The current rules are the Living Rulebook, it is right now in a beta stage, and is being rewritten for clarity.
There is a draft in a .doc document that have the better written rules, downloadable through the forums. DP9 is in the layout process to make these rules available when the kickstarter NuCoal and Peace River plastic minis are released.
I would advise you to forget about the current Living Rulebook and go straight to the .doc draft, because it is easier to understand, even without any diagram, and many of the more complex rules are different (specially EWar), also the models and weapons have better game balance (probably).
Do I still need calculus to figure out if I hit someone or not? Never seen more complex rules for a game before, and that's coming from someone that played a ton of Star Fleet Battles and Full Thrust.
I never though Heavy Gear was a complicated system, you always just had to roll in an odd way (take highest and add +1 for each 6n now for each die that's higher than skill) and compare with the target for a margin of success).
So it is not less complex, no less calculus than before. Maybe a little less calculus because you don't multiply the margin of success now, you just add it to damage and subtract armor.
Pointman wrote: What you think of the new version of the rules?
I only skimmed the rules, but the choice to introduce Skill modifiers I found to be odd. I get why doing so is desirable, but its exacerbating roll complexity rather than reducing it, IMO. I would have hoped they would hav removed the unopposed rolls being different than opposed checks (which I hated even when I designed it) and kept only +/- D6s rather than +/- D6s and augment ratings. Even a -1 augment will have a large shift in outcome, but you only really have 5 augments to work with [ 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ] and 6 is basically worthless, leaving you 4 'real' values. The system gives very similar outcomes when there are very similar dice pool / values, which IMO means that allowing too much variation will make it very difficult to match outcomes to design expectations.
Most of the other changes seem to be fairly conservative (dropping active sensor lock, refining EW to be less useful) instead of bold strokes. Maybe that's the desired outcome, but the rules are still reminiscent of the my draft Dave started working from back in Aug. 2013. I have hoped there would be more change since then, and undoubtably there are good changes that I can't see because of my history, biases, and lack of engagement with the community since that point.
I've moved heavily into modding the BattleTech video game instead of wargames, in large part because of burn out from the MechaAssault/HG design process.
I've moved heavily into modding the BattleTech video game instead of wargames, in large part because of burn out from the MechaAssault/HG design process.
Have you now?
I know we shouldn't talk too much about the other mecha in this particular thread but, are you part of the RogueTech group or are you doing other things?
Firebreak wrote: I know we shouldn't talk too much about the other mecha in this particular thread but, are you part of the RogueTech group or are you doing other things?
Yes, I am part of the Rogue Tech group. Shouldn't be too hard to figure out which are mine if you are familiar with RT.
I should also add that the above post comes off as more criticism then I intended. I wish all of the best to the rooster and hope they are able to make a really fun game.
I think EWar is better now, EWar models have a lot more to do in the game, multiple offensive and defensive options, also the new objectives make the game better.
I think the game is an improve from past versions, as a wargame. I still miss many of the terrain rules, though, movement and detection in particular, also the support options like off board artillery.
In my area we have more people playing and interested in the game than before, but I don't think the rules have much to do with it, more the way they are handling the rules development and the community (meaning I'm more interested in doing demos now ).
The page looks good.
It's nice to see it clean of all the old rules snippets mixed in with the new ones, it was confusing for new players. It is also more informative.
Pointman wrote: I think EWar is better now, EWar models have a lot more to do in the game, multiple offensive and defensive options, also the new objectives make the game better.
Do you mean since the legacy Blitz, or since the Rooster came onboard? I'm not clear if you're referring to the Living Rulebook in general, or specifically since the Rooster has taken over.
I think the latest Rooster rules. During the early living rules the EWar was more interesting than older blitz but needed a lot of work to make them clear.
The current rules, Rooster version, are very clean. I have being playing five turns (a complete game) in about 2 hours weekly while we learn the rules, mid sized games with 10 to 14 models per side. The latest was EWar intensive and still took us less than 2 hours to complete.
I really like this because the Iguana is probably my favorite model and I like the feeling of fielding recon or aggressive recon forces.
I mean... about two hours for a 10 to 14 minis per side is not really that fast? I mean, I play Infinity at that size and on that time, and Infinity is... Infinity.
And also, we take much longer than we could because we don't play that often and we spend a lot of time looking up rules.
Albertorius wrote: I mean... about two hours for a 10 to 14 minis per side is not really that fast? I mean, I play Infinity at that size and on that time, and Infinity is... Infinity.
I'm impressed. It takes me two hours to cross-reference the unit names with what they can do (in Infinity)! But yeah, if that's 3-4 squads it's a reasonable amount of time, and faster than old Blitz perhaps. But I tend to think of 45-75m as being 'fast' anymore, as other games keep pushing the envelope downward.
Thanks for the clarification on the ruleset Pointman. EWar was certainly an expansion that needed gardening to make it flow smoothly, so I'm glad to hear the Rooster has made it better than my original ramshackle version!
Albertorius wrote: I mean... about two hours for a 10 to 14 minis per side is not really that fast? I mean, I play Infinity at that size and on that time, and Infinity is... Infinity.
And also, we take much longer than we could because we don't play that often and we spend a lot of time looking up rules.
For me any serious wargame at 2 hours or less is fast. Infinity is quite fast when you know your army and your list, also about 2 hours a complete 3 turns game.
Albertorius wrote: I mean... about two hours for a 10 to 14 minis per side is not really that fast? I mean, I play Infinity at that size and on that time, and Infinity is... Infinity.
And also, we take much longer than we could because we don't play that often and we spend a lot of time looking up rules.
For me any serious wargame at 2 hours or less is fast. Infinity is quite fast when you know your army and your list, also about 2 hours a complete 3 turns game.
It really depends. I'd consider Bolt Action a serious wargame myself, for example, and the game you can play in two hours is quite a big one. The size of the forces you're stating fits more with skirmish games, which mostly (with the glaring exception ther being the aforementioned Infinity), tend to be quite a bit faster.
Serious, complex games take long. Number of models just make them more detailed (complex skirmishes) or more broad strokes rules (lots of models). I remember playing other skirmish games like Malifaux and 40k kill team taking about 2 to 3 hours.
For me a complex (and interesting) game will take a while (about 2 hours is a fast game for me). A 2 hours game is something you can play a three round tourney in a single evening, or play 2 or three games for fun. Or just arrive at the store at 8:00pm and finish before closing. All this with no hurry, just playing and talking, taking things calmly.
That is the current Heavy Gear so far in my experience, and it is a 5 turn game, not 3 turns like in infinity.
Playing Infinity scenarios you might go for three turns, but casual games are usually not so, and are played until one side is destroyed.
IME, most games tend to be the second kind, and are the ones I've usually played. Those could easily go from 2 to 10 rounds. Any mention made above was with that in mind.
Now, if you're talking scenario play and ITS, then those usually have a hard time limit of an hour and a half, and those are three turns games most of the time.
Heavy Gear Assault –Heavy Gear Assault was first published by Dream Pod 9 (“DP9”), a Montreal-based games publisher, in 1994.On August 1, 2012, Stompy Bot Productions Limited licensed the Heavy Gear video game from Dream Pod 9.Heavy Gear Assault is a fast paced first person simulator where the player controls war machines called Gears via their in-game pilot characters.Heavy Gear Assault was launched on Steam, a digital distribution platform, on February 10, 2017.Revenue for the fiscal year-ended 2017 and year-ended 2018 since the release of Heavy Gear Assault were $15,500 and $1,403, respectively. The Company recently received notice that the license with DP9 has been terminated. Management believes that there is a potential to monetize the current asset in the future through a re-license sale and/or royalty transaction.
They're supposed to be paying yearly for the license according to the other posted documents but HG only made them $1,400 approximately in calendar 2018 so maybe they didn't pay for next year's royalty. That's just speculation on my part as I don't have the financial background to read through and pick out the pertinent parts of the half dozen documents but regardless it's good news for fans of the IP. Gamers who bought the game were screwed regardless as they haven't been able to log in supposedly for over a year anyways (some since 2017) so nothing changes for them. Feel free to share the news on facebook and the official forums as I don't post in either. Here's a link to the source document on their (late) Canadian stock exchange filing.
Wow... Six of the ten initially available $5k pledge levels are already claimed. I always preferred HG to BT back in the day but I'm happy for the fans/backers and hope it goes significantly better than Robotech Tactics did. Just in case, here is the link.
It seems like a big difference between boardgamers and wargamers is that the wargamers are willing to play games that have so few turns and take more than an hour.
Nurglitch wrote: It seems like a big difference between boardgamers and wargamers is that the wargamers are willing to play games that have so few turns and take more than an hour.
Funny, then, that Europa Universalis is supposed to be a boardgame, given that each turn takes a full afternoon...
The game have the unseen!, I'm going in just to get a pack of those.
I'm a fan of old battletech, but I didn't like the after harmony gold problem designs, the new ones are much better, but still don't like the clans and all the new tech, I like the almost post apocalyptic feel of 3025 more.
I'm GMing Operation Jungle Drums and I'm curious if you used to play the combat parts as tactical scenarios with hexmaps or you preferred to keep things "simple" and just abstract the combat.
If you preferred the abstract way is there a reason (tactical rules made the game too boardgamey, is deadlier, is slower, etc.) or just because it keeps things simple and make for more role and less roll?
It's been over 25 years but IIRC when I played it prior to release at Gencon unknowingly as a playtest I think we did the combat as a tactical scenario. I haven't played it since though and don't personally have a strong preference. If forced to choose, I'd probably go with slightly abstracted and not use the actual maps/minis due to the complexity.
I'm GMing Operation Jungle Drums and I'm curious if you used to play the combat parts as tactical scenarios with hexmaps or you preferred to keep things "simple" and just abstract the combat.
If you preferred the abstract way is there a reason (tactical rules made the game too boardgamey, is deadlier, is slower, etc.) or just because it keeps things simple and make for more role and less roll?
Every time I've played it I've used the general RPG rules with maybe drawn ad hoc maps and general positioning. The main reason is that players tend to go out of the rails and do their thing, so GMing it that way gives me more options. It's also usually faster, and isn't as harmful for the less tactically minded players.
I got lots of input from the facebook group, thanks anyway, as your opinion agree with mostly of it; use the cardboard figures and maps as an aid at most and play everything more narrative and action focused.
Arise! Not sure if there is technonecromancy somewhere in the HG backstory but I figured I'd bump this thread with some very minor news. After several unsuccessful attempts a few years ago, I decided to try and extract the 3d files from the defunct HGA game in order to salvage the one or two gear designs that didn't suck... and this time it worked! I think it's both utterly hilarious and telling that Mektek/Stompy Bot/Blocplay/Whatever their name is now prioritized a detailed double fingered salute animation (and gangnam dances, butt slapping, and suck it animations) over less important things like cool weapon carrying poses. The ones I found in game make the initial attempt at plastic minis look positively dynamic.
In other news, the Utopia/Peace River KS rewards are supposed to start shipping mid February.
Yeah, it's eye opening but not surprising. The gangnam style dance has iirc 160 frames of animation (and all other goofy taunts have 100+) whereas the weapon holding/firing animations have two frames... Their prioritizing e-sports loot box style aspects over piddly things like actual gameplay is pretty evident. I've gotten a single pose that resembles the classic assault hunter worth using out of all of it so far that doesn't look as stiff as a 12 hour old corpse.
Any word on them redoing the polar forces from the original box? I know it's unlikely but that's probably when I'd be interested enough to look again.
For the more knowledgeable, how are ramming plates supposed to look in game? I've been trying to jig up a hunter xmg and the only model reference is unfortunately the Arena model which would be like using a monster truck as a reference for a stock dealer pickup truck. Is the studded shoulder pad supposed to represent that? It's a bit post apocalyptic/necromunda for my tastes.
They could bankroll it themselves. feth, I could bankroll it, nowadays.
Well, if you did, might I suggest a return to HO scale or 15mm? Or a nice 28mm Heavy Gear game?
To be completely honest, if I were to do that, I'd do it for something else. DP9 made it pretty clear that they did neither need nor want me as a customer, back in the day.
For example, nowadays Lancer has picked my fancy. I'd much rather fund 3d files for that line of mechs, at this moment.
Edit : Waitaminute, are you telling me those were taken from the actual game files ?!
Making a Frenchman blush? Is that possible!? The spanking gear is ripped from the game but the Mad Cat is from thingiverse and tweaked to fit. No promises but I think a hunter riding a t-rex mech gangnam style is my next project.I
Edit: If anyone is against me posting this kind of jokey HG related stuff, lmk either in thread or by pm. I understand it's not really minis game related until someone prints it out but I figured the thread was dead and therefore I wasn't derailing any real conversation on the topic.
Silliness aside, it shows where the HGA team were investing their efforts, funny emotes & lootboxes. Brilliant.
That was my first reaction as well when looking at the table of animations and how much effort was put into each category. The actual battle animations are 1998 Heavy Gear of game quality but they had to make sure they put their modern stamp on the equivalent of tea bagging via their taunts.
Is there any broader source on the Hunter XMG than the Gears and Strider Northern Compedium One rpg book? Like an adventure or official short story? The only info I can find on it is in that book but my collection of leftover RPG stuff is pretty paltry. The only pic I can find of it that I consider good is ironically from the most recent Lion's Wrath blitz book.
In a broader sense, was there any official novels or story compilations from HG beyond the 1-2 page blurbs that preceed many chapters?
They could bankroll it themselves. feth, I could bankroll it, nowadays.
Well, if you did, might I suggest a return to HO scale or 15mm? Or a nice 28mm Heavy Gear game?
I'm biased so add salt to taste... but I'd prefer a return to RAFM scale both for its practicality in terms of available terrain as well as a long overdue mea culpa to the OGest of OG HG fans. Plus, at that scale, I've found that I prefer the proportions that better match the art rather than the exaggerated ones (big clown hands, gorilla arms, and JRPG weapons) that we currently get (and admittedly are necessary... a lesson learned from the Tactical scale minis). YMMV. I'm also a proponent of a return to a skirmish scale game in terms of model count so that goes with the bigger model scale well.
Honestly, a "best of both worlds" approach would be something akin to 15mm: enough detail and heft for the little guys, not too big Gear and modern-tank sized tanks, so yeah, HO scale would probably work pretty well.
So I was working this weekend on my Hunter XMG conversion for 3d printing (instead of joke mechspank poses!) and have come up with this so far. I've deleted a bunch of likely unprintable details, resized body part proportions to avoid the tactical scale look, and tweaked the weapons to look more like the blitz scale equivalents. Thoughts? Oh, and yes, I did indeed use virtual legos to make the shoulder ram plate armor.
Thanks! I had already finished tweaking it when I saw you uploaded the IW boarding shield but I considering adding it and some IW details for lulz anyways before lazyiness set in.
Question for the people still following this thread... How important to you are the size differences between the various gear categories that were introduced during the blitz era? I'm referring to the greater differences in size between scout, trooper, elite, and fire support gears (in that ascending order). I was a bit surprised when I rebought a bunch of RAFM gears how much more similar in overall size they were compared with the equivalents in blitz scale. I understand why they did it but was curious how important it is to others. I'm working on a Grizzly Panda now and am trying to dial in the size. The HGA models are basically built on the same core frame (with the notable exception of the feet) with just added bulk for the heavier gears. I decreased the hunter by 15% so that there is a definite difference but it's only about half the difference in the blitz minis. Is this enough?
Personally I prefer a less marked difference. I understand the reasons from an in-game perspective of being able to differentiate stuff, but... in a void it looks kinda daft.
This is, canonically, how big the two above are in-setting:
So I'd say you're pretty much on point.
EDIT:
O_O
...does the Grizzly have little bear ears? Ohmygoshthatssocute
Thanks for the comparison pic! I actually asked someone else (Ashley at the Paint it Pink blog) to measure her Hunter as I don't have any built for Rafm scale but it looks like the 15% reduction I did is spot on with the RPG art. It's probably not enough for blitz scale but I'm not sure yet which one I'll try printing at first.
As for the ears, I was hoping someone would notice. The original had small thin armor plates there as pictured below but I ended up rotating, enlarging, and especially thickening them to make them more prominent and printable because I had the same reaction. I have to believe that the designer put them there for that purpose!
I'm biased so add salt to taste... but I'd prefer a return to RAFM scale both for its practicality in terms of available terrain as well as a long overdue mea culpa to the OGest of OG HG fans. Plus, at that scale, I've found that I prefer the proportions that better match the art rather than the exaggerated ones (big clown hands, gorilla arms, and JRPG weapons) that we currently get (and admittedly are necessary... a lesson learned from the Tactical scale minis). YMMV. I'm also a proponent of a return to a skirmish scale game in terms of model count so that goes with the bigger model scale well.
I'm pretty much agreed on all counts. HO was a much better scale for the gears and infantry, if not the striders/tanks/whatnot.
So I did a small "stuff to Grizzly" scale, and man, does it show:
The Jaguar is the one where the comparison is least stark, but even then, it is huge. Maybe not so much in height, but the... heft, of the Grizzly is surprising.
...of course, it goes downhill from here xd
Hunter... It must be a third of the total volume
...and well, the tiny guys
Pretty sure each single leg of the Grizzly has at leas as much metal as those.
Thanks! I did my own comparison using my Blitz minis and I came up with about a 25% difference between a hunter and grizzly (i.e. 33mm vs 44mm) but obviously that varies with pose. In my initial post, I sized the hunter at 15% smaller but decreased it to 20% smaller. Now that I'm trying to support all those crazy northern armor plate angles (in between recent frequent crashes of Chitubox that hamper progress further!).
Thanks. I haven't decided if I want to do the cheetah as I like it less than the XMG and Panda. It's also a multipiece model like the grizzly that I have to preassemble and I'm worried about gaps in between the parts. I suppose we'll see how the grizzly turns out when printed before I decide.
My name was mentioned. For those who don't follow my blog here are my latest RAFM conversions.
I too would like Gears scaled to 1/100th - 15mm equivalent. It would make things so much easier with a wider choice of models and accessories available.
warboss wrote: Don't forget to post pics or a link her if you review it. I don't recall what was funded in the last couple campaigns.
Sure thing. It'll be good motivation for me to build and take pics of some of the stuff.
--
The Utopia KS seemed to be all of the (very limited) selection of their units - Armigers and NKIDU drones for strike, recce and support squads.
The Peace River + NuCol one is a little longer a list, but it's the the same 4 gear types: the frontline, recon, fire support and strike gears of their respective factions.
Supposedly these are designed for more poseability than the original KS plastics, but I'm waiting to see what I can actually do with them.
Thanks! It's been a while since someone responded regarding the poll that I started to help the DP9 team zero in on real reasons why people choose not to support them.
Firebreak wrote:Apparently the MekTek crew is MekTek again and are working on Battletech goodies?
Pass. They accomplished little to nothing on HG so no reason to reward them just because they reverted back to using their old name. And, yes, I know the failure of HGA was multifactorial and I don't attribute all the issues with the original premise, marketing, and execution (or lack thereof) to them but they played their part.
Since I saw the HG thread was updated, I figured I'd check out the official forums as it's been a while. Damn, Mmmpi, don't hold back on how you feel about us, lol.
Being told "we can't do that because Neckbeard McKeyboard-Warrior won't be able to play his list from 30 years ago" every time someone mentions structural change, while having the last 7 lists I made invalidated through an unannounced rules change being a non-issue. Now, I'm not opposed to change, or having lists invalidated. But I see no desire to play ball to keep the game locked in 1992.
