pledge total added to our website when we are back from the holidays and we'll need to manually update it each night for now."
So, to summarize:
1. King Cobra is not being taken away from Pledge Goals.
2. Current funding number: $149,656 CAD 3. Additional miniatures are available if folks decide to go to the Fundafull link and add their own Core Starter Sets. An additional 330 members
4. The additional funding period extends out for the next 2 months.
5. The total pledge number will be manually updated by Dream Pod 9, along with the amount of money that is to be set aside for shipping.
1. King Cobra is not being taken away from Pledge Goals.
2. Current funding number: $149,656 CAD
Good to hear that they've reversed that decision (albeit after they've seen that they didn't need to do it in the first place as the funding has reached 75% of the shortfall that they should have planned for in the first place). I just hope they don't try to reinsert that foot yet again into any of their own front side or pledgers' backsides.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Maybe it has something to do with the Chibi Hunter being really ugly?
Plus the waste of time and resources its design, marketing, and promotion represents. I get that it's nice to have a... a.... a whatever, for Christmas, but there's bigger fish to fry right now. Throwing in an extra Gear of your choice with every order, or something, would've been a better Christmas gift than something new. Or just $20 off, since the chibi is apparently worth that.
But! Layout improvements! That's been a problem for a while now, and it's good to see steps being taken to address it.
Glad you like the layout and the printer friendly improvements. The Chibi didn't take any resources away from the Kickstarter since it was sculpted by Phil and he does stuff with plasticard and green stuff, not digitally. If you don't like it that's fine, the general response is that it is cute as heck and a fun change from yet another mod sculpt. Though I am seriously thinking of modding a Mammoth to match.
Henshini wrote: I started playing Heavy Gear quite some time ago and stopped many months before Forged in Fire came out. I bought FiF, felt kind of lukewarm about it and never ended up playing a game with it. I watched this kickstarter but with no concrete answer of what material they were planning on using, with no actual models to show my what I'd be buying and with some renders that were laughably bad, I couldn't even begin to consider putting even a dollar in.
Given that they've already reneged on unlocked stretch goals, I think you made the right move.
I think you have to check terms of service.
Cheers!
Dave
First, The happy weed you're smokin' is some good reality-altering stuff. OTOH, I guess if you only sit in an echo chamber of fanboys and white knights, I suppose the world can look like it's always roses.
Second, thanks for confirming DP9 actually did renege on the King Cobra sculpt. It's good to know for a fact that DP9 is as shameless as its worst detractors imagine. When you figure out what your actual offer is going to be, please let us all know. In the mean time, I'm holding at 1 CAD, not a penny more.
Just was reading the comments, there are a few on Dakka that don't like us and there is not much we can do about it.
I finally took a look at Brandon's facebook group and found this part of Robert Dubois' post that he (smartly) edited out from his update above. Since Robert is actually reading this thread, I've got a tip for you. There is something you can do about the negativity and it starts with rebuilding the trust that your company has thrown away repeatedly over the past two decades. The first step would be to NOT break your word when YOU don't plan projects with due diligence. You, as head of DP9, should have built in a buffer into the pledge amount to account for the entirely predictable small percentage of pledges that don't go through. You've been running the business as head of the company for over a decade now IIRC... when people order on the website, does EVERY SINGLE credit card purchase go through? No, it likely doesn't. Rolling back a stretch goal because you experienced a LOWER than expected pledge drop rate is like a FLGS taking out something of value from every preorder customer who paid at the store because someone else shoplifted to make up the shortfall. If you're running the business, you are expected to know what your own risks are and to plan appropriately for them, not to pass the buck to the people who went out on a limb to give you money almost a year (assuming you're not delayed like most every other KS) upfront.
Robert and Dave, only you two have the power to rebuild the HG and DP9 brands and a good start would be to follow Wheaton's Law.
Just was reading the comments, there are a few on Dakka that don't like us and there is not much we can do about it.
I finally took a look at Brandon's facebook group and found this part of Robert Dubois' post that he (smartly) edited out from his update above. Since Robert is actually reading this thread, I've got a tip for you. There is something you can do about the negativity and it starts with rebuilding the trust that your company has thrown away repeatedly over the past two decades. The first step would be to NOT break your word when YOU don't plan projects with due diligence.
It is interesting that a company would make such a statement, but then, if they insulate themselves with fans, then any questions or criticism will naturally appear hostile. The interesting thing is the attitude of "not much we can do about it".
Many had ignored Dream Pod 9 and Heavy Gear for years until the KS came out. Now, a lot of eyes are on them, and people are talking, asking questions. Some are asking uncomfortable and challenging questions. But as I see it, a lot of this is self-inflicted. The decision to renege on the King Cobra is an excellent example.
DP9 claims there's not much to be done, but that's because they choose not to change. They hope to reap substantial rewards of new players and new revenue without substantially changing business practices. Which raises the question of why KS at all?
Still, if one believes there is no future, then one will invariably be proven right.
The King Cobra is not cancelled, but it was a question for a while when we were several thousand short. That issue seems to have tidied itself up so the King Cobra is on and hopefully we'll see the Kodiak, Ammon and the weapons sprue by the end of January.
Even if you are only going to pledge $1 please make sure you complete the registration with the pledge manager.
<sad trombone>
. Also, according to 