It's a bit more nuanced in the thread and I actually agree with some of what he says but that's pretty brutal. I personally feel that models shouldn't be invalidated unless absolutely necessary but I'm ok with lists changing. If someone who put three of the same model in each and every unit can only use two in a differently named squad, I'm fine with that. It's the inability to ever use or severely restrict models that I'm opposed to and something that traditionally DP9 didn't give a feth about. From invalidating literally every model they ever made with the switchover from RAFM to this little gem with nuBlitz showing how much of my existing southern force I could use AFTER every conceivable squad swap from the Blitz: L&L to the Forged in Fire supplement, it's a significant issue for the history of the game. Literally every fig crossed out could not be used in any combination with any other fig also crossed out. Whole units (like my stealth squad) like my stealth squad because they disallowed the use of a model that could ONLY EVER be used in that squad which made the rest under the minimum model count necessary despite being legal theoretically but in practice useless.
If you don't think that this experience had a profound effect on how I felt about the game, you'd be wrong. As a last gasp of active interest in the game, I started a blog with variant skirmish rules to help address this issue that seemingly no one at Dp9 gave a feth about as well as joined the playtesting team for the never fully released Northern book to hopefully prevent the same from happening. While discussing things with Smilodon who was in charge of the project, I purposely went through the options to make sure that things were at least available somewhere in some form. Yes, some really niche sub-sub variants would fold into just a subvariant as a counts as (we were clear to point that out) but I was ok with that just like I was also ok with models moving around. There was an issue with an older OOP squad box not being supported in the rules and we were supposed to change it but I objected as it could still be played as is with the same models with most variants possible with the included bits but simply under a different squad entry (dragoon to strike or vice verse... can't recall which). I'm not opposed to change but you don't win over new players by screwing over the existing soon to be former. The same is true in entertainment. Also, for the record, I'm clean shaven and not Irish.
It is hard to see the picture, why you can't play those cadres in the current rules? or are you referring to the forged in fire rules?
I think the current rules may lack some of the flavor restricted lists bring but they allow for a lot of freedom in making lists.
It is hard to see the picture, why you can't play those cadres in the current rules? or are you referring to the forged in fire rules?
I think the current rules may lack some of the flavor restricted lists bring but they allow for a lot of freedom in making lists.
I can't speak to the most recent couple of versions of nuBlitz as the last one I downloaded was the version that came out with the initial plastics from the first kickstarter. It was a pic from 2012 when the Forged in Fire book came out to show what happens when the existing players' collections seemingly aren't even considered. I'm not even referring to what might even be not worth fielding due to changes in rules/playstyle/points cost but rather just what from my collection could be used in any way, shape, or form from a ruleset that was only a few years old.
warboss wrote: showing how much of my existing southern force I could use AFTER every conceivable squad swap from the Blitz: L&L to the Forged in Fire supplement
I was able to convert about a half dozen of those unused fully painted models ripping off weapons and bits and gluing/repainting bits to make them usable in some way but the rest were completely useless at that time due to the combo of missing variants, new unit compositions, and general army requirements. I wasn't fieling some ultra niche force either but rather standard SRA. This wasn't some regiment of renown with special characters or options from a Gear UP! magazine or somesuch with unique rules but one of the two biggest and stereotypical forces the south has/had. I don't feel that was an acceptable ratio of invalidated portions of my army but YMMV. Mmmpi is exaggerating that people want armies from 1992 to be valid (or at least I hope he is joking and doesn't think that's true) whereas I was pointing out that players have to be vigilant because DP9 will feth over players using CORE armies made with rules less than 5 years old from first publication.
I agree with you on all accounts, the changes from L&L, Fied manual, FiF (and other big books) for army list building and the little and not so little detail changes where a complete mess and a big part of the reason many players simply left the game. I almost did, but like the models and setting too much.
The current rules may not be traditional silhouette but they are better for a wargame, that is why I'm still in and contributing to it. Otherwise I would be playing 2ed tactical. I play 2ed RPG so no big deal, just a smaller model count than the current rules.
Also agree the Mmmpi statement is way off, but everybody have an opinion I think, and that is his perception of the direction of the developers, justified or not it is his perception, he is being honest (even if a bit offensive in a pinch). One thing Dream Pod 9 keep failing at is making everyone happy . The new think they are catering to the old and the old think they are catering to the new.
Yeah, there are always going to be issues but the key is to try and minimize them within the existing design goals for the force you're working on. If you have to disallow completely so much of a typical force, I'd personally suggest that the design goal for the force was either overly ambitious or completely ignorant of what came before... or both! That's what we tried to avoid when doing the Northern book and Smilodon deserves the credit for that (I only helped out a little as I came on late). Unfortunately, that book was planned obsolete before it came out so it was all for nothing. Also, that damn light strider was stolen for the Paxton book! :(
Since I saw the HG thread was updated, I figured I'd check out the official forums as it's been a while. Damn, Mmmpi, don't hold back on how you feel about us, lol.
Being told "we can't do that because Neckbeard McKeyboard-Warrior won't be able to play his list from 30 years ago" every time someone mentions structural change, while having the last 7 lists I made invalidated through an unannounced rules change being a non-issue. Now, I'm not opposed to change, or having lists invalidated. But I see no desire to play ball to keep the game locked in 1992.
Wasn't actually talking about you guys here. I was talking more about the currently active members on the PodForum. There's been pushback over rules change proposals because some people don't want to make new lists, even using the same models. In general, the PodBay has stuck with those players over the newer ones, even when there's a way to circumvent a particular issue. I'm just tired of being told that they don't have to change a thing, while I haven't had a single list survive more than a few months. It's not the list changing that bothers me. It's the fact that it's weighted towards a few people. Again, no one who posts here regularly.
Ah, DP9. By the fans, for the fans. No, that's not a praise.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
On one hand, you have the True Fans™ that DP9 will go to great lengths to please, usually in the form of rare legacy units, and if it breaks the game, or the balance or whatever, it's only a small price to pay to please the True Fans™.
On the other hand, you have everyone else. I would say DP9 considers that latter category expendable, but that would imply DP9 even acknowledges its existence. So, yes, sweeping army building changes will be dropped upon those non-people without any second-thoughts.
In the end, you get the worst of both worlds, a stubborn willingness to keep sacro-sanct legacy elements,regardless of how clunky it might be, and a callous disregard for compatibility between editions that would make GW blush.
It has happened with every new version of the rules. The only reason it has slowed down is because DP9 has slowed down every releases.
HudsonD wrote:On one hand, you have the True Fans™ that DP9 will go to great lengths to please, usually in the form of rare legacy units, and if it breaks the game, or the balance or whatever, it's only a small price to pay to please the True Fans™.
On the other hand, you have everyone else. I would say DP9 considers that latter category expendable, but that would imply DP9 even acknowledges its existence. So, yes, sweeping army building changes will be dropped upon those non-people without any second-thoughts.
I always thought the addition of special characters based on staff/superfans was the cringiest thing they ever did. Special charactes just IMO don't belong in HG as official special rules and I saw a reference during my foray to the official forums that they're considering bringing them back. I don't recall the overall reception to them being particularly positive other than from the people they were based on and those that hoped/prayed that they could yes-man praise themselves into the next book with their own.
Mmmpi wrote:
Wasn't actually talking about you guys here. I was talking more about the currently active members on the PodForum. There's been pushback over rules change proposals because some people don't want to make new lists, even using the same models. In general, the PodBay has stuck with those players over the newer ones, even when there's a way to circumvent a particular issue. I'm just tired of being told that they don't have to change a thing, while I haven't had a single list survive more than a few months. It's not the list changing that bothers me. It's the fact that it's weighted towards a few people. Again, no one who posts here regularly.
Are there many OG neckbeards in your parlance left there? When I last looked at the top commenters on the forum (sometime last year), most were either banned or AWOL for years. Other than a small handful of names (maybe 3-4), most of the few remaining posters aren't old timers. Whether that's due to actual disinterest or the discussion just partially or primarily moving onto other platforms like facebook is debatable though. What kinds of changes are you referring to in your own lists btw? Can you post examples of the kinds of things that they're reticent to change? I don't have a frame of reference myself regarding what's in and out for a couple of years.
HudsonD wrote: Ah, DP9. By the fans, for the fans. No, that's not a praise.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
On one hand, you have the True Fans™ that DP9 will go to great lengths to please, usually in the form of rare legacy units, and if it breaks the game, or the balance or whatever, it's only a small price to pay to please the True Fans™.
On the other hand, you have everyone else. I would say DP9 considers that latter category expendable, but that would imply DP9 even acknowledges its existence. So, yes, sweeping army building changes will be dropped upon those non-people without any second-thoughts.
In the end, you get the worst of both worlds, a stubborn willingness to keep sacro-sanct legacy elements,regardless of how clunky it might be, and a callous disregard for compatibility between editions that would make GW blush.
It has happened with every new version of the rules. The only reason it has slowed down is because DP9 has slowed down every releases.
Yeah. So far it's been more good than bad, but there's a few hang-ups that keep happening. That and them making up rules that no one wanted or discussed. Current infantry was (and is) a hot button topic.
Are there many OG neckbeards in your parlance left there? When I last looked at the top commenters on the forum (sometime last year), most were either banned or AWOL for years. Other than a small handful of names (maybe 3-4), most of the few remaining posters aren't old timers. Whether that's due to actual disinterest or the discussion just partially or primarily moving onto other platforms like facebook is debatable though. What kinds of changes are you referring to in your own lists btw? Can you post examples of the kinds of things that they're reticent to change? I don't have a frame of reference myself regarding what's in and out for a couple of years.
A few, though one or two are the biggest ones. It's not that we disagree on a lot of things, but the biggest of them and I disagree to epic proportions when we do run afoul each other. I don't really want to name names though.
The one that lit off my post was a change in how command models work with variant. Before, according to Dave (who's gone) a command + variant was a separate model from just a variant. So you could have say, 0-2 hunter gunners, and a command hunter gunner (or two if you had an XO/2iC). That got stealth removed in the current set, so now I have a bunch of squads with too many of the same variant. In the scheme of things, it's not that big a deal, but it was the proverbial straw. For the most part, I can probably find a way to reorganize them so most are in legal groups, but each force will have a few models left out. Thankfully most of the offending models aren't painted yet...
A few, though one or two are the biggest ones. It's not that we disagree on a lot of things, but the biggest of them and I disagree to epic proportions when we do run afoul each other. I don't really want to name names though.
The one that lit off my post was a change in how command models work with variant. Before, according to Dave (who's gone) a command + variant was a separate model from just a variant. So you could have say, 0-2 hunter gunners, and a command hunter gunner (or two if you had an XO/2iC). That got stealth removed in the current set, so now I have a bunch of squads with too many of the same variant. In the scheme of things, it's not that big a deal, but it was the proverbial straw. For the most part, I can probably find a way to reorganize them so most are in legal groups, but each force will have a few models left out. Thankfully most of the offending models aren't painted yet...
Fair enough. At the risk of triggering you... I personally think that even allowing command variants to fork off of others was a mistake in the first place let alone counting them as different for the purposes of list building. YMMV. If you're taking a command variant, it's role should reflect the name and not piggy back off of another variant for another role. That's the kind of sub-sub variant that I was referring to above in my initial post this week. Lest you think I'm just being mean, I know the feeling as I had command EW striking cobra something or other (can't recall the exact name at the moment) variants back in the L&L days that I converted/painted that were invalidated as well. I was mildly annoyed but I understood that such a offshoot of a niche of a variant wasn't likely to stick around and, if that had been the only category of change, then I wouldn't have complained. Instead, it was just the icing on the gak cake that DP9 served my newly painted (and yet to actually be used in any meaningful way) army. I think the fair work around is that your command gunner shoud be usable as a gunner variant WYSIWIG and the bits (assuming you had them on the model) that signify it as a command reflect that it is the CGL instead of adding unique additional rules.
edit: Found a better pic of the model. IIRC, I had two of them that I had to reconvert back down into something else after they were fully painted/based/ready to play. I know I had to rip off the EW bits (uplink cone on the shoulder plus dish/antenna on the back) and I don't recall if they lost access to the chainswords as well or if that was simply a prefence on my part as I reserved the swords for CGLs and it was pointless to have him as one without the upgrades.
I don't disagree about it being a possibly poor decision, but the fact that the change went unannounced is what I'm irritated with.
What I don't appreciate is having you characterize it as 'being triggered'.
It's not the fact that things change that I'm irritated with. It's the fact that changes are refused on the grounds that some people have legacy based issues.
Though honestly, having an ECM cobra would be cool, and there was an attempt to bring back 'lost' variants.
Could you post it's stats/equipment? I'd like to suggest bringing it back.
And yeah, Cobras only have Light Vibroblades now. A vet can upgrade to a combat weapon though. Though it's possible a variant has the L/MCW instead of a LVB.
Mmmpi wrote: I don't disagree about it being a possibly poor decision, but the fact that the change went unannounced is what I'm irritated with.
What I don't appreciate is having you characterize it as 'being triggered'.
It's not the fact that things change that I'm irritated with. It's the fact that changes are refused on the grounds that some people have legacy based issues.
Though honestly, having an ECM cobra would be cool, and there was an attempt to bring back 'lost' variants.
Could you post it's stats/equipment? I'd like to suggest bringing it back.
And yeah, Cobras only have Light Vibroblades now. A vet can upgrade to a combat weapon though. Though it's possible a variant has the L/MCW instead of a LVB.
I built the Brahmin Cobra Prototype that in the RPG with the MBzk and the original version (Brahmin Cobra) had a snub cannon. They both had ECM/ECCM 2, backup comms, and a satellite uplink in the RPG as well as the improved maneuverability (0 instead of -1) that in later L&L blitz you could add for 5pts. I won't pretend to know whether adding it back into the game is a good or bad idea as it's effectively a striking or assault command cobra depending on the version using the modern parlance which would make them an example of the type of variant of a variant in nuBlitz that I don't recommend incorporating.
Do you have any other examples of what you had changed in your list as well as specific examples of what they refused to change so as not to inconvienence legacy players? It's hard to get a good feel for the overall issue and the relative importance/scope of the changes you're referring to with just the single limited example you gave.
Mmmpi wrote: I don't disagree about it being a possibly poor decision, but the fact that the change went unannounced is what I'm irritated with.
What I don't appreciate is having you characterize it as 'being triggered'.
It's not the fact that things change that I'm irritated with. It's the fact that changes are refused on the grounds that some people have legacy based issues.
Though honestly, having an ECM cobra would be cool, and there was an attempt to bring back 'lost' variants.
Could you post it's stats/equipment? I'd like to suggest bringing it back.
And yeah, Cobras only have Light Vibroblades now. A vet can upgrade to a combat weapon though. Though it's possible a variant has the L/MCW instead of a LVB.
I built the Brahmin Cobra Prototype that in the RPG with the MBzk and the original version (Brahmin Cobra) had a snub cannon. They both had ECM/ECCM 2, backup comms, and a satellite uplink in the RPG as well as the improved maneuverability (0 instead of -1) that in later L&L blitz you could add for 5pts. I won't pretend to know whether adding it back into the game is a good or bad idea as it's effectively a striking or assault command cobra depending on the version using the modern parlance which would make them an example of the type of variant of a variant in nuBlitz that I don't recommend incorporating.
Do you have any other examples of what you had changed in your list as well as specific examples of what they refused to change so as not to inconvienence legacy players? It's hard to get a good feel for the overall issue and the relative importance/scope of the changes you're referring to with just the single limited example you gave.
So maybe this:
Brahmin Cobra: EW:5+, MSC, MRP, LGM, MMG, MCW. Traits: Arms, React +, ECM, ECCM.
Striking Brahmin Cobra: The above but with a MBZ instead of a MSC.
Both at 15 points.
It would be missing the improved maneuverability, but that only exists in some subs or for duelists depending on how the stats changed.
It could be cool, but yeah, I don't know how it would play out either.
As for examples, it mostly a bunch of small stuff. People make suggestions that show promise, and they get shot down for this reason. It was one of the arguments in the infantry debacle. That 'powerful' infantry would ruin existing lists. I can go back and look for examples when I have time though.
All that talk about missing variants and forced squad configuration changes is missing an important point.
It's not just what's legal and what isn't, it's also what works, and what doesn't anymore.
LBZKs were great weapon in previous versions, and accordingly a staple of southern units. Now *BZK barely compete with *ACs.
Cheetahs are pretty much dead...
As for infantry, well, what role is it even supposed to have ?
The infantry thing was never about lists, it was because they had to cost more if they where made more powerful. I wanted them cheap and simple to have the simple role of objective holders (sometimes with a little bit of teeth) but in the end it got changed to have a bit more teeth and cost more, now they are a bit overpriced, still not terribly overpriced bot not the cheap objective holders they where before.
I understand the frustration when our ideas don't get much traction but saying it is because of favor to some player secret inner cadre is silly. No body get everything they want, not all ideas are workable and the guys making the game have to step down and make the game, we are just giving ideas and wishes, that's all, we are not their bosses.
Bazookas are better now, they are a valid weapon choice, instead of like the light autocannons in blitz, the most common worthless piece of gear in the universe. The cheetah lack of agility compared as before is a shame though, but the game mechanic don't handle extremes as good, but in hindsight, the older blitz didn't did it either, we just liked it had the same RPG/Tactics stats, but the character element was not there to balance them, so cheetahs where just a pain and needed speacia weapons to deal with them or better just ignore them. What I really miss is the Iguana sturdiness, but I don't lose faith, maybe in a future we can change that if enough people pull in that direction.
Infantry was just as worthless before (at least now they can open cheap objectives and hold them), not going to start with the infantry armor waste of TV.
By the way, that cobra can be fielded now as a command variant of the strike cobra, razorfang cobra, no ECM/ECCM nor improved defense or anything, just a command variant, but the model is good.
What did they nerf on the cheetah to make it not mobile? It's been a while but IIRC it was the only 2+ pilot stat gear (assuming I'm remembering the stat name correctly used to avoid shots) in addition to some special traits though I don't recall what they did (reroll?) in beta nuBlitz.
I haven't looked at the bazookas either. Admittedly they were too good but at least in the alpha/beta for sure and maybe the initial release rules they didn't live up to their niche. Another forum poster came up with a small program to run attacks 10,000 times or somesuch to get the stats on how the weapons actually performed and the various bazookas cost for cost came behind the autocannons in almost every matchup (the lone exception being the Hbzk iirc against heavily armored targets). You were actually slightly better off shooting a MAC than a Mbzk at an armored target in addition to the MAC being significantly better at all other categories of targets due to the relative weighting of the extra attack dice. I don't know if they ever fixed that but I did bring up my concerns to Dave years ago.
It was just disappointing to me that rules were made up and names attached with no one actually checking whether they lived up to what they were supposedly supposed to do given that Blitz had similar issues with theory vs practice.
Pointman wrote:I understand the frustration when our ideas don't get much traction but saying it is because of favor to some player secret inner cadre is silly. No body get everything they want, not all ideas are workable and the guys making the game have to step down and make the game, we are just giving ideas and wishes, that's all, we are not their bosses.
Not true at all.
The rest of your post can be argued one way or the other, but the above is plain wrong.
Being in "good standing" with DP9 will see your ideas being adopted a lot more than silly behaviour like actual mathematical analysis or a critical mindset, and the "old guard", for what's left of it, has a lot of power there.
warboss wrote:What did they nerf on the cheetah to make it not mobile? It's been a while but IIRC it was the only 2+ pilot stat gear (assuming I'm remembering the stat name correctly used to avoid shots) in addition to some special traits though I don't recall what they did (reroll?) in beta nuBlitz.
I haven't looked at the bazookas either. Admittedly they were too good but at least in the alpha/beta for sure and maybe the initial release rules they didn't live up to their niche. Another forum poster came up with a small program to run attacks 10,000 times or somesuch to get the stats on how the weapons actually performed and the various bazookas cost for cost came behind the autocannons in almost every matchup (the lone exception being the Hbzk iirc against heavily armored targets). You were actually slightly better off shooting a MAC than a Mbzk at an armored target in addition to the MAC being significantly better at all other categories of targets due to the relative weighting of the extra attack dice. I don't know if they ever fixed that but I did bring up my concerns to Dave years ago.
It was just disappointing to me that rules were made up and names attached with no one actually checking whether they lived up to what they were supposedly supposed to do given that Blitz had similar issues with theory vs practice.
The Cheetah is now 3+ pilot and Agile, same as the Jaguar. Except without the armor, the structure, or the guns.
Writing a program to roll 10,000 attacks is a convoluted way to test stats, when you can just look at the numbers, and see the unbalances immediately.
Anyway, In all its incarnations since the first Blitz, HG has been the archetypal "hard to learn, easy to master" game. Lots of moving parts, but once you've figured out how it plays, the lack of balance makes for a very shallow gameplay experience. It's just that HGB is difficult enough to learn that it'll take you a few games to notice it doesn't really work.
I'll be honest, there are lots of good ideas and things I like in the latest incarnation of HGB, but the devil is in the details, and that's where DP9 has never put in the efforts. That core weapons don't work as they should just tells me this will be business as usual for the Pod.
The Cheetah is now 3+ pilot and Agile, same as the Jaguar. Except without the armor, the structure, or the guns.
Wow.. that's just plain stupid. That was literally it's central niche in the entire game since the first core RPG book came out. I didn't bitch that they came out later on with faster gears (typically hover ones for NuCoal and then Paxton) but this just makes it bland as hell. fething stupid.
Writing a program to roll 10,000 attacks is a convoluted way to test stats, when you can just look at the numbers, and see the unbalances immediately.
No trouble at all.. It was barely an inconvienence! Or so he said. According to him, it was simpler to program it to run the attack scenario a large number of times so that randomness came down to a difference of typically less than 0.1% most of the time (a rounding error) than to try and figure out mathematically the exact statistical probability of success when the result was almost exactly the same. Even with my potato laptop at the time, it took only 2-3 seconds to spit out the results once I entered in the attack and defense conditions (stat values and pertinent traits). You can get an idea of potential imbalances but it's still nice to be able to say that (making up numbers here as I don't recall the exact ones years later) the MAC will still be 4.5% more likely to damage a particular strider than the equivalent bazooka that is supposed to be specialized for that type of encounter on top of that MAC being 14.2% more likely to damage a hunter as well.
The Cheetah is now 3+ pilot and Agile, same as the Jaguar. Except without the armor, the structure, or the guns.
Wow.. that's just plain stupid. That was literally it's central niche in the entire game since the first core RPG book came out. I didn't bitch that they came out later on with faster gears (typically hover ones for NuCoal and then Paxton) but this just makes it bland as hell. fething stupid.
Writing a program to roll 10,000 attacks is a convoluted way to test stats, when you can just look at the numbers, and see the unbalances immediately.
No trouble at all.. It was barely an inconvienence! Or so he said. According to him, it was simpler to program it to run the attack scenario a large number of times so that randomness came down to a difference of typically less than 0.1% most of the time (a rounding error) than to try and figure out mathematically the exact statistical probability of success when the result was almost exactly the same. Even with my potato laptop at the time, it took only 2-3 seconds to spit out the results once I entered in the attack and defense conditions (stat values and pertinent traits). You can get an idea of potential imbalances but it's still nice to be able to say that (making up numbers here as I don't recall the exact ones years later) the MAC will still be 4.5% more likely to damage a particular strider than the equivalent bazooka that is supposed to be specialized for that type of encounter on top of that MAC being 14.2% more likely to damage a hunter as well.
At that point, if you don't want to do it right and use combinations, just enumerate all dice rolls. Less trouble, and you will get exact numbers.
Less trouble than someone else doing the coding of their own volition and posting the tiny self contained program executable download link for free? I seriously doubt that. In any case, if you want to code it and provide me with the perfect program to calculate the exact value then I'm ok with that too. In the meantime, the brute force calculation that is within 1/10th of 1% of the actual value is good enough and significantly better than nothing (which is what the official DP9 stats/game mechanics were based on).
The bazookas got a range increase and a cost reduction (now they are auto cannon cost). They were bad because of lack of range and were not more damaging (due to accuracy) to everything but costed more than an autocannon. Now they are an alternative to autocannons, ACs are better against gears, nimble and soft skinned targets, bazookas are better at high armor targets. Not even in the RPG era the autocannon where as useful and comparable to bazookas, now the most common weapon make sense.
The cheetah lost of character is a shame, but giving them PI2+ didn't make them more nimble (not like +2 Piloting). On the other hand in blitz having +2 to defense was not a good game mechanic. But it looked like the RPG so we all were cool with it. I can't say I prefer it like it is now, but I understand the balance issue of giving such nimbleness to a model.
Pointman wrote:I understand the frustration when our ideas don't get much traction but saying it is because of favor to some player secret inner cadre is silly. No body get everything they want, not all ideas are workable and the guys making the game have to step down and make the game, we are just giving ideas and wishes, that's all, we are not their bosses.
Not true at all.
The rest of your post can be argued one way or the other, but the above is plain wrong.
Being in "good standing" with DP9 will see your ideas being adopted a lot more than silly behaviour like actual mathematical analysis or a critical mindset, and the "old guard", for what's left of it, has a lot of power there.
Maybe before was like that (?) but currently I doubt anyone is in "good standing" with the developers, the guy dealing with the fans in the forums is doing a good job at stepping down and having a final say in each issue. Right now things are a bit more civil than in your time in the furums too. People just keep posting abut rules issues and sometimes you are in the side that get their vision other times you don't. There are different groups and sometimes more than one "band" in favor of a way of doing things but at the end it is the developers and their secret playtesting team to take a decision. For example, the Infantry issue, it is probably the hotter topic, Mmmpi and a few others wanted more powerful/useful infantry, others (me includded) just liked them as cheap objective holders. At the end the Mmmpi team "won" and infantry got changed, but in a way almost no one liked much (because powerful infantry can not be cheap), but that is the way it is. Now there is a group that want cheap infantry in favor of the current infantry and others that just roll with the blow and change tactics to account for higher TV cost infantry and thrust that DP9 knows what they are doing.
On other issues, on the other hand, ideas are sometimes taken almost literally and implemented in the game. Or modified slightly by other fans and a consensus reached. It help that there are fewer fans in the forums of course, but whatever is happening is a lot different than the "those in DP9 favor get all they want and we get nothing" or whatever. Realizing Infantry, the least relevant model in the entire history of the game, is the only case of strong disagreement seems like a big positive in the way tings are being handled.
Taking the decisions of a game developer company about their game as a personal attack or neglect is ridiculous. Anyone is entitled to get all personal but it is plain silly.
Pointman wrote: The bazookas got a range increase and a cost reduction (now they are auto cannon cost). They were bad because of lack of range and were not more damaging (due to accuracy) to everything but costed more than an autocannon. Now they are an alternative to autocannons, ACs are better against gears, nimble and soft skinned targets, bazookas are better at high armor targets. Not even in the RPG era the autocannon where as useful and comparable to bazookas, now the most common weapon make sense.
While I don't doubt that they got better by a cost reduction and range increase, did anyone actually test the numbers that you know of or is everyone assuming again? Everyone assumed they were better due to a higher damage and the AP trait before years ago and they were wrong. I don't mean to single you out but I'm just curious.
edit: I found the exe file! If someone can provide the relative stats for the shooter and target models (arm, pil, gun, traits including what they do, etc) and weapons involved, I can check (assuming I remember how to enter the info) whether it is actually better now. I'd say that a hunter with an MBzk and MAC vs some sort of tank or heavy strider should be a good example to start with.
Mmmpi and a few others wanted more powerful/useful infantry,
No, we wanted infantry that was worth what was being charged. One specific unit was overpriced. We were asking for a weapon upgrade to make them viable at that price (the Pod had an issue with 'hordes'), instead we got a compromise weapon, a stat buff no one wanted, a points increase across the board, and a rules change that nerfed infantry in general.
Pointman wrote: The bazookas got a range increase and a cost reduction (now they are auto cannon cost). They were bad because of lack of range and were not more damaging (due to accuracy) to everything but costed more than an autocannon. Now they are an alternative to autocannons, ACs are better against gears, nimble and soft skinned targets, bazookas are better at high armor targets. Not even in the RPG era the autocannon where as useful and comparable to bazookas, now the most common weapon make sense.
While I don't doubt that they got better by a cost reduction and range increase, did anyone actually test the numbers that you know of or is everyone assuming again? Everyone assumed they were better due to a higher damage and the AP trait before years ago and they were wrong. I don't mean to single you out but I'm just curious.
edit: I found the exe file! If someone can provide the relative stats for the shooter and target models (arm, pil, gun, traits including what they do, etc) and weapons involved, I can check (assuming I remember how to enter the info) whether it is actually better now. I'd say that a hunter with an MBzk and MAC vs some sort of tank or heavy strider should be a good example to start with.
They are better. Against a very narrow range of targets. Think Allers and Visagoths. At least if I have it right.
They are better. Against a very narrow range of targets. Think Allers and Visagoths. At least if I have it right.
That's about as useful as having MACs better against only trooper gears on dates that are divisible by the number four. They should be better than the equivalent autocannons versus everything King Cobra/Kodiak and up in terms of armor. Could you copy paste some of the relevant weapon and gear/tank stats?
They are better. Against a very narrow range of targets. Think Allers and Visagoths. At least if I have it right.
That's about as useful as having MACs better against only trooper gears on dates that are divisible by the number four. They should be better than the equivalent autocannons versus everything King Cobra/Kodiak and up in terms of armor. Could you copy paste some of the relevant weapon and gear/tank stats?
I can link you the beta docs, particularly the model list and the weapons chart.
I think that would be more effective than snipping a few random pictures.
In my experience with the new stats, against armor 10+, a LBZ is more likely to do more damage at a lower MoS. The Autocannon is far more likely to hit, but less likely to do anything meaningful. I mean, against armor 10 you need MoS:3 for an MAC to get a marginal hit. At the same MoS, a LBZ dose an automatic 2 damage (via it's AP stat). But the AC is a bit more likely to get that MoS:3 over.
I didn't run the math though, outside of some napkin math.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also I forgot to mention,
Though it's not much, the cheetah also got an Armor buff.
I think they were better the way they were before, and Ar:5 doesn't help that much against most weapons over Ar:4, but (?).
That sounds about the same although the AP part sounds buffed. I'll have to dig out my old login info and download it to check. I'd need the exact weapon stats entry as well as the relative stats of the firing and receiving models which is alot to compare it with the various L/M/H MAC and Bzk vs support gears, gears striders, striders, and tanks.
Also I forgot to mention, Though it's not much, the cheetah also got an Armor buff.
I think they were better the way they were before, and Ar:5 doesn't help that much against most weapons over Ar:4, but (?).
Sounds like they turned it into the silver cat as the default which is only slightly less disappointing. It had it's niche and role (hint to dp9: the name was a dead giveaway). It doesn't look like anything else from a cursory glance has a PIL 2+. On a similar note, did they ever come out with the Harrier model with the recent crowdfunding? Seeing that one on the list reminded me of it's existence.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The bazooka stats are identical to the 2016 rules and the AP rules haven't changed other than the MOS0 addition. Autocannon and the burst trait are unchanged as well. I don't know how much the MOS0 part will throw off the numbers as the program doesn't take that into account but even in 2016 rules they seem to have fixed this particular issue and the *bzk will indeed do more damage to armored targets at least in optimal range (assuming the core rules on that didn't change). Apologies for the potential false alarm in regards to this as it looks like it was dealt with in the 2016 release and the issue was strictly during the alpha and/or beta the first time around.
Yeah, *BZ are still limited compared to *ACs against the stuff most players seem to bring. Only a few players seem to lake heavy tanks, striders, ect.
Most of the AP:x changes were in streamlining how AP worked to make it less of a nightmare to figure out.
The harrier had a render shown I believe (from memory), but it's not in the store and I don't believe it's in production yet. I think they're trying to get the KS delivered first.
I'm not sure about the cheetah because I don't remember the stats for the Silver Cat. I barely remember the name.
Bazookas are not better than AC's, they are an option, no longer have to pay extra and now they are usable due to the range.
They have a purpose, but if you cram a bazooka in each trooper or elite gear you are doing it wrong. In previous versions of the game using AC's was a mistake (maybe only VHAC's where worth it) and bazookas where the "default" trooper weapon of choice (in the south at least).
Same with many other AT weapons. In previous versions AT missiles where death weapons, now they are better used against high armor targets. They still kill anything if guided with target designators but are better used for high armor targets instead of wasting them in trooper gears that are better dealt with auto cannon fire.
Artillery is also not the superweapon of previous eras. It is still dangerous but now you have to work a bit more to make it devastating and a big improvement is that you don't win just by killing things. Infantry have won me a few games just by sitting in their designated objectives.
As a player of multiple versions of the game I compare them and the current version is the one I find best as a wargame. For RPG 2ed is great, and for small scale/model count, with internal componen damage and other detailed actions. While I enjoy old blitz and arena I find them the least well done and the more abusable (stealth or artillery anyone') of the bunch.
Artillery hurts if it hits, but it has a harder time hitting. Frequently with only 1-2 dice, compared to the potential 5 you can get from an Autocannon.
But most artillery will wreck someone's day, even on a MoS:0
The DP9 boards have become "slightly more civil" as a result of being mostly dead.
Your justification of *BZKs changing their role with the new edition is exactly what I mean about the rules and balance invalidating whole previous army compositions, in addition to actual unit building restrictions. So, yeah.
And you need someone with reasonable EWAr capabilities to FO the target (unless your opponent decided to skimp EWar completely), and can get shot in reaction, so not as point an click as before.
Still, having some massed artillery fire can ruin someones day. The big artillery units like Spitting cobra rockets and grizzly mortars still rock.
HudsonD wrote: The DP9 boards have become "slightly more civil" as a result of being mostly dead.
Your justification of *BZKs changing their role with the new edition is exactly what I mean about the rules and balance invalidating whole previous army compositions, in addition to actual unit building restrictions. So, yeah.
Just think of DP9 being ahead of the times and having their players socially distance themselves from each other both online and in real life. As for Bzks, if the role means that they actually have one as opposed to being the one size fits almost all that they were in Blitz/L&L/FM, then I'm ok with that despite them being my most common upgrade for all three of my armies. I'd have preferred if the various categories had progressively improving ranges (i.e. a Hbzk having a longer combat range than a Lbzk) but that's a general complaint with most weapons in NuBlitz. YMMV.
Yes, the new rules screwed most old optimal lists. In it's defense it is because as Hudson says, the game had lots of options but only a few good ones. I still have 6 jagers with bazookas but only have bazookas on jagers now (cheap anti tank platforms).
Now I feel it compares better to the RPG, in the sense that it does better service to traditional cannon (yes, Drakes and all the rest, not in that way), in the sense that the game mechanics favor the RPG era squad composition better. AC's as main weapons, mixing of recon and support elements (in the old books I have it is common to have an Iguana/cheetah in a cadre with spitting cobras/grizzlies for example) and other simple freedoms.
On the other hand it is a completely different game in every respect. And is simplified in multiple ways, like the lack of range improvement for weapons (maybe because it will make some weapons compete with too many others if allowed to be better in range and damage; weapons have a kind of niche protection) and other multiple cases (super simplified movement, cover and terrain for example). Still a better wargame than old blitz hands down.
If you have the chance you should give it a try. You already have the models and that is the hardest part, don't break them until you test them, there are multiple ways of playing the game now, objective selection based in your force is more important than making "invincible" lists or "killer combos", so a weird mix of models may work just fine.
I haven't met a single person in almost 10 years that has expressed an interest in learning about HG. Back when I was still trying, I did manage to arrange a few demo games (mainly as a trade with others for trying out something they wanted to demo/try) but no one wanted to go in any further even with me providing the painted minis and terrain. If the new nuBlitz rules change that organically in my local area, I'll certainly be up for trying it to see if I agree on whether the rules have improved.
From reading all of the above I may well actually try and play a game with the new rules. I mean, I heard good things about the revisions, but the old rules were difficult to learn.
If these are easier, and provide tactically complex games, then I'll be up for giving them a go.
Easier is a bit of a stretch maybe, Better, more clearly written is more accurate.
They do provide more tactical complexity. EWar in particular is a dimension that usually get abstracted in wargames, in current blitz it is more active and represent real choices.
You make your list according to the mission you are intending to do, and the mission is not always kill everything in the table. You will need hardcore killers but not everything is killing. Cheap objective holders, recon elements, fast movers to reach far of places or get somewhere in the last turns are all part of your options.
And then balance, there is a real effort in doing everything useful, no more trap choices or sub optimal choices. Of course it is hardly perfect but the effort shows. Great balance means every model have a purpose, not that every model is got at everything though; don't expect an Asp stand toe to toe with a jager, but a few Asps with grenades or panzerfausts can wreck someone day if positioned and maneuvered correctly and you can sacrifice them with abandon as as your neighbors MILITIA commander would.
Looking at getting back into Heavy Gear, mostly honestly just to play games myself, I've got the 2016 rulebook, but it looks like there's a new one out soon but no immediate info on it, I found Gear Grinder and it looks like there's a bunch of changes looking at stats. For someone popping back in after several years, what's the current situation?
I'm actually really excited about the game coming from old Blitz, I like the (2016) rules relative to the old set (it all feels a whole lot more intuitive and clean, I really like the new MoS+Pen-ARM=DAM mechanic). A basic hunter with a LAC is actually capable of hurting something without needing 3 or 4 degrees of success just to scratch paint on an opposing Jaeger
You have to log into the forums and download the microsoft office raw prelim files if you want the info right now. At some point I'm assuming they'll edit/format it to Dp9 standards (yes, that's bait!) and have a pdf available on drivethru.
Does anybody here still have a copy of the old tactical datacards?
I just read about them in an old BGG forum thread and didn't knew they existed.
I'm using the full letter sized page for everything and it will be easier to handle tactical games/encounters with the cards and use the full pages for the players and other important NPCs probably.
Ok. Congrats! Let us know what you think. There is a PR gear that I was interested in but IIRC it didn't fund (or might not have even been offered)... the Harrier (i.e. the hover cheetah).
Ok. Congrats! Let us know what you think. There is a PR gear that I was interested in but IIRC it didn't fund (or might not have even been offered)... the Harrier (i.e. the hover cheetah).
Allright, so I mostly backed the KS to get the new strider and some of the newer metal gears. I've got metal PR gears for days, but let's see how the new plastic Warrior sculpt stands up.
Okay so I only had one of the newer metal Warriors built but you can see the prominent differences - no shoulder buttons, torso sensors got super tiny, knees are smaller, antennae got much, much longer, rocket pods are smaller (everything is smaller in general) and there's a general loss of detail everywhere. And those terrible, terrible thumbs
Except the butt plate! That got way longer but narrower. The grab rails on the shoulders are gone. The engine vent is shallow - probably to avoid the casting issue they had on the Jagers in the first KS run.
Now I don't want to be too harsh on DP9 for these issues - they're not a big company and did these Kickstarters on relative shoestring budgets, but there's a big difference between their metals/resins and their plastics. The thing I dislike the most is the shrinkage of an already small model. This is really important in the assembly, as there's a lot of tiny pieces to put together on the waists and making the model even smaller doesn't help. If anything, they should have gone a bit bigger, which would have allowed them to put in more detail and made assembly easier.
Basically if you hated the plastics from the first Kickstarter, it's more of the same.
It looks like an improvement from the Polar plastics but still clearly inferior to the 2005ish metals. I fully admit there are forces (literally) at work in the casting process that may limit the design details to make it feasible to pop out the sprues in 2-3 seconds from simple two piece moulds... but I can't help but think that alot of those details should be bigger/deeper to compensate for the softness and shrinkage. In an apples to oranges comparison, I'm consistently surprised over and over how much things need to be accentuated to go from a good looking 3d model with "realistic" proportions to a good looking scale tabletop figure via home resin printing. They don't seem to be valuing that part as much as I do. YMMV. I do like the buttplate incorporating the Peace River symbol though and thought it was a nice touch. Gotta market the brand for Paxton to make the next sale!
edit: The static/stiff posing still leaves alot to be desired as well. Did the bigger models like striders turn out better? The caprice stuff was the clear winner IMO from the first round so hopefully they're better this time as well. How is the reception on other venues like the official forums and facebook? Is everything still rose colored?
I know hindsight is 20/20 but I can't help but feel that they'd have been better served by making a multiple sprue kit for the basic trooper gears with better detail/options via multiple sprues (a squad of them in vastly different poses via multiple sprues similar to the new GW40k SOB) and leaving the rest to resin unless they massively overfunded the campaign (which didn't happen). Make a kick ass multisprue kit for the standard trooper gear of each faction as well as a skirmish game to support it and leave the rest in the superior if fiddly resin/metal for advanced play and hobbyists.
warboss wrote: It looks like an improvement from the Polar plastics but still clearly inferior to the 2005ish metals. I fully admit there are forces (literally) at work in the casting process that may limit the design details to make it feasible to pop out the sprues in 2-3 seconds from simple two piece moulds... but I can't help but think that alot of those details should be bigger/deeper to compensate for the softness and shrinkage.
That's why I think they should have made them a bit bigger than the metals, so that they could have that deeper detail. You can see the difference that experience makes in GW's product, where they use clever cuts to keep shape/detail. For example, the torso could have been a 2 piece hollow. But people complained about there being too many parts on the last KS, so what can you do?
edit: The static/stiff posing still leaves alot to be desired as well. Did the bigger models like striders turn out better? The caprice stuff was the clear winner IMO from the first round so hopefully they're better this time as well. How is the reception on other venues like the official forums and facebook? Is everything still rose colored?
The new striders are proper resin and the same quality as the other resin striders. I didn't get any Utopia stuff, just PR/NuCoal. There hasn't been any posts yet about people getting their stuff, but that's hardly surprising given how low volume the posting is over there.
I know hindsight is 20/20 but I can't help but feel that they'd have been better served by making a multiple sprue kit for the basic trooper gears with better detail/options via multiple sprues (a squad of them in vastly different poses via multiple sprues similar to the new GW40k SOB) and leaving the rest to resin unless they massively overfunded the campaign (which didn't happen). Make a kick ass multisprue kit for the standard trooper gear of each faction as well as a skirmish game to support it and leave the rest in the superior if fiddly resin/metal for advanced play and hobbyists.
I don't think it would have been possible. GW has so much experience doing this sort of thing and we sort of take for granted that it's possible, just not how difficult it really is. There's extra legs and arms on the sprues to give some variety; I just assembled it in a very bog standard way because I didn't have any experience with these minis yet - I mostly built the Caprice stuff from the last KS because I had polar forces already.
That's why I think they should have made them a bit bigger than the metals, so that they could have that deeper detail. You can see the difference that experience makes in GW's product, where they use clever cuts to keep shape/detail. For example, the torso could have been a 2 piece hollow. But people complained about there being too many parts on the last KS, so what can you do?
Filter both the good and feedback to hone in on what you can change for the better? I don't mean to come off as sarcastic to you as it's directed at the ether/dp9 instead... but it seems that's a long standing decades old issue with DP9 where they don't see the forest for the trees and only listen instead to what they want to hear when they choose to listen at all. I don't recall what the parts split was in the 1st kickstarter (and honestly I don't care enough to search it out either) but I'd never advocate for 4 piece limb split or a small weapon split like Palladium did with Robotech... but I think most gamers/modellers would be fine with a 2 piece torso in order to get better detail.
The new striders are proper resin and the same quality as the other resin striders. I didn't get any Utopia stuff, just PR/NuCoal. There hasn't been any posts yet about people getting their stuff, but that's hardly surprising given how low volume the posting is over there.
I'm curious to see if the cups of kool aid will be pre-emptively passed around this time again. The release of the 1st kickstarter plastics was the pretty much the end of my active participation on the dp9 forums as too many fly by night fanatics of the cults of DP9candonowrong were posting at the time for me to continue. Funny how their devotion only lasts for a few months to one year max...
I don't think it would have been possible. GW has so much experience doing this sort of thing and we sort of take for granted that it's possible, just not how difficult it really is. There's extra legs and arms on the sprues to give some variety; I just assembled it in a very bog standard way because I didn't have any experience with these minis yet - I mostly built the Caprice stuff from the last KS because I had polar forces already.
Glad to hear that they put in extra limb poses this time around at least. Thanks for the details btw.
That's why I think they should have made them a bit bigger than the metals, so that they could have that deeper detail. You can see the difference that experience makes in GW's product, where they use clever cuts to keep shape/detail. For example, the torso could have been a 2 piece hollow. But people complained about there being too many parts on the last KS, so what can you do?
Filter both the good and feedback to hone in on what you can change for the better? I don't mean to come off as sarcastic to you as it's directed at the ether/dp9 instead... but it seems that's a long standing decades old issue with DP9 where they don't see the forest for the trees and only listen instead to what they want to hear when they choose to listen at all. I don't recall what the parts split was in the 1st kickstarter (and honestly I don't care enough to search it out either) but I'd never advocate for 4 piece limb split or a small weapon split like Palladium did with Robotech... but I think most gamers/modellers would be fine with a 2 piece torso in order to get better detail.
Having seen what some companies are doing with 3D printing and resin these days, I think going with plastic was a mistake, and going to resin might have been the better option. I think most people would rather deal with resin rather than metal, and HG is so niche that you kind of have to expect a premium price as long as you're getting a premium product.
I'm a bit disappointed with these plastics, I'm expecting mine will arrive in a week or two and will have a better feel for them, but seems they still are way below the metal model in detail and pose.
Still, nothing beat their price I suppose.
I understand the limits of the medium and the lack of experience, and the need for cheap models, but they do look inferior to the metal models and smaller, so making a mixed force will be awkward.
On the other hand I doubt I would have purchased a peace river and a nucoal army if I had to do it in metal, so I think it is a fair tradeoff somehow. Now I can field a badlands force with north, south, peace river and nucoal models cheaply.
These ones seems a lot better than the polar ones, Caprice is still the best served by lower price and good quality compared to the metals, tough.
Still, a big difference in quality between the plastic and the metals, and a equivalent price difference.
Pointman wrote: On the other hand I doubt I would have purchased a peace river and a nucoal army if I had to do it in metal, so I think it is a fair tradeoff somehow. Now I can field a badlands force with north, south, peace river and nucoal models cheaply.
Good point... especially if you add in the even more unlikely scenario that you'd be willing to pay 6-12 months in advance for them to ship you that resin/metal order even if you placed it.
are you not bored of the "true fans" thing?
You are stuck in your own age man.
The plastics are cheap miniatures, that's it. I buy Zvezda miniatures for medieval and modern too, because they are cheap not because they are as good as pewter miniatures like Specter for example. Would you say Zvezda makes mediocre products that only fans like?
Cheap is a good trait in itself. And they are not bad at the price they are tagged.I just expected better but that's it.
Eh, I dunno... cheap plastics have their place, but these are only cheap (ish) if you're in the States. Anywhere else? They're GW-price level, what with shipping and taxes and customs and such.
What they aren't GW-level, though? Quality. So... yeah.
Personally? Well, now I'm into 3d-printing at home, and currently I'm backing multiple Patreons, to the tune of about $60 per month. I'd personally be all for them making decently detailed and poseable STL files of their stuff, I'd probably buy them stuff again, if that was the case.
EDIT: ...and now I've actually gone to their store to see their current prices... feth me. $6-11 for a single plastic Gear? Holy gak, that's expensive as feth. And that's not even looking at their JC stuff... what in blazes. The starters at $60 are a bit better, but then again... it's 14 minis for $60. That's pretty much GW level, right there, and before the aforementioned shipping, taxes and customs charges.
That would be a good idea, they got late to the plastic party without the right tools and skills. And probably plastic will only be the best solution for the games with dozens of models in the table not for skirmish games.
3D printing is something else now, you can make very detailed models with them. And maybe the best solution for games with low model count and lots of customization.
Typically you can only pick two in plastic unless you've got a lot of money up front. That isn't typically the case for small companies unless you really go bonkers on the detail like the kingdom death or whatever it was called and raise equally bonkers money during the campaign.
Typically you can only pick two in plastic unless you've got a lot of money up front. That isn't typically the case for small companies unless you really go bonkers on the detail like the kingdom death or whatever it was called and raise equally bonkers money during the campaign.
Well, it really depends, but the current crop kind of feels like the worst of both worlds, to me... limited poseability without cutting up stuff, shallow details, compromises taken everywhere... but still a lot of parts, apparently... I mean, they seem not to be as bad as PB's Robotech stuff... but then again, what is.
The DP9 plastics don't do it for me at all, they're painfully static and the proportions don't quite look right (for gears at least, the Caprice plastics looked pretty spot on from what I could tell). That said, the metals are pretty fantastically awesome sculpts and are still an option, while the plastic ones are cheap enough that a 150TV army can almost be done for the same cost as a 50TV squad of metals (at least in the US), so there's pros and cons to each but the choices are available, and it appears DP9 basically just has one full time employee from what I can see so it's hard to hate too much, I can see where people don't like the plastics but I don't get the "true fans" thing.
I just dropped a huge order on DP9 for a variety of metal stuff since they were doing 20% off, and picked up one of the Utopia 2011 metal starter sets off Ebay for a decent price. At this point I'll be able to play everything but an Edenite force, and every native Terra Novan faction with a decent amount of variety.
Anyone been working on any HG stuff recently? I've been slowly collecting all the old RPG books while since the whole Covid19 thing started, most I was able to pick up for under $5 and probably all but a handful for under $15, but I've been shocked at how much some of the later (and substantially less important) books go for, like the Atlantis/CEF/Utopia sourcebooks which appear to run about fifty bucks with copies being limited to one or two on Ebay and Amazon and essentially nonexistent literally everwhere else, or the 2005 SilCore mini's book that is $90+ seemingly everywhere (and in the process I discovered that OOP forgeworld books...insanely pricey). It took more effort and time than I expected to find any of these at a sane price. I think the only thing I'm missing now is the 3E Earth Companion, but from what I gathered on the DP9 forums from older postings, that one was also one of the derpiest written too.
I've now got mini's to play every faction except Eden, just have to get it all built. Once I can do that, and get a decent table set up, I'm going to try doing some solo gaming with the 3.0 rules and get some battle reports up.
Does following Ashley's blog count as working on HG stuff? If not, I haven't since 3d printing my custom gears and I've yet to paint them up. I'm surprised that the HG books are so expensive. Are they actually selling at that price or is it a pricing bot war with no takers? I've seen too many hobbyists sitting on products they're supposedly trying to sell because their prices are $5 less ludicrous than the next highest delusional seller. If no one is buying your stuff for months then it doesn't matter that you're cheaper than the next guy if you're both way overpriced.
Which FW books are going for a good amount? I've only got one (the revised Taros book) but I'd never sell it as I really enjoy the story in it. I also really liked their Vraks series but never owned those. I consider them the gold standard of 40k campaign settings personally.
With respect to the pricey HGRPG books, I'm not sure how well they're selling, but the pricey ones are the ones are those that appear to be the hardest to find actually in stock/available (e.g. Life on Atlantis). Even when "cheap", they go for three or four times what most of the other books can be had for. The initial first ed Blitz army (swords of pride, etc) books also appear to be *very* pricey when found actually available $35-50. As I don't believe they have any new or interesting background that isn't found in older or newer books, and aren't relevant to the current edition, I'm not bothering to try and acquire them and have no idea what is driving that pricing because I can't see a reason for anyone to want them aside from just owning everything DP9 published. That said, Forged in Fire and Perfect Storm also remain basically at original MSRP, I have never seen Forged in Fire available for much under $50 since its release anywhere ever, I think I saw Perfect Storm for sale used for $25 once.
For FW, the "numbered" books are expensive, especially stuff like the Badab War books and Vraks and IA13, these generally tend to go for triple digit prices. Most of the other IA books, like the Apocalypse supplements/early 3E&4E books/early 6E Aeronautica/etc are relatively cheap. I've got hardcopies of IA 5/6/7 and the 7E IE:Vraks combination book, as well as IA11/12/13, so most of the expensive ones
What I was shocked to see however was that DP9 still had stock of some of these books, On the one hand, as a gamer, as a fan, I think it's rad that you can still get some of that stuff from DP9. On the other hand, recognizing that such books are 20+ year old dead inventory competing against a secondary market where excellent/Mint copies of anything DP9 is still selling are widely available at a substantial discount from far more accessible sale channels, the business side of my brain is horrified
You definitely have a nice collection of the FW books. I figured the Vraks and Badab ones would be the most expensive as they had good stories (especially Vraks IMO). I'm a little cooler on Badab personally despite being a marine fanboy.
As for HG, I actually sold most the initial blitz books you mentioned for a pittance and counted myself lucky at the time that anyone was interested. The rules and fluff (and consequently page count) were anemic compared with later post FM books so I'm surprised they're popular compared with the Forged in Fire/Perfect Storm ones.
The Vraks books are my fav for sure. I suspect the demand and supply for the old Blitz books is realistically basically zero on both ends reflecting in weird pricing of the one or two copies that are around, while FiF and PS both were imperfect works, they're beautiful books with tons of fluff and imagery and I could see someone dishing out for one of those if they're just big fans.
I'm working through building a bunch of stuff from my DP9 shipment last month still, mostly Utopia and Black Talons left and they're totally new to me. I finally picked up the 1/35th Kodiak and am in search of a good MRP to fit to it (since it doesn't actually come with one).
I'd really like to try and round up friends to run Jungle Drums, but that's not happening any time soon with Covid.
Vaktathi wrote: Speaking of, I actually just picked up Bad Dog. I have no idea when I'll get a chance to read it, but it's on the to-read great pile-o-books
Aside from that, here's the HG stuff assembled in the last month or so.
Good job on assembling that pile. Good luck on getting to Bad Dog on your TBR pile. ;-)
warboss wrote:It's good to see so many new metals assembled. If you don't mind me asking, what brought on this seemingly sudden burst of HG hobby energy?
Combination of stuff. Covid isolation kicked me off on hunting down the old RPG books for giggles and getting engrossed in all that lore, 40k getting increasingly derpy and difficult to keep up with, me liking the idea of solo home gaming, the new 3.0 HG rules actually looking fun and interesting (and not needing 3 or 4 MoS with a LAC to hurt a Hunter, and not having weird arbitrary armor numbers pulled from the RPG without the rest of the RPG context and stuff like ARM17 being notably more capable than ARM16 and just as good as ARM18, etc), playing with GearGrinder allows for lots of inspiration, and the DP9 store having everything 20% off for months
Paint it Pink wrote:
Vaktathi wrote: Speaking of, I actually just picked up Bad Dog. I have no idea when I'll get a chance to read it, but it's on the to-read great pile-o-books
Aside from that, here's the HG stuff assembled in the last month or so.
Good job on assembling that pile. Good luck on getting to Bad Dog on your TBR pile. ;-)
warboss wrote:It's good to see so many new metals assembled. If you don't mind me asking, what brought on this seemingly sudden burst of HG hobby energy?
Combination of stuff. Covid isolation kicked me off on hunting down the old RPG books for giggles and getting engrossed in all that lore, 40k getting increasingly derpy and difficult to keep up with, me liking the idea of solo home gaming, the new 3.0 HG rules actually looking fun and interesting (and not needing 3 or 4 MoS with a LAC to hurt a Hunter, and not having weird arbitrary armor numbers pulled from the RPG without the rest of the RPG context and stuff like ARM17 being notably more capable than ARM16 and just as good as ARM18, etc), playing with GearGrinder allows for lots of inspiration, and the DP9 store having everything 20% off for months
Fair enough. Don't forget to post a link to any new blog WIP thread if you start one! I haven't looked at the metals' prices in years. Have they raised them in recent years?
I'll have to start a new thread, I always forget about the one in my sig that's like 8 years old
Oddly enough, looking at the DP9 prices now and the email invoices I have from 2012, it appears the metals are actually...cheaper, and that's not accounting for inflation. In 2012 a Tiger 2 pack (DP9-9098) was $20.75 (inflation adjusted that's ~$23.30), now in 2020 DP9-9098 is $17.99, and currently on sale is available for $14.39. Similar thing with the Cheetah on the same 2012 order.
I had plenty of frustrations with the design and sprue layout of the Northern and Southern starter plastics but still liked the models and setting enough to get them set up. The Caprice sculpts were a big step up and the most recent plastics for NuCoal and Peace River show marked improvements - the arms and shoulder are separate pieces and the legs are on ball joints so it is much easier to get different poses. They have also stopped putting sprue connections on absurd places (like the eye piece of each mech’s head for example). Very excited to put these new ones together
Vaktathi wrote:I'll have to start a new thread, I always forget about the one in my sig that's like 8 years old
Oddly enough, looking at the DP9 prices now and the email invoices I have from 2012, it appears the metals are actually...cheaper, and that's not accounting for inflation. In 2012 a Tiger 2 pack (DP9-9098) was $20.75 (inflation adjusted that's ~$23.30), now in 2020 DP9-9098 is $17.99, and currently on sale is available for $14.39. Similar thing with the Cheetah on the same 2012 order.
I have to say that's a pleasant surprise! I lucked out and got most of my northern and southern minis when various online stores that started stocking HG during the various Blitz eras (original, L&L, FM) were getting rid of their stock. There was a bit of sticker shock for me when I had to pay full price or close to it and was expecting it to be even worse given the number of years since and with the plastics being around for a potential lower priced option.
Gasmasked Mook wrote:I had plenty of frustrations with the design and sprue layout of the Northern and Southern starter plastics but still liked the models and setting enough to get them set up. The Caprice sculpts were a big step up and the most recent plastics for NuCoal and Peace River show marked improvements - the arms and shoulder are separate pieces and the legs are on ball joints so it is much easier to get different poses. They have also stopped putting sprue connections on absurd places (like the eye piece of each mech’s head for example). Very excited to put these new ones together
If you've got stuff from both, it might be interesting to post some side by side comparison pics to show off the difference in possible poses. Glad to hear they're better though. I was still actively involved in the DP9 forums when the first KS arrived and I wasn't impressed with the results compared with the aging metals.
So, enlighten me on Heavy Gear. I know it's Mecha, and I know Mecha are cool. But I don't know much besides that-can anyone link me to resources on how to buy the minis, how to play, etc. etc.?
JNAProductions wrote: So, enlighten me on Heavy Gear. I know it's Mecha, and I know Mecha are cool. But I don't know much besides that-can anyone link me to resources on how to buy the minis, how to play, etc. etc.?
Thank you!
These days Heavy Gear is pretty much Direct only, availability through distributors seems to wax and wane every few years and they do a lot through Kickstarter now. Dream Pod 9's website is a little janky currently, for some reason trying to access the webstore anywhere else but directly from the main site suffers redirect issues for some people sometimes. They have two parallel lines of mini's, inexpensive plastics and pricier metals. The plastics aren't the greatest sculpts in the world (though the newer ones are definitely better, and I actually think the Caprice ones are pretty on par with their resin/metal versions) and are pretty static for poses, but the metals are (mostly) stunningly awesome sculpts. That said even the priciest DP9 models are generally cheaper than a GW equivalent sized model, with the exception of some of the larger resin vehicles, a metal Kodiak or King Cobra that are about the same size/heft as the old metal Chaos Obliterators runs about $19 at full price (about where Obliterators were..15 years ago in 4E ).
As for how to play, currently the rules are in a bit of flux, DP9 does make physical print books, but the game uses a "living rulebook" that can be updated every few months online, though is currently in the process of finalizing for a 3rd iteration of printing, so the current print rulebook is out of date. All the rules are available for free if you go register at www.dp9forum.com and you can find the rules available once logged in here in draft Word and Excel format. They do currently have an online army builder/unit list as well called Gear Grinder.
Unfortunately the current rules don't include much story/lore content however, and that's the best part of Heavy Gear, to get the best bits of that you'll have to track down older books, but the good news is most of them are available for real cheap. There are background books for pretty much every major state/colony with 70-100 pages each from the old RPG era.
For a brief overview however
Spoiler:
In general, most of the game takes place on a world called Terra Nova, a former colony of Earth, and at its most basic there are two major polar powers, the Confederated Norther City States and the Allied Southern Territories.
The CNCS is composed of the Western Frontier Protectorate (military/clan based society with a strong old west vibe), the Northern Lights Confederacy (basically a modern western democracy but with a strong conservative religious streak), and the United Mercantile Federation (a Corporatist state where government is funded and voting rights allocated by purchasing electoral vouchers). Each League has its own military, but also contributes to the shared Northern Guard which is generally the most capable fighting force in the North and absorbs the others in times of major war. The NG tends towards specialized purpose-built units and its units tend to have more squared/box looks.
The AST is dominated by the Southern Republic (a fascist/imperialist state that strongly values personal freedom and individuality so long as one toes the state line), it also includes the Eastern Sun Emirates (ostensibly run by descendants of officers of a crashed spaceship, the Eastern Sun, as independent Emirs under a Patriarch, but largely is a puppet vassal state of the SR, who turned the Emirs into corrupt hedonists ruling over dirt-poor masses), the Mekong Dominion (southern counterpart to the UMF, but with an east-asian flavor), and the Humanist Alliance (a scientifically constructed collectivist society forced into the AST by the Southern Republic, lots of 1984/Brave New World vibes but nowhere near as bleakly dystopian, largely the most technologically advanced League on the planet). Like the CNCS, each league has its own military (in the Emirates case, each Emir has their own forces), but also contributes to the shared MILICIA. However, the Southern Republican Army is by far the largest and most powerful military force in the South, with the MILICIA being a supporting arm where disgraced SRA units/personnel or conscripts from other leagues are sent and are used for crappy/boring/dangerous/"dirty" work. Southern units tend to be more generalized in capabilities and have more rounded/curved looks.
Peace River is an independent corporate state and significant arms producer located in the badlands between the two polar powers. Tends to have even more generalist units than the South, with the idea that they often operate far from support and kinda have to do everything on their own, for instance where the Polar advanced strike gears like Jaguars and Black Mambas prioritize raw performance, the Peace River Warrior IV trades some agility for ECM capabilities and extended range sensors where a Polar force would have specialist units for that.
There's also NuCoal (New Coalition) that's composed of various badlands city states and remnants of the first CEF invasion, which has also since incorporated much of the Humanist Alliance after the SR actively attempted to annex the HA instead of just dominate it. NuCoal tends towards speed and hover units, with a strong Southern influence on designs.
The CEF is the Colonial Expeditionary Force, the military forces of a resurgent fascist Earth looking to reclaim its lost colonies (hundreds of years after abandoning them following a populist/nativist political party coming to power and ending subsidization of the "taker" colonies, and mothballing most ships capable of interstellar travel,, then blasting itself to pieces in a third world war for a couple hundred years), with a greater emphasis on (hover)tanks, energy & guided weapons, and super soldier infantry than on mechs/robots (though they do have some of their own).
There's the Black Talons, a force composed from all Terra Novan factions that are the elite of the elite formed to take the fight to the CEF. Top of the line equipment, veteran pilots, stealth ability, tons of maneuverability and rerolls, but with a small unit count.
Caprice is another colony world, largely run by a conglomeration of various megacorporations, with most of the planet living in a giant canyon trench with hundreds of milions of people in a giant megacity, that was reconquered by Earth and has been forced into collaboration as the staging point for Earth to retake its other former colonies and often has its forces conscripted to fight alongside the CEF. Their forces are composed of quadruped walkers that tends more towards slightly bigger/more powerful units than average Terra Novan units, but not radically so, though pretty much all their units are also excellent climbers.
Utopia is much the same as Caprice, but much more willing in its collaboration with the CEF and is built heavily around Drones and advanced technology. There's also Eden but they're not terribly well fleshed out.
One can also make a Badlands force made from the low to upper-mid-tier units of most of the other factions.
Here's a solid battle report for an average sized game showing NuCoal and Caprice.
Gasmasked Mook wrote: I had plenty of frustrations with the design and sprue layout of the Northern and Southern starter plastics but still liked the models and setting enough to get them set up. The Caprice sculpts were a big step up and the most recent plastics for NuCoal and Peace River show marked improvements - the arms and shoulder are separate pieces and the legs are on ball joints so it is much easier to get different poses. They have also stopped putting sprue connections on absurd places (like the eye piece of each mech’s head for example). Very excited to put these new ones together
I haven't gotten to take a look at the NuCoal plastics in person, but the Caprice Plastics I was pretty impressed with.
I have to say that's a pleasant surprise! I lucked out and got most of my northern and southern minis when various online stores that started stocking HG during the various Blitz eras (original, L&L, FM) were getting rid of their stock. There was a bit of sticker shock for me when I had to pay full price or close to it and was expecting it to be even worse given the number of years since and with the plastics being around for a potential lower priced option.
Yeah I was flabbergasted as well, but it definitely resulted in me spending way too much money the last couple months
Being completely sick and tired of GW's hijinks I picked up the 2 player starter somewhere. And on an online EU store I managed to find some decals for North/South and a 'fer de lance'. Just had to pick that one up to paint it up as an 'ace pilot' or something.
I've decided to focus on other stuff than GW and HG seemed a good bet as my buddy already has a lot of Kickstarter stuff.
The metals are a bit expensive though.
When it comes to background material... what should I try to pick up to read up a bit on the fluff of my factions / paintschemes etc?
I'm pretty salty regarding HG and my interaction with DP9 but I've loved the universe since almost the beginning (I didn't play Heavy Gear Fighter but got the rpg the weekend it came out at Gencon). If you like the rules and minis, enjoy yourself and don't worry about what other people think. Just be aware that DP9's hijinks over the past 25 years can make GW appear quite nice and that there are reasons why so many old time players are so vocal and why the game remained so niche. Maybe it's because I have only been following HG peripherally for a few years but it does seem like they've turned over a new leaf though... Whether that's due to a heartfelt change in attitude or desperation (or both) I can't say.
Yeah my buddy mentioned it.
It seems to have improved with their Kickstarter era but that has it's own shortcomings.
I do have a giant Battletech collection but I felt going for something more mecha/mobile feeling mecha wise.
GW has my favourite IP's but their prices and the codexcycle + the whaling + many other things has pissed me off so much I decided to move on.
I'm going to move onto more 'standalone' experiences I suppose.
I won't say they're guilty of whaling to any significant degree beyond introduction of better than average $$$ gearstriders and new faction powercreep but edition cycling has traditionally and repeatedly been a problem. Hopefully with the switch to a free living rulebook that won't be the case but for it was routine for books, miniature line, or even entire edition to be replaced after only 2-3 years. I won't comment further though so as not to dampen your enthusiasm but there are a 100+ pages in this thread that I started years ago to help DP9 prior to the unveiling of what would eventually become the initial version of the living rules that details the unnecessary drama from the point of view of multiple (admittedly biased) sources. Unfortunately, polite but uncomfortably honest discussions weren't tolerated either by both DP9 and a handful of fellow players on the official forums so I put it up here instead.I
If you haven't checked out the previously independent HG DMZ Facebook group, you probably should as well for a more optimistic take on everything HG.
DP9's history has definitely been quite odd, and while I've never really been privy to the details of most of the drama, it's clear there's been a lot of it from perusing the DP9 forum (was especially amused by coming across a thread where one DP9 employee and a former contributing writer got into a mighty nerdrage spat over the RPG era CEF hovertank rules, the former contributor describing how he wrote the rules to match lore expectations and the other dude telling him they were insanely broken and unbalanced ), and a lot of older products/rules range from fantastic to "wtf", and I'm honestly surprised DP9 is still in business at all. I'm pretty sure Heavy Gear will continue to remain niche, but I'm far more enthused about the current rules and state of affairs than I ever was previously.
With regards to background material, depending on what faction you're going to play I'd say look for the old RPG era Sourcebook for that faction (most can be found for cheap, $5-15 online, a few are more expensive/rare), and see if you can find one of the various "Life on Terra Nova" books for a good overview of everything.
The Fer De Lance is a cool model, it's the Southern Republican Army's honor guard unit, very fancy-pants
Vaktathi wrote: DP9's history has definitely been quite odd, and while I've never really been privy to the details of most of the drama, it's clear there's been a lot of it from perusing the DP9 forum (was especially amused by coming across a thread where one DP9 employee and a former contributing writer got into a mighty nerdrage spat over the RPG era CEF hovertank rules, the former contributor describing how he wrote the rules to match lore expectations and the other dude telling him they were insanely broken and unbalanced ), and a lot of older products/rules range from fantastic to "wtf", and I'm honestly surprised DP9 is still in business at all. I'm pretty sure Heavy Gear will continue to remain niche, but I'm far more enthused about the current rules and state of affairs than I ever was previously.
With regards to background material, depending on what faction you're going to play I'd say look for the old RPG era Sourcebook for that faction (most can be found for cheap, $5-15 online, a few are more expensive/rare), and see if you can find one of the various "Life on Terra Nova" books for a good overview of everything.
The Fer De Lance is a cool model, it's the Southern Republican Army's honor guard unit, very fancy-pants
Yeah love the Fer De Lance design.
I'll keep an eye on it. Saw ebay had some. Including a collection. Prices were a bit high though. At least the EU based ones. But i'll see.
Much appreciated feedback!
Automatically Appended Next Post: I purposely am no longer on facebook.
Nor do I want a twitter account.
I purposely am avoiding most social media.
Hate those things.
I'll mostly play solo anyway I think except when I can set up a rare game with my buddy.
I did hear of a lot of the nonsense from my buddy. I'm hoping the plastic transfer continues via Kickstarters and they just try to push on with a stable line.
It's not like there is a community of HG over here.
Heck there is barely a truly active GW community anymore. Except for the skirmish and boardgames of GW. 40K/AOS are more dead than alive.
Seems drama and horrible businesschoices have killed of many promising games. Privateer Press was going to start over here and before it got off the ground distribution was cut off at the source. Battletech I got my hands on relatively easily but with enormous order delays.
And when companies aren't shooting themselves in the foot there is the shadow of GW. Who is the only one with a massive playerbase. And even there 'massive' is relative.
The only thing I really regret about HGatm is the sorry state of distribution.
I loved the games I played of it with a buddy a few years ago.
Good system if not a bit convoluted here and there. Nice mech designs.
But in a store i've only seen some models when I was a teen. (blisters) And i'm 36 now...
I have a lot of problems with DP9 as a company, and regarding what they have done with the lore. That said, the setting is still lovely and you can just ignore mostly everything past Storyline Book 4 and be done with it.
Life in Terra Nova is one of the best scifi setting books ever done, simply put. The setting is beautifully detailed, with a "lived-in" atmosphere that makes Battletech look like Disney World in many aspects, where Gears have a place but are not the end-all-be-all of it, and where you can play a lot of different games.
Why take your 2-player starter out of production when you have no actual LOS on replacing it?
I could order the now OOP 2-player starter from the UK at above retail, pay almost $40 for shipping, and it would still be less than ordering the separate army boxes and rulebook from DP9.
So feth it. I won’t be trying HG Blitz any time soon.
Then, yeah, that's frustrating. I figured there was a chance you might be referring to the older metal minis one. According to their store entry, they were supposed to have a new two player set in May but I'm guessing the pandemic put the breaks on that (or at least gave them an excuse to delay since it shouldn't have prevented releasing the rules pdf on time).
The guy writing the KS updates says he is way far behind on the new rulebook’s layout because every time he ships out packages to the US he has to self-quarantine for fourteen days.
I have it on good authority that the COVID is not transmissible via electrons over the internet. He should be ok to open up his desktop publishing software and send the completed digital files to the printer and drivethrurpg without endangering anyone's life. I suppose if he wants to be extra careful then he could add in the borders and graphics while wearing proper PPE.
Manchu wrote: This company frustrates the hell out of me.
Why take your 2-player starter out of production when you have no actual LOS on replacing it?
I could order the now OOP 2-player starter from the UK at above retail, pay almost $40 for shipping, and it would still be less than ordering the separate army boxes and rulebook from DP9.
So feth it. I won’t be trying HG Blitz any time soon.
Ebay has some still I believe.
I'm actually surprised it went out of print.
What's more active.. the facebook group or discord server? How do they compare with the official forum? I'm genuinely curious as I don't participate in them to any meaningful degree.
Vaktathi wrote: Discord has more active traffic than both the DP9 forums and FB combined I feel.
Thanks. The little experience I have with Discord gives me the impression that trying to have a conversation over a time period of more than a few minutes is a jumbled mess. I prefer the forum/subforum/thread format myself and even facebook has individual posts with dedicated comment threads at least. With Discord, it seems like you just get the main room and then subrooms with completely open chats. Am I being a boomer (despite actually being Gen X) and missing a key feature?
Vaktathi wrote: Discord has more active traffic than both the DP9 forums and FB combined I feel.
Thanks. The little experience I have with Discord gives me the impression that trying to have a conversation over a time period of more than a few minutes is a jumbled mess. I prefer the forum/subforum/thread format myself and even facebook has individual posts with dedicated comment threads at least. With Discord, it seems like you just get the main room and then subrooms with completely open chats. Am I being a boomer (despite actually being Gen X) and missing a key feature?
That's not unfair, and the depth of conversation generally isn't as deep as it (can) get on forums, but there is more activity (especially on the painting and modelling end) and a lot of stuff that gets to DP9's forum seems to start on Discord.
Vaktathi wrote: Discord has more active traffic than both the DP9 forums and FB combined I feel.
Thanks. The little experience I have with Discord gives me the impression that trying to have a conversation over a time period of more than a few minutes is a jumbled mess. I prefer the forum/subforum/thread format myself and even facebook has individual posts with dedicated comment threads at least. With Discord, it seems like you just get the main room and then subrooms with completely open chats. Am I being a boomer (despite actually being Gen X) and missing a key feature?
Discords usually are better at giving me quick answers to standalone questions.
Forums is usually much better as a repository of information, projects etc.
Writing a program to roll 10,000 attacks is a convoluted way to test stats, when you can just look at the numbers, and see the unbalances immediately.
This is arguably necro, so apologies in advance. But I wanted to chime in and say that I strongly disagree here. The way the math works on the mechanics is *weird* and it's probably better to validate your understanding by checking the numbers rather than guessing. That was true in the original mechanics, and it's true even in my reworked ones.
That's what combinatorics are for. Also, enumerating all dice rolls rather than using a Monte Carlo method that's both more computationally expensive and an approximation.
Writing a program to roll 10,000 attacks is a convoluted way to test stats, when you can just look at the numbers, and see the unbalances immediately.
This is arguably necro, so apologies in advance. But I wanted to chime in and say that I strongly disagree here. The way the math works on the mechanics is *weird* and it's probably better to validate your understanding by checking the numbers rather than guessing. That was true in the original mechanics, and it's true even in my reworked ones.
So I scored an unopened carded old school RAFM Assault Hunter. That's cool and all, but why am I bringing it up? Look at the parts below, notice anything?
Welp, apparently someone forgot to pack a pair of arms into the blister back in 1996...
I'd call RAFM, but I don't think they'll be able to help me
On the other hand, the Grizzly, Hunter Commando, and Armored Hunter all look to be good, so we'll see how those build out.
I've also had missing parts in sealed blisters as well as mispacks. Make sure you compare all the parts you can as just because something is there doesn't mean it's the correct part! I ended up with a mispack/missing rate of 1 in 3 when I opened up a dozen or so blisters. I actually did contact RAFM just in case but they unsurprisingly weren't able to help, lol.
The other three thankfully look good, imma try and build the Grizzly alongside a current scale one for giggles. Not sure what I'll do with the armless Assault Hunter. What's weirding me out more than the scale is the way they all have the butt armor hanging off the engine backpack instead of attached to the hips.
The other three thankfully look good, imma try and build the Grizzly alongside a current scale one for giggles. Not sure what I'll do with the armless Assault Hunter. What's weirding me out more than the scale is the way they all have the butt armor hanging off the engine backpack instead of attached to the hips.
Pretty much the only use is for spare parts for the inevitable next mispack. I had to rob Peter to pay Paul with my missing/incorrect parts and still had to get help from Ashley with a head. She just posted on her blog about a miscast as well that she noticed and had to fix. As for the buttplate, I think it was originally an armored fuel tank so it would make sense to be connected directly to the V-engine if I'm remembering that correctly.
Also, welcome to the wonderful world of RAFM scale fire support!
Pretty much the only use is for spare parts for the inevitable next mispack. I had to rob Peter to pay Paul with my missing/incorrect parts and still had to get help from Ashley with a head. She just posted on her blog about a miscast as well that she noticed and had to fix. As for the buttplate, I think it was originally an armored fuel tank so it would make sense to be connected directly to the V-engine if I'm remembering that correctly.
You are indeed remembering correctly, the butt plate is a (very) reinforced fuel tank. That's also the reason why gears powered by electric engines (like the Black Cat) either didn't have a buttplate altogether or it was a much smaller one that worked as the front ones.
You are indeed remembering correctly, the butt plate is a (very) reinforced fuel tank. That's also the reason why gears powered by electric engines (like the Black Cat) either didn't have a buttplate altogether or it was a much smaller one that worked as the front ones.
Thanks for confirming that. Also, I never consciously made that connection about the electric gears! Cool. It's almost as if there was a lot of love, creativity, and attention put into the universe during that initial period that can still temporarily warm the cockles of the most grognard gamer hearts decades later... and seemingly lacking in subsequent years. *cough* gearstriders *cough*
Edit: Regarding my above praise, I'm clearly not including the initial "borrowing" from VOTOMS.
The other three thankfully look good, imma try and build the Grizzly alongside a current scale one for giggles. Not sure what I'll do with the armless Assault Hunter. What's weirding me out more than the scale is the way they all have the butt armor hanging off the engine backpack instead of attached to the hips.
It's a pity I don't have any spare arms for your Grizzly, and can only lament mispacks and miscasts.
However, these two links will take you to the catalogue pages on my blog.
And while you're browsing you can check out my conversions, and see what I've been doing. Reposing and magnetizing them. In the process of doing this I've decided to make replacement parts for my missing aerials. This may lead to bigger parts, but it depends on how hard it is to replicate and cast replacement parts at home.
The work you put into your stuff is amazing, and far beyond any level of patience I possess
In looking for options for arms for the Assault Hunter, I found I have the super snubcannon from a northern Scimitar left over that looks about the right size, and I looked at the arms from the plastic Kodiak that DP9 has for sale but I think they'd be too small.
If the Kodiak is anything like the metal blitz one, it probably isn't the right proportions unfortunately. :(
@Ashley: Is the left foot of the left most Grizzly in the pic that I posted above miscast in a similar way as you were describing in your latest post? I didn't notice it when I was putting it together but only after I posted the image here a few days ago.
Vaktathi wrote:The work you put into your stuff is amazing, and far beyond any level of patience I possess
Thanks for the lovely comment .
warboss wrote:If the Kodiak is anything like the metal blitz one, it probably isn't the right proportions unfortunately. :(
@Ashley: Is the left foot of the left most Grizzly in the pic that I posted above miscast in a similar way as you were describing in your latest post? I didn't notice it when I was putting it together but only after I posted the image here a few days ago.
The inside face of both feet were poorly cast: the detail lost when the metal cooled before filling the mould. At least, that's what it looked like to me.
Just a quick message to let people know that i have listed eight of the old RAFM Heavy Gear miniatures onto Ebay UK.There would have been nine but Ashley got one .
Just one!?! I feel like I need to make a fellow ethusiast's virtual wellness check on her just in case...
edit: I just checked and there are some nice offerings but the shipping would be too much for me. Besides, I've still got a bunch unopened (and ALL unpainted!) from my own haul that I was lucky enough to get a few years back so should let others partake anyways.
So, got a couple things built, acquired some others locally and online.
Current Hunter Commando, original Hunter Commando, and the Armored Hunter. Looking at the Armored Hunter, I really was not impressed by its line art, stats, or background in the vehicle compendium, but I actually *really* like this model. The tread feet on a Hunter work really well, and the head is different enough to be neat.
Used stuff in need of re-assembly and stripping plus the two above. Thankfully everything is complete except for a couple antennae and some of the Stone Mason's roll cage. Mostly Southern stuff.
Unassembled stuff. Armless Assault Hunter in the bottom left, everything else *appears* to be complete. Mostly Northern stuff.
If I ever find a Mammoth in this scale (that isn't absurdly expensive), it's gonna be glorious. I don't think I've ever seen one for sale though, same goes for the King Cobra. Need to find a Bricklayer and figure out a pair of arms for the Hunter somewhere still.
You've got a nice collection there! Did you recently acquire those in one big batch? It looks like you've solved your armless assault hunter problem there.
It was 3 different batches, a couple batches of on-card northern stuff while the southern stuff was another group and mostly already built. I wish I could find a list of everything RAFM ever made, there's stuff I've found that I didn't know was ever made (by RAFM or DP9, like the Artillery Cobra) and stuff I know RAFM made but that I've never seen anywhere (like the King Cobra) except for tiny old pics online
Cool (especially that you got them NIB and even moreso that they're hopefully complete unlike mine!). Yeah, the pics are few and far between from that early era of the internet and the ones available are if you're lucky are 640x480 (or VGA resolution IIRC) which was a hefty download back in the dialup days. It's why I put up pics of my own minis at a bigger resolution once I got my hand on them.
I can't help with the King Cobra pics as I unfortunately don't own one. I actually liked the armored hunter in the original RPG art but the mini (though accurate) just didn't capture the feel. I think in mini form making the bearhunter (iirc the name variant) with the armored hunter body and bigger grizzly V-engine (since I don't recall them making a bear) would look alot better on the tabletop while still remaining true to the original.
Yeah, I think I got off dial-up right about the time the RAFM's stopped being made
A lot of Heavy Gear stuff in general is like that. Going through random jaunts down internet history lane, it's amazing how much stuff there is related to Heavy Gear that's floating about that DP9 was involved in but that isn't in main product line books, all sorts of articles and discussions and stories from old writers groups and mailing lists and magazines. Difficult to find and often not in the best shape when found
EDIT: on the topic of the armored hunter, I wish they'd make one for the current scale. I actually really like the rules for them in 3.0 Blitz, they're really good purpose-built "Hold"-Objective units. I can see what you mean about the engine on the RAFM model, I think it'd actually look pretty neat with a Grizzly engine on there.
I can't comment on the Blitz 3.0 (or more like 6.0 if you count original, L&L, FM, alpha/beta-nu, full release-nu, and now this one!). What makes it good for holding objectives versus either heavier units like Grizzlies or more nimble ones that avoid shots in the first place? Points value for survivability? I genuinely don't know.
The bearhunter conversion should be pretty easy in rafm as long as you potentially have the extra bits. I'd have to look up the variant to make sure I'm not missing any other significant changes though. I'm not in any way wishing you a major miscast or mispack but I suppose that's a silver lining to that particular bad situation.
In the current Blitz iteration, the Armored Hunter is relatively resilient and doesn't cost any more than a normal Hunter, plus it's got a long range mortar that isn't terrible which allows it sit still in cover way back and still contribute something meaningful. As long as you're not needing it to do a lot of moving and dashing about the board or doing things like climbing or falling or running into minefields that require piloting checks, they're pretty good for babysitting an objective or guarding a fire support gear.
fingers crossed on no more mispacks, we'll see what happens
Vaktathi wrote: The Buster looks like it's going to be particularly epic when complete, great work as always...
more RAFM toys!
So, got a couple things built, acquired some others locally and online.
If I ever find a Mammoth in this scale (that isn't absurdly expensive), it's gonna be glorious. I don't think I've ever seen one for sale though, same goes for the King Cobra. Need to find a Bricklayer and figure out a pair of arms for the Hunter somewhere still.
Wow, this thread has just leveled up with more good old RAFM Gears.
Thanks for the compliment, and I see you snagged a Kodiak at some point. I hates you. ;-)
However, I have a Mammoth. It's missing a foot casting, but I can replicate that.
Looking forward to seeing the strider make its appearance in your Bad Dog universe and what changes you make to it! If that's the plan, what faction/nation are you thinking about for that monster? I used to have one back in the day and it was more of a lethal weapon than the old 40k dreadnoughts. I still giggle when I remember a 40k teenage player who never built any metal minis who picked up my old 2nd edition dreadnought for the first time and was shocked by the heft.
Automatically Appended Next Post: On a peripherally related note, I saw this posted recently elsewhere and it was completely new to me! I've never seen a prototype/civilian version of the Scopedog before and I love this ungainly beast! I love all the little gribbly bits on this fan coversion of the art shown later in the link. I really like the exposed pistons and obviously less armored nature of it and could see various civilian and rover(in HG)/post apocalytic mad max style further conversions.
Paint it Pink wrote:
Wow, this thread has just leveled up with more good old RAFM Gears.
Thanks for the compliment, and I see you snagged a Kodiak at some point. I hates you. ;-)
However, I have a Mammoth. It's missing a foot casting, but I can replicate that.
Oh please make this your next project, that's going to be truly glorious.
warboss wrote:
On a peripherally related note, I saw this posted recently elsewhere and it was completely new to me! I've never seen a prototype/civilian version of the Scopedog before and I love this ungainly beast! I love all the little gribbly bits on this fan coversion of the art shown later in the link. I really like the exposed pistons and obviously less armored nature of it and could see various civilian and rover(in HG)/post apocalytic mad max style further conversions.
that actually does look pretty cool, you make a great point about the exposed pistons and whatnot, it looks especially punchy
warboss wrote: Looking forward to seeing the strider make its appearance in your Bad Dog universe and what changes you make to it! If that's the plan, what faction/nation are you thinking about for that monster? I used to have one back in the day and it was more of a lethal weapon than the old 40k dreadnoughts. I still giggle when I remember a 40k teenage player who never built any metal minis who picked up my old 2nd edition dreadnought for the first time and was shocked by the heft.
It's a model for the meta part of the plot that involves the big bad that hasn't yet been encountered. Can't say more, mostly because it's a work in progress, and more like where the series is going, which given I've been stalled for more than a year due to health problems, is as much as I can say at this point in time.
BTW: I now know glazing! As in mastered the technique with my current WIP mecha.
No worries and I'm sure you'll keep the blog updated when there is progress. Same thing with recasting the foot. It looks simple enough without overhangs and such that a normal greenstuff press casting should work as would 3d modelling and printing it. I'd offer but that shape (simple though it may be) is still beyond my abilities.
I've been unexpectedly on a VOTOMS kick recently and an important question came up and I figured I'd informally poll the thread. Which of these two iconic designs is your favorite and why?
the venerable Scopedog (shown here in the classic Red Shoulder Custom variation)...
Spoiler:
or the iconic Heavy Gear Hunter?
Spoiler:
If you had asked me a week ago (or any time in the past 25 years!), I'd have reflexively answered the Hunter but my opinion has recently changed. I still love the HG universe and the rest of the accompanying gears much more than that of VOTOMS but I have to hand it to the original Scopedog in that head to head comparison. Other than a plain and somewhat empty back in its stock configuration, I think the original design is very nice and my asthetic gripe is easily fixed with the various parachute packs, space mover thruster rigs, etc. I still prefer the look of the V-engine and loveably named buttplate but the various additons to the back come close enough in that regard. None of this is new but my resurgent interest in the design made me consider it more from a practical perspective and I have a new found respect for it; the Hunter just isn't practical as a physical real world design and mostly only useful for monopose scale miniatures. We see it from the various generations of miniatures that can only be posed in a certain way because parts physically overlap. While I don't think the company behind the defunct HGA pc game ever planned on using it as is, they did bring up a good point in that the original simply didn't work in the digital game realm either if you're using realistic physics/materials and the same would be true if the HG universe ever made it to live action film/tv as well. The Scopedog, on the other hand, is completely practical and poseable in that regard with the proof being decades of quality toys authentic to that 1983 original design. Even cheap gashapon like the ones I own have a range of motion that the Hunter would never be able to achieve without a significant redesign.
Thoughts? I had never previously ascribed any weight to that factor in the past but it really put the Scopedog over the top for me recently as I rediscovered how well designed it was while looking at youtube reviews of various Scopedog toys and model kits. It's likely that we all have our own priorities and preferences in this regard but I'm surprised that my opinion changed after all these years and specifically because of the reason behind the change.
Other than not having space for an actual engine/fuel tank, I personally think that the Scopedog is a better design, meaning that it's better thought out... which is not that strange given how much of the genre is at least tangentially designed to be toyetic.
That said, aesthetically I still like the Hunter more, even though it's by a not too big of a margin.
Albertorius wrote: Other than not having space for an actual engine/fuel tank, I personally think that the Scopedog is a better design, meaning that it's better thought out... which is not that strange given how much of the genre is at least tangentially designed to be toyetic.
That said, aesthetically I still like the Hunter more, even though it's by a not too big of a margin.
That's a good point about the engine and I share your opinion. I mentioned the bare back above and preferring the various packs; while it was mostly of an aesthetic preference, part of the reason I prefer it is that I envision the propulsion system there as well. I actually looked through my own meager VOTOMS resources during the past week for cross sections because of the same question about where the engine is. The only thing I found was a reference to a small battery pack in the crotch so I basically headcanoned the backpack into a large Tesla style battery compartment. I don't know if the scopedog is officially electrically powered in the shows but I figured it was and thought the idea matched the electric motor high pitched whine heard whenever the secondary movement system is engaged.
The blueprints I've seen show the coreless leg engines for the wheels, the hip sub battery and the PRSP system packs and battery on the thigh, but there was no engine that I could see ^^
They're both neat designs, hard to pick a "favorite". Both have their issues with actual functionality, as has been noted. The Hunter itself has also changed somewhat, it's original design felt much more "scopedog" like, with the more prominent central camera and round head. I think sticking a powerplant of some sort to the Scopedog's back would help balance the visual profile a bit more (in addition to dealing with some its apparent functional issues).
That said, just in terms of visual coolness? I think I'd have to go Jaeger over either the Scopedog or Hunter. Something about the Jaeger head design really does it for me (and is something I think that the current plastics borked big time, but the metal sculpts nailed perfectly).
Albertorius wrote: The blueprints I've seen show the coreless leg engines for the wheels, the hip sub battery and the PRSP system packs and battery on the thigh, but there was no engine that I could see ^^
This is the diagram I was referring to from the RPG.
Spoiler:
I just didn't see that relatively small sub-battery (that you more accurately described as located in the hip rather my wording) being strong enough to power the whole VOTOM hence my headcanon of the massive battery pack on the back. I suppose putting the electric motor back there to power it instead of stowage (half primary battery, half motor) would be an easy enough change.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vaktathi wrote: They're both neat designs, hard to pick a "favorite". Both have their issues with actual functionality, as has been noted. The Hunter itself has also changed somewhat, it's original design felt much more "scopedog" like, with the more prominent central camera and round head. I think sticking a powerplant of some sort to the Scopedog's back would help balance the visual profile a bit more (in addition to dealing with some its apparent functional issues).
That said, just in terms of visual coolness? I think I'd have to go Jaeger over either the Scopedog or Hunter. Something about the Jaeger head design really does it for me (and is something I think that the current plastics borked big time, but the metal sculpts nailed perfectly).
Terra Novan hipsters picking option C in a binary question! Yeah, those early northern gears went through some changes during 1st edition. I liked the switch to the more angular heads and rocket pods myself (although I think they should have stuck with the rounded ones for the south for their asthetics and interfaction variety). They're all cool looking though and I don't want it to sound like I'm trying to denigrate any of them. I still strongly prefer the various HG lineups (cheetahs/hunters/jaguars/grizzlies for the north) to those of VOTOMS (scopedogs, fatties, etc).
Do you think the Scopedog needs an update for modern times? I actually like what Mektek did with the hunter in HGA (not so much the other stuff) but I'm not sure I'd want anyone to mess with the scopedog in a theoretical reboot. I'd be fine with a more modern take on fancy new VOTOMS though if they leave the scopedog and its variants alone.
Vaktathi wrote: They're both neat designs, hard to pick a "favorite". Both have their issues with actual functionality, as has been noted. The Hunter itself has also changed somewhat, it's original design felt much more "scopedog" like, with the more prominent central camera and round head. I think sticking a powerplant of some sort to the Scopedog's back would help balance the visual profile a bit more (in addition to dealing with some its apparent functional issues).
That said, just in terms of visual coolness? I think I'd have to go Jaeger over either the Scopedog or Hunter. Something about the Jaeger head design really does it for me (and is something I think that the current plastics borked big time, but the metal sculpts nailed perfectly).
Well, I've always been more of a southern fan, so there's that ^^. But the HG Scopedog is most certainly the Basiisk
Automatically Appended Next Post:
warboss wrote: Do you think the Scopedog needs an update for modern times? I actually like what Mektek did with the hunter in HGA (not so much the other stuff) but I'm not sure I'd want anyone to mess with the scopedog in a theoretical reboot. I'd be fine with a more modern take on fancy new VOTOMS though if they leave the scopedog and its variants alone.
IIRC, they revised somewhat the designs for Case;Irvine.
Is there a time jump in the storyline with that being some sort of more advanced future Scopedog? I'll be eventually picking up the VOTOMS series on bluray but haven't watched it in many years. I'm surprised they didn't shrink the head if they were doing a partial redesign. I'm not personally a fan of it regardless FWIW.
warboss wrote: Is there a time jump in the storyline with that being some sort of more advanced future Scopedog? I'll be eventually picking up the VOTOMS series on bluray but haven't watched it in many years. I'm surprised they didn't shrink the head if they were doing a partial redesign. I'm not personally a fan of it regardless FWIW.
From what I remember of it (it wasn't that good), storyline wise it's not very clear where it's set, but the story revolves around an illegal fight ring and their pilots, so IIRC they were regular designs modded for close fighting.
As for a possible redesign... the head will stay. It's way too iconic not to, I think. Plus, you already have other designs and advanced designs that do away with it. Even back in the original series you had the Berserga and the Standing Tortoise (which is totally not a HG Black Adder, no siree), but even the Fatty head design is different, and in other series you had the Blood Sucker from The Last Red Shoulder or the Busy Crab from Big Battle, that had a clear canopy.
The important thing, though, is that all look that way for a reason, namely that the pilot need to be somewhere (exactly like HG, even though Gears are a bit bigger), and each design achieves that in their own way.
I agree that the head is iconic but western media gaking all over what was previously considered iconic just to put their own ultramodern divisive mark on IPs has left me somewhat jaded. I had never made the connection with the Black Adder. Huh...
warboss wrote: I've been unexpectedly on a VOTOMS kick recently and an important question came up and I figured I'd informally poll the thread. Which of these two iconic designs is your favorite and why?
the venerable Scopedog (shown here in the classic Red Shoulder Custom variation)...or the iconic Heavy Gear Hunter?
Good question. For me both have merits, but on the balance I prefer VOTOMS, but the Hunter's feet, with exposed wheels is in interesting detail.
warboss wrote: If you had asked me a week ago (or any time in the past 25 years!), I'd have reflexively answered the Hunter but my opinion has recently changed. I still love the HG universe and the rest of the accompanying gears much more than that of VOTOMS but I have to hand it to the original Scopedog in that head to head comparison. Other than a plain and somewhat empty back in its stock configuration, I think the original design is very nice and my asthetic gripe is easily fixed with the various parachute packs, space mover thruster rigs, etc. I still prefer the look of the V-engine and loveably named buttplate but the various additons to the back come close enough in that regard. None of this is new but my resurgent interest in the design made me consider it more from a practical perspective and I have a new found respect for it; the Hunter just isn't practical as a physical real world design and mostly only useful for monopose scale miniatures. We see it from the various generations of miniatures that can only be posed in a certain way because parts physically overlap. While I don't think the company behind the defunct HGA pc game ever planned on using it as is, they did bring up a good point in that the original simply didn't work in the digital game realm either if you're using realistic physics/materials and the same would be true if the HG universe ever made it to live action film/tv as well. The Scopedog, on the other hand, is completely practical and poseable in that regard with the proof being decades of quality toys authentic to that 1983 original design. Even cheap gashapon like the ones I own have a range of motion that the Hunter would never be able to achieve without a significant redesign.
Thoughts? I had never previously ascribed any weight to that factor in the past but it really put the Scopedog over the top for me recently as I rediscovered how well designed it was while looking at youtube reviews of various Scopedog toys and model kits. It's likely that we all have our own priorities and preferences in this regard but I'm surprised that my opinion changed after all these years and specifically because of the reason behind the change.
As you know... I've been rebuilding my RAFM Gears to more closely fit my vision for the Gate Walker universe CASE suits. And, if I ever bring a line of miniatures to market, then I would want to address the poseability issue of the RAFM sculpts. They're great examples of the sculptors art, but not mechanically well thought out.
Cool! You'll have to let me know how poseable they are (both pre and post assembly) as I'm curious how those work. Unlike with western models, I'm usually quite amazed with what Japanese kits can accomplish in that regard. FWIW, the gashapon I posted further up the thread is a bit bigger in scale and softer in detail (the 85mm Sunrise one below).
I mistakenly thought it was roughly 40k scale but that's more accurately the 1/60 model (assuming 6ft=30mm as the baseline).
I see this, and I wonder why this is still not a thing for Heavy Gear. These aren't any bigger than Mammoth/Red Bull minis, and the scale would allow so much better detail, poses and weapon options. And the game could be easily tuned for more detailed, 5v5 gear plus some infantry, making it relatively inexpensive and visually amazing.
I see this, and I wonder why this is still not a thing for Heavy Gear. These aren't any bigger than Mammoth/Red Bull minis, and the scale would allow so much better detail, poses and weapon options. And the game could be easily tuned for more detailed, 5v5 gear plus some infantry, making it relatively inexpensive and visually amazing.
Agreed. I had some wild hopes that maybe we'd get a larger scale and skirmish rules back before nublitz was even announced but obviously that didn't happen. My next hope was for the RPG that collected money and iirc delivered almost nothing. The votoms are about 25% too big for a 30mm infantry scale but gears are about midway between mine and the 1/60th scale models (4.3m height for a hunter vs 3.8m for a scopedog). I suppose there is nothing stopping us from doing it ourselves and that's why I bought them in the first place. I've been toying around with rescaling and printing the Dropzone Commander free downloadable buildings for a themed game at the FLGS when/if I make my return for the first time in 2020. Just a simple beer and pretzels walk up and play game of VOTOMS vs dollar store toys and prepainted minis I own. Think the Earth Defense Force videogame meets the Rifts RPG apocalypse where portals are opening across the city spewing out various monsters (not just bugs). That's been a part of my resurgent interest in VOTOMS and specifically scopedogs. I don't know if anything will ever come of it as I have to research how much the printing costs for the buildings will be but if I do it then I'll definitely take pictures.
Same here regarding rewatching. I'm considering getting the new bluray complete collection as I've only ever seen the original ova many years ago. The only reason I haven't ordered it already is because I've read some complaints about the transfer/technical quality.
I see this, and I wonder why this is still not a thing for Heavy Gear. These aren't any bigger than Mammoth/Red Bull minis, and the scale would allow so much better detail, poses and weapon options. And the game could be easily tuned for more detailed, 5v5 gear plus some infantry, making it relatively inexpensive and visually amazing.
Agreed. I had some wild hopes that maybe we'd get a larger scale and skirmish rules back before nublitz was even announced but obviously that didn't happen. My next hope was for the RPG that collected money and iirc delivered almost nothing.
Yeah it's sad that the RPG plans went nowhere, but I don't think it would have been very successful anyways. Things are a lot different now. Back when Heavy Gear first came out, its production values were way ahead of most other RPGs in terms of graphic design and art assets. Even the big games like AD&D were pretty plain, design wise, and that really made Dream Pod 9 stand out. Most modern RPGs have caught up or exceeded this level of production design and INFINITY seems to have grabbed the anime-esque tabletop/RPG market. It wouldn't stand out to new players and the old players would have very high standards on all fronts.
On the wargaming scale of things, Heavy Gear sits in an oddball space. It sits between 10mm and 15mm scales (though the dynamic scaling does odd things and you end up with 10mm light gears and 15mm support gears). I'd almost suggest a scale refresh at true 15mm scale, where you could have individually based infantry, gears closer to RAFM size and everything fits nicely in with the common 15mm terrain. But I know scale changes were unpopular in the past, so an entirely new, complimentary game is probably better.
I really think a 32mm skirmish scale could revitalize interest in the game. As I mentioned, 5v5 (gears) wouldn't be horribly expensive to get into and you could easily start with the big 4 from North and South with enough options in the pack to build many variants. People who already have 32mm terrain have an easy in and if they want games of larger scope, well, there's the Blitz! scale for that.
Yeah it's sad that the RPG plans went nowhere, but I don't think it would have been very successful anyways. Things are a lot different now. Back when Heavy Gear first came out, its production values were way ahead of most other RPGs in terms of graphic design and art assets. Even the big games like AD&D were pretty plain, design wise, and that really made Dream Pod 9 stand out. Most modern RPGs have caught up or exceeded this level of production design and INFINITY seems to have grabbed the anime-esque tabletop/RPG market. It wouldn't stand out to new players and the old players would have very high standards on all fronts.
Totally agree. I was someone coming from Palladium games and (to a much lesser extent since I didn't play them) D&D2e and the ultramodern layout and obviously color created albeit printed in B&W art was a big draw for me. Most of the last two decades have been relatively lackluster in that regard with Dp9 trying (or being able to afford) an eye catching layout and decent art only with a few products (the Nucoal/Southern Blitz big books). As for the success of the rpg, I think there are degrees of success. To borrow a quote from the matrix... there are levels of survival we are prepared to accept. Just replace survival with success and budget according. I don't have a clue what type of rules they were planning to use as the whole "plan" (if you could call it that) seemed half baked and I didn't pledge. Were they planning on coming out with their own independent ruleset built from scratch? Or were they planning on tweaking the old silhouette system? I don't see the benefit in doing the latter as it would just be more efficient to just update the timeline/fluff/equipment parts and print on demand; the problem is you are not really offering much to returning superfan players who likely have the orginal version. Creating your own system from the ground up is both time intensive and expensive to do properly and I didn't feel that would happen for a variety of reasons (number of folks involved, previous efforts, reliance on crowdfunding before any real work was done, etc). About the only thing left (and probably what I would have chosen if I were the benign overlord of all things HG) would be to pick a system with an established compatible ruleset that is open for use by others and then publish a smaller flavor book with rules only for what isn't covered in the core rules (like Savage Rifts did for example). I'd have mainly used existing classic art/layout and have the book ready to download/print POD for the initial crowdunding with the main stretch goals being updated art/layout for hopefully a full retail release. Admittedly that's typed now with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight but I was pretty much thinking the same thing years ago.
On the wargaming scale of things, Heavy Gear sits in an oddball space. It sits between 10mm and 15mm scales (though the dynamic scaling does odd things and you end up with 10mm light gears and 15mm support gears). I'd almost suggest a scale refresh at true 15mm scale, where you could have individually based infantry, gears closer to RAFM size and everything fits nicely in with the common 15mm terrain. But I know scale changes were unpopular in the past, so an entirely new, complimentary game is probably better.
I really think a 32mm skirmish scale could revitalize interest in the game. As I mentioned, 5v5 (gears) wouldn't be horribly expensive to get into and you could easily start with the big 4 from North and South with enough options in the pack to build many variants. People who already have 32mm terrain have an easy in and if they want games of larger scope, well, there's the Blitz! scale for that.
Yes and no (respectively and respectfully!). For the 15mm idea, I think that time has passed and so has the momentum/good will of the existing fanbase and rules. I don't see it working now even pre-pandemic personally but I'll admit that it's just a pure guess/opinion not backed up by anything concrete. As one of the staunchest critics of the original scale change from blitz, I'd have had no problem with it assuming it had been done with a skirmish version of nublitz prior to the plastic releases. I'm as grognardy as they come but even I think 20+ years of tactical/blitz scale is plenty of value; the problem with the first change is that is was being done 2-3 years after the intro of the line while also invalidating the printed products at roughly the same time. Literally everything I bought (and I was a completionist at the time with 90%+ of both the books and northern minis) was going to be incompatible with everything going forward after only a couple of years.
As for 32mm, I think you're wrong about the affordability. The average gear would be bigger than striders/gearstriders that currently cost $35-55 and getting an actual single strider would likely be CEF Overlord hovertank ($100+) cost. I don't see a new player to a franchise in decline investing what would be necessary for the average 5v5 gear game size default. YMMV but personally I don't see anything bigger than RAFM working economically for either them or the playerbase. I'd love to see it but I don't think that I'd even buy in for more than just one of each of the core northern gears (and a King Cobra!).
In a nutshell, I think that DP9 and HG are in a damned if you do/damned if you don't situation/grave entirely of their own making. It's not completely hopeless but I don't see that changing until literally the entire IP changes hands completely.
John Prins wrote: Yeah it's sad that the RPG plans went nowhere, but I don't think it would have been very successful anyways. Things are a lot different now. Back when Heavy Gear first came out, its production values were way ahead of most other RPGs in terms of graphic design and art assets. Even the big games like AD&D were pretty plain, design wise, and that really made Dream Pod 9 stand out. Most modern RPGs have caught up or exceeded this level of production design and INFINITY seems to have grabbed the anime-esque tabletop/RPG market. It wouldn't stand out to new players and the old players would have very high standards on all fronts.
Although it's true that HG would not grab as much attention currently for its production values, there is still a market for good sci-fi RPGs with a mecha component, as things like the Lancer RPG can certainly attest (having gotten more than $430k on Kickstarter)... but they have managed their (quite long) alpha and beta phases very professionally and now the tactical part of the game purrs like a well oiled engine.
I wouldn't trust the current DP9 to reach that level. By a long shot.
Still tempted to write a Heavy Gear Lancer mod, though.
I would personally put a "regular mini scale" trooper Gear at a size similar to that of a Contemptor Dreadnought.
Albertorius wrote: I am more or less confident by now that the only way I'll have a 28mm Gear is by designing it myself, unfortunately.
Which might be the incentive to do it, I guess >_>
Probably though I may eventually be of help there. When I last checked (a long time ago), that pre-blitz garage kit large scale Kodiak was almost Inquisitor scale (54mm).
Automatically Appended Next Post: All this Hunter talk got me thinking about my old 3d model project and I decided to do some work on it over the weekend again. Instead of trying to create a faithful nuBlitz XMG, I decided instead to just try and create a reimagined stock hunter. It's not particularly different from my prior attempts (I'm very limited in my poses unless I want him flipping the bird or doing a cowboy victory dance) but I globally thickened up the model to hopefully fix some of the printing errors I got in my first two prints (broken antenna, missing pieces behind the eye lens, etc).
I previously printed my gears at an intended height of 30mm to the top of the sensor head but I don't know if I should test this out at RAFM scale (40mm?). I suppose I could just properly support the model and do both in one print with a resize. Just a quick graphic for the three potential scales. I didn't apply any modifier to the Hunter for Blitz scale and just showed it as is for 1/144 for a 4.3m gear (measured to the top of the rocket pod).
warboss wrote: Probably though I may eventually be of help there. When I last checked (a long time ago), that pre-blitz garage kit large scale Kodiak was almost Inquisitor scale (54mm).
All this Hunter talk got me thinking about my old 3d model project and I decided to do some work on it over the weekend again. Instead of trying to create a faithful nuBlitz XMG, I decided instead to just try and create a reimagined stock hunter. It's not particularly different from my prior attempts (I'm very limited in my poses unless I want him flipping the bird or doing a cowboy victory dance) but I globally thickened up the model to hopefully fix some of the printing errors I got in my first two prints (broken antenna, missing pieces behind the eye lens, etc).
[snip]
I previously printed my gears at an intended height of 30mm to the top of the sensor head but I don't know if I should test this out at RAFM scale (40mm?). I suppose I could just properly support the model and do both in one print with a resize. Just a quick graphic for the three potential scales. I didn't apply any modifier to the Hunter for Blitz scale and just showed it as is for 1/144 for a 4.3m gear (measured to the top of the rocket pod).
Okay, looking good, but consider breaking it down into sub-assemblies, which would then allow you to repose the parts.
Okay, looking good, but consider breaking it down into sub-assemblies, which would then allow you to repose the parts.
It's a good idea and I might try that. I did something similar when I started tweaking them this year but wasn't happy with the results. Since then I've hopefully gotten better with both supporting the models and fine tuning my prints so it might be worth another shot. My embarassingly crappy photo below shows the one piece on the left and multipiece on the right. It's not an apples to apples comparison as I tweaked other variables like size/thickness in an attempt to emulate the blitz models more closely.
Spoiler:
edit: Last night's efforts. I figured I'd split up the parts mostly like a rafm physical model (so the LAC is attached to the hand) and eventually print it out this way. Tonight I'm going to retry the boolean subtractions so that I can actually have proper sockets to go with the ball joints on the arms and head. I haven't been able to get that function to work properly in any of the programs I've tried. :( If it doesn't work then I'll just have to print it as is and drill it out manually with an electric drill.
Cool! I'm looking forward to seeing the eventual full model! Just don't be tempted to be too faithful or detailed at the cost of printability. The pc game had very detailed eyelenses that failed to print correctly despite intramodel supports and multiple rounds of detail thickening.
I'm printing out my RAFM custom gear so decided to search for HG on youtube for the first time in a long while this morning and found this interesting first hand account of having a nascent interest in HG and interacting with DP9 at gencon. Those pertinent parts are in the first few minutes and I'm only about 15 min currently. When he gets to the rules, it gets more optimistic so far.
Any thoughts on this? It kind of reminds me of a modern CGI take on VOTOMS/HG with its seemingly disposable trooper mechs. I've only skimmed through the first episode but plan to watch the series this week. Apparently this used to be paywalled on youtube behind their red service but now isn't with the second season coming up in 2-3 months.
There seem to be some 1/35 modular model kits available as well but nothing wargaming though.
I watched the first ep back when the rest was behind the paywall, and it looked pretty cool. Smaller than HGs but much in the "upgraded infantry" box as them.
Albertorius wrote: I watched the first ep back when the rest was behind the paywall, and it looked pretty cool. Smaller than HGs but much in the "upgraded infantry" box as them.
Definitely smaller than HG and Votoms and basically a Star Wars Clone Wars AT-RT with arms prior to modification. The pilot fits in the box on the back when it is armored which was a bit of a pleasant surprise for me.
I think it's interesting that the various models use the same core skeleton structure given to them by aliens apparently in the anime and the differences are due to the human factions adding stuff on.
Given the image and the fact that it's on its knees, height wise it should be quite similar to a Cheetah: the crew compartment is about the same size, it's not Head-in-Head (as this one)... other than the V-Engine and probably thicker extremities, it's in the same ballpark.
Even the butt-wheels like the Weasel are around 3.5m not including rocket pods and V-engines. If I buy one of the kits, I'm thinking that I'll end up putting a 28mm style figure (40k Guardsmen size) into a custom cockpit. I think the smaller size compared with 1/35 should fit in the same boxed area.
I've been pondering making an off scale 40k tau 15mm army and was wondering how to justify the cost/effort of 3d printing it. One of the reasons I came up with was that I could theoretically use it in HG as a counts as force. The mix of infantry, crisis suits, mechs, and hovertanks seems to best fit a CEF force with Caprice allies (for the bigger suits as mounts). Is there any word on when the army lists will reach a final (for now) status? It's been months and a quick check of the forums still has the mishmash of Microsoft Office files instead of the properly laid out off that was mentioned months ago.
Edit: I've never owned any CEF/Utopia/Caprice models and I'm a bit surprised at some of their relative sizes (especially frames as they look fire support gear size and up!). I'm not sure if frames/flails as crisis/stealth suits is appropriate and caprice mounts as bigger ones like riptides is better or using Utopia as allies instead for armigers/golems as crisis/stealth suits and frames as riptides to better match the devilish as a hovertank. I know there likely is still some sort of Infinity style silhouette system for LOS (I'm still using the 2016 rules) but I'm mainly asking for asthetic/visual reasons.
warboss wrote: Yup, your blog is a goldmine for that stuff! Those are the 1/60 votoms, right?
The ones in the picture in my previous post are 1/144th scale. The Arctic Gear VOTOMS below are 1/48th scale, and will work with 28mm or whatever passes for such infantry.
So there's an RPG again? Pre-Alpha 4th edition is up for review by...someone. I'm going to sound the most like a grognard that I ever have, but I don't know who any of these usernames who are apparently making the game now are.
Oh wow... that's definitely news. One of the folks working on it (Vaktathi) is a mod here and occasionally has posted in this thread (most recently IIRC with his RAFM haul). I'd say I'm surprised he didn't pop in to make the annoucement but I wouldn't blame him for thinking that the thread is a bit of a lost cause for excitement.
No idea who they are (at least via those screen names). Most of the people that I interacted with most in my years aren't active there anymore (whether by choice or not). Since I'm not particularly familiar with the current nublitz iteration, I can't really comment either on the ideas floating around on the official forums.
sorry it's actually been rather busier than expected between day job and Heavy Gear. If anyone has any Q's, let me know. We are actively soliciting feedback and are still very early in the development stage. We basically started with a whittled down 2E as a base, and have been adapting outward from there based what DP9's looking for (mainly adapting the current Blitz dice mechanic) and feedback we've gotten so far. Current plan is to move the timeline forward to TN1951 (and not restart at Jungle Drums again) and the 2nd CEF invasion, use the RPG to grow the timeline. If there's story stuff/inconsistencies/gaps/etc people want to see addressed, let me know the deets and we'll see about squaring stuff, we'd like to get some of that stuff addressed.
HudsonD wrote: Well, have you gotten hold of the original writers' notes, or are you coming up with a new "future" for the DP9 timeline ?
Everything is being done according to DP9's metaplot plan. I'm largely focusing on mechanics in my role, so I don't know how much that plan may have deviated over the years (I genuinely haven't asked), but I can tell you we're not making up the metaplot ourselves.
See, the devil is in the details.
When you say "DP9's metaplot plan", what do you mean ?
The original plan was laid out around 1st ed, and fleshed out with 2nd ed, but it got derailed and altered many times since, whether because of mistakes, or a decision to push something new.
The plan got changed to put more emphasis on the Black Talons and the colonies around the time of the HG2 video game release.
The plan got changed again for Blitz, to push a more 40K-esque, volatile, permanent conflict setting. The less said about Nu-Nucoal, the better.
The plan would have been changed again to push landships further if that project had been succesful (I blame the excellent Homeworld SoK game for this), and I could go on.
Poor freelancer management affected the colony concepts and the later storybooks, if you have them, I was told the original story got derailed around book 4.
Likewise, when you say "DP9", it was a team back then, and it's pretty much a one-person company now. Speaking of DP9, if you need a good primer on the company's inner working, just think "SRA".
Anyway, since you're focussing on the mechanics, what are you aiming for ?
Regarding the lore stuff, it's got Black Talons, Nu-Coal, all the Blitz stuff, etc, and will be proceeding from the 2nd CEF invasion, about the time of Perfect Storm/Forged In Fire as far as that goes.
With respect to mechanics, our goals are a narrative focused RPG with some interplay with Blitz (basic dice mechanics, weapon profile structure, stuff like that) that's less strictly simulationist than the original. It will not be using hexmaps. For miniatures/battlemat combat, currently the view is to use a literalist scale of 1"=5M, and have such combat portray CQB engagements in the vein of the original Skirmish scale, with larger scale combat where forces may be exchanging fire over longer combat distances would generally be handled more narratively. We're still exploring a lot of things and figuring out what people want, starting with some modified 2E basics, and are working from there.
Firebreak wrote: So there's an RPG again? Pre-Alpha 4th edition is up for review by...someone. I'm going to sound the most like a grognard that I ever have, but I don't know who any of these usernames who are apparently making the game now are.
Oh? Interesting. Does any of the people involved has any actual RPG cred, or is this going to be just a retelling/mish-mash of 2nd edition with current Blitz?
sorry it's actually been rather busier than expected between day job and Heavy Gear. If anyone has any Q's, let me know. We are actively soliciting feedback and are still very early in the development stage. We basically started with a whittled down 2E as a base, and have been adapting outward from there based what DP9's looking for (mainly adapting the current Blitz dice mechanic) and feedback we've gotten so far. Current plan is to move the timeline forward to TN1951 (and not restart at Jungle Drums again) and the 2nd CEF invasion, use the RPG to grow the timeline. If there's story stuff/inconsistencies/gaps/etc people want to see addressed, let me know the deets and we'll see about squaring stuff, we'd like to get some of that stuff addressed.
Hm, I was banned from the Pod forums by Dubois, actually, so I won't be saying much there.
I... have big misgivings with the current timeline, TBH, as many of the developments were doing via "magic-wanding" stuff (and even then we apparently got lucky when the landships game tanked), so keeping with the Blitz timeline, which specifically made amends to make it more "wargame friendly" will be actively detrimental for the RPG, I feel.
As to keeping 2e, well... I mean, it was a decent system. For the early 90s. Currently it mostly feels clunky and unwieldy, so I believe you'll probably need to do a bit more than just use a slimmed down version as the core.
Anyways, I'll be looking at this with interest, mild as it might be .
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vaktathi wrote: With respect to mechanics, our goals are a narrative focused RPG with some interplay with Blitz (basic dice mechanics, weapon profile structure, stuff like that) that's less strictly simulationist than the original. It will not be using hexmaps. For miniatures/battlemat combat, currently the view is to use a literalist scale of 1"=5M, and have such combat portray CQB engagements in the vein of the original Skirmish scale, with larger scale combat where forces may be exchanging fire over longer combat distances would generally be handled more narratively. We're still exploring a lot of things and figuring out what people want, starting with some modified 2E basics, and are working from there.
On the face of it, it sounds like the right direction, at least. That said, what do you mean by "narrative" and "simulationist", in this context? I ask because there are as many meanings for those as people uttering them, so having an idea of what you want out of them would be interesting.
Regarding combat, I feel like having Blitz you probably sould link any "miniatures/battlemat" to those and focus the rules of the RPG on theater of the mind combat, with as much help as possible to arbitrate and develop it. Maybe abstract maps with zones, maybe full TotM, maybe a mix of both.
Vaktathi wrote: Regarding the lore stuff, it's got Black Talons, Nu-Coal, all the Blitz stuff, etc, and will be proceeding from the 2nd CEF invasion, about the time of Perfect Storm/Forged In Fire as far as that goes.
The plan would have been changed again to push landships further if that project had been succesful (I blame the excellent Homeworld SoK game for this), and I could go on.
Albertorius wrote: I... have big misgivings with the current timeline, TBH, as many of the developments were doing via "magic-wanding" stuff (and even then we apparently got lucky when the landships game tanked), so keeping with the Blitz timeline, which specifically made amends to make it more "wargame friendly" will be actively detrimental for the RPG, I feel.
Could either of you elaborate on those potential changes due to the aborted landship game? I think I remember people posting changes to the fluff on the tech of the landships but I'm not sure how much that would affect the rpg other than having the default "homebase" for military campaigns being set on a landship (which I'd think would be cool personally).
As for the setting, I think I've posted here in the recent (<1 year) past that I'd have preferred a first CEF invasion setting/timeline but I fully admit that is both entirely biased towards my own preferences and an unrealistic pipedream on my part since it wouldn't drive synergistic sales to 75% of the current minis.
The plan would have been changed again to push landships further if that project had been succesful (I blame the excellent Homeworld SoK game for this), and I could go on.
Albertorius wrote: I... have big misgivings with the current timeline, TBH, as many of the developments were doing via "magic-wanding" stuff (and even then we apparently got lucky when the landships game tanked), so keeping with the Blitz timeline, which specifically made amends to make it more "wargame friendly" will be actively detrimental for the RPG, I feel.
Could either of you elaborate on those potential changes due to the aborted landship game? I think I remember people posting changes to the fluff on the tech of the landships but I'm not sure how much that would affect the rpg other than having the default "homebase" for military campaigns being set on a landship (which I'd think would be cool personally).
As for the setting, I think I've posted here in the recent (<1 year) past that I'd have preferred a first CEF invasion setting/timeline but I fully admit that is both entirely biased towards my own preferences and an unrealistic pipedream on my part since it wouldn't drive synergistic sales to 75% of the current minis.
Well, for starters it was the physics of the game, as landships were only feasible on Terra Nova due to some very specific conditions. But mainly it was their idea of having landships on every planet, many of them smuggled somehow from Terra Nova via the Black Talons or something... where at that point you really should probably just build spaceships, you know? ^^.
As to the rest of the setting, well, the more it goes down the "all wars all the time", the less space there is for games to be about aything else but the wars. 40k has the advantage of being immensely vast, but Hg's setting is very much not so, so the impact is much bigger there. Kind of like having a game set during WWII, but in a planet of 400m people invaded by about 10 million soldiers.
Thanks. Yeah, I'd prefer to keep the landships native to Terra Nova. That said, I don't think changes to how they work in game/tech will affect the RPG much if the setting is firmly planted there as a baseline.
sorry it's actually been rather busier than expected between day job and Heavy Gear.
No worries and thanks for chiming in. Like I said, I wouldn't blame you for not trying to drum up enthusiasm early on here. Regardless, good luck to you and the team on the project!
warboss wrote: Oh wow... that's definitely news. One of the folks working on it (Vaktathi) is a mod here and occasionally has posted in this thread (most recently IIRC with his RAFM haul). I'd say I'm surprised he didn't pop in to make the annoucement but I wouldn't blame him for thinking that the thread is a bit of a lost cause for excitement.
But this thread is awesome. No, seriously. So much conversation and tidbits to read. All good, even the bad bits.
AFAIK there are no current plans for landships. That could change, but from what I understand that project is kaput.
While we can't rewrite the bulk of the timeline or rewind everything, if there are specific inconsistencies or unclarified stuff or weird bits you'd like to see addressed or better explained/supported, let me know and I'll bring them up.
We're definitely planning to do much more than just take a stripped down 2E and repackage that (and the old RPG is definitely clunky now), we used that as a framework to start gathering feedback from, but aren't sticking doggedly to much of anything from 2E. With respect to "narrative" vs "simulationist", we're still playing with stuff and figuring out what levels of "crunch" people like and where to draw lines, but one of the changes we made based on feedback, was decoupling Skills from Attributes, in that for any given roll, a GM will tell you which pair to roll together given the circumstances (for example, Athletics+Fitness to run a Marathon, Athletics+Strength to force a door). We're playing with movement rates, initially this started out as a pretty straight adaptation of 2E, I just wrote up a simplified concept based on Blitz movement that should be fairly easy to use narratively without having to care about exact distances if one doesn't want to. Zones were brought up, we just started looking at the idea, it's something that may also get incorporated. If there's anything specific you'd like to chime in on about, let me know.
If anyone's on the HG Discord server, IIRC everyone working on the RPG is also on there from time to time.
Hm... ok, but what do you mean by those words, "narrative" and "simulationist"?
You're speaking about crunch level, and decoupling attributes from skills and movement rates... but that's a different axis of game design, so it doesn't actually tell me much, other than if you're bothering with movement rates at all you're thinking more about task resolution than conflict resolution, maybe. (I mean, do you even need movement rate rules? Or attributes, to give a couple of examples?)
I guess that the first thing to ask would be: what is this game about? What are the players supposed to be doing? What themes are you supposed to be exploring?
For reference, and to cite three relatively recent examples, one of which is actually a direct contender with HG, and two that I am personally involved in:
Legend of the Five Rings 5th edition Be a samurai in a unhistorical mostly japanese asian pastiche and deal with the opposing pulls of what society expects from you as a member of the samurai caste and what you want as a human being. Live by Bushido, die by the sword; deal with your bursting emotions as a samurai has to (by repressing them), or explode spectacularly and dishonor yourself forever while at the same time doing what needs to be done.
Tenra Bansho Zero Enter inside a kabuki theater play act progression and see how your characters change over the course of the acts while they deal with the things they care for to avoid accumulating karma and devolve into a buddhist akuma, a human-like demon controlled by their worldy desires. Imerse yourself in melodrama-laden performances from yourself and the rest of the players that will literally fuel your powers and reward the rest of the players for it. Live by Fate, die by Karma.
Lancer You're a Lancer, the cavalry, the elite of the elite of the mech pilots. Get called when the going gets tough and immerse yourself in an extremely rewarding mecha personalization system and and a detailed and highly customizable tactical mech combat system coupled with light, "fiction first" character RPG rules.
You should combine all three... kabuki samurai demon mechs! Make them angsty horny teenagers and you'll have so many ENnies you won't know where to put them!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Paint it Pink wrote: But this thread is awesome. No, seriously. So much conversation and tidbits to read. All good, even the bad bits.
Thanks. I sometimes wonder how well be walk the line between jaded but useful and RPG Mean Girls the movie.
warboss wrote: You should combine all three... kabuki samurai demon mechs! Make them angsty horny teenagers and you'll have so many ENnies you won't know where to put them!
I'm not that certain Evangelion would work that well as a RPG.
warboss wrote: You should combine all three... kabuki samurai demon mechs! Make them angsty horny teenagers and you'll have so many ENnies you won't know where to put them!
Oh, TBZ already has that. Only samurai are people surgically altered to hulk out and mecha are piloted by innocent horny teenagers ^^ (because they have not accumulated much karma, being innocents).
warboss wrote: You should combine all three... kabuki samurai demon mechs! Make them angsty horny teenagers and you'll have so many ENnies you won't know where to put them!
I'm not that certain Evangelion would work that well as a RPG.
Well, Monsterhearts is already a thing, and it could be easily modified for Evangelion mech action...
And a friend of mine wrote another one, Titan Academy, which uses some of the same tropes combined with some others (I playtested that last one and helped write some parts):
Apologies for misunderstanding the question, been in a bunch of back and forth conversations on mechanics recently.
Here's a working concept of the narrative setup, "what it's about", though the official text may end up being different.
"Explore the world of Terra Nova and 62nd century combat on a personal scale through the events of the largest war the planet has ever suffered. As the invaders fall from the skies, will you seek to lead your Badlands clan to safety by securing passage with smugglers out of the desert, or stand and hold your homestead against the purple monsters at the sticks of a salvaged Hunter? As Port Oasis burns, do you speak up in support of reinforcing strategically vital Northern combat zones or do you worry that, even at this dire hour, the archives of Les Temoins remembers all? Conversely, will you reclaim the wayward colony from the cupola of a Hovertank so that it's debt to a dying Mother Earth can be repaid? As the apocalyptic conflict explodes across the planet, make your choice, and give all for victory, for the thrill of it, for revenge, or for mere survival."
Thanks. Still, that is mostly setting, which still doesn't tell me much about themes, or what the game is about (In my examples I specifically tried to give as little setting information as possible to make it clear that at this stage it's not really important).
The only thing I can see from that, so far, is that it's a wartime RPG.
Given that:
- Is the game actually about the different wars on Terra Nova and beyond, which is a great departure from the older editions? Is it a "wargame" RPG in the vein of Twilight 2000 or Deathwatch, for example?
- What themes do you guys expect should be explored?
- What's the expected gameplay experience, and how will the mechanics enforce that experience?
Albertorius wrote: Thanks. Still, that is mostly setting, which still doesn't tell me much about themes, or what the game is about (In my examples I specifically tried to give as little setting information as possible to make it clear that at this stage it's not really important).
The only thing I can see from that, so far, is that it's a wartime RPG.
Given that:
- Is the game actually about the different wars on Terra Nova and beyond, which is a great departure from the older editions? Is it a "wargame" RPG in the vein of Twilight 2000 or Deathwatch, for example?
- What themes do you guys expect should be explored?
- What's the expected gameplay experience, and how will the mechanics enforce that experience?
Colour me interested in where you're going with this. I'm not sure I follow what you mean by themes?
Sorry if this feels like a demand for an explanation, but I'm genuinely curious for you to unpack this. What Albortorius said seemed clear enough to me, but you've piqued my interest that I've missed something. I hate missing the point, and curiousity is my one of my defining traits.
Albertorius wrote: Thanks. Still, that is mostly setting, which still doesn't tell me much about themes, or what the game is about (In my examples I specifically tried to give as little setting information as possible to make it clear that at this stage it's not really important).
The only thing I can see from that, so far, is that it's a wartime RPG.
Given that:
- Is the game actually about the different wars on Terra Nova and beyond, which is a great departure from the older editions? Is it a "wargame" RPG in the vein of Twilight 2000 or Deathwatch, for example?
- What themes do you guys expect should be explored?
- What's the expected gameplay experience, and how will the mechanics enforce that experience?
Colour me interested in where you're going with this. I'm not sure I follow what you mean by themes?
Sorry if this feels like a demand for an explanation, but I'm genuinely curious for you to unpack this. What Albertorius said seemed clear enough to me, but you've piqued my interest that I've missed something. I hate missing the point, and curiousity is my one of my defining traits.
Hm, confused now. Are you asking me (Albertorius) or Vaktathi?
If it is me, the only themes I have been able to see in the blurb is "wartime RPG" in the vein of a WWII RPG or the like, but it actually doesn't tell me much other than that it will deal with the war. That is actually a theme (war stories) but doesn't tell me much about tone or anything else apart of some setting stuff that as a newbie I would probably not be able to really decipher (There are Badlands clans or something, so there's Badlands in the setting; there are homesteads; there are purple monsters; Some place called Port Oasis burns, and something called Les Temoins which is maybe a library...).
As a counterpoint, in the examples I made I tried to avoid setting details as much as possible and tried to focus on what the game is supposed to be about (samurai drama!, Tactical mecha combat and light character RP!). That kind of stuff.
What would you say the theme(s) of the original/2E RPG were, or what were they trying to explore?
I'd say intrigue, namely political but more broadly "factional" (between corporations, military units, etc.); and a healthy dose of that staple of Canadian fiction, "man-vs-nature." Sure it's a sci-fi setting, but it was always made very clear that Terra Nova is not EASY.
Albertorius wrote: If it is me, the only themes I have been able to see in the blurb is "wartime RPG" in the vein of a WWII RPG or the like, but it actually doesn't tell me much other than that it will deal with the war. That is actually a theme (war stories) but doesn't tell me much about tone or anything else apart of some setting stuff that as a newbie I would probably not be able to really decipher (There are Badlands clans or something, so there's Badlands in the setting; there are homesteads; there are purple monsters; Some place called Port Oasis burns, and something called Les Temoins which is maybe a library...).
HG has always been a setting with the spectre of war looming (and small flare ups that the players obviously participate in) but I'd agree that there is a difference between that and the full on global conflict that this will likely involve. I just don't know if there is any way to set it otherwise while still tying it into the tabletop game in a simultaneous timeframe (which I suspect is understandably the overriding priority for DP9). They can't set it pre-second invasion because almost the last (real world) decade of products (both books and minis) from the company have been focused on that conflict and I don't think they can hand wave fast forward past the conflict either without hurting the wargame. For better or worse, we'll have an RPG that tells a more personal tale in a tiny slice of that conflict. I'm ok with that personally (hell, I suggested doing that for my own "If I ruled the world" HGrpg but during the first invasion) but I can understand why folks like yourself who really got into the world building of TN would prefer a different default setting.
Firebreak wrote: What would you say the theme(s) of the original/2E RPG were, or what were they trying to explore?
I'd say intrigue, namely political but more broadly "factional" (between corporations, military units, etc.); and a healthy dose of that staple of Canadian fiction, "man-vs-nature." Sure it's a sci-fi setting, but it was always made very clear that Terra Nova is not EASY.
For starters, let's remark that Silhouette didn't really play to the themes of any particular setting other than in the broad general sense that it was a system centered around a taks resolution system with a results curve that made higher skill reliable and where the sweet spot was in a "human range" of values... and which broke quite fast as soon as you took it out of the sweet spots.
As to Heavy Gear specifically, other than the above system assumptions, all the themes were setting ones and weren't really enhanced or enforced by the actual ruleset.
Im my mind, the main themes of HG as a setting always were:
- Life in the frontier, both as a general trope of the setting (TN is a frontier world, after all, and very sparsely populated) and as a specific one (the Badlands, duh ) and a sort of old Western flair in many aspects, and related to that the concept of liberty, usually from opressors (be it CEF, the AST but also the Humanist Alliance or the hypercapitalism of the UMF).
- Honor: Specifically the duelists and all, but also how personal honor faces against the needs of survival or duty.
- Intrigue: As Firebreak said, there's multiple leves of intrigue, that usually mix among themselves. Also, shades of grey. Nobody is wholly good or bad in Terra Nova.
- Might vs. Right: This one's related with the Life in the frontier and liberty themes exposed above.
- War, was never changes: Well... duh . But more specifically, TN has post war themes (The WotA and how it affected... everyone, really, and what to do with the consequences of it), but also Cold War and Pre War themes (here it links with the Intrigue, too). Not as many actual war themes as the original setting tried to be more expansive than that, but they did make it the main theme of a fair amount of sourcebooks and of a whole campaign.
- Societal mores: One of the great things of Terra Nova is its very detailed, nuanced and believable societies, and the way they have evolved to the frontier world they live in. As said above, there's no "good" or "bad" cultures. There's only people, and the way they conform or reject their societies.
Dang it, why do you have to write so fast Alberto ? Yeah, whatever he said.
I'd argue that the theme isn't so much "Liberty" as it is "Emancipation", with most factions either trying to emancipate themselves from a stronger entity, or having to deal with finally being emancipated (Terra Nova as a whole after beating the first CEF invasion).
While this is more a setting element than a theme, I'd also mention the small scale. Unlike Space Opera setttings such as Star Wars, 40K or Battletech, most of the action happens on a single planet, with a total population about on par with North America. Peace River is only 250 000 people, that's the city I live in right now, on a small tropical island...
This makes for smaller stakes, no one's trying to save the galaxy, or conquer a few sectors, but then that means everything is a lot more personal and human-scaled.
If I was to pick the biggest themes, I'd go for Life on the Frontier, and Societal mores. It's not just that Terra Nova has detailed, nuance, believable societies, each such society is specifically designed after a political concept, like the SRA is imperialism, the UMF is ultra-liberalism, etc... I wouldn't go as far as to call HG a political science experiment, but...
Hm, confused now. Are you asking me (Albertorius) or Vaktathi?
If it is me, the only themes I have been able to see in the blurb is "wartime RPG" in the vein of a WWII RPG or the like, but it actually doesn't tell me much other than that it will deal with the war. That is actually a theme (war stories) but doesn't tell me much about tone or anything else apart of some setting stuff that as a newbie I would probably not be able to really decipher (There are Badlands clans or something, so there's Badlands in the setting; there are homesteads; there are purple monsters; Some place called Port Oasis burns, and something called Les Temoins which is maybe a library...).
As a counterpoint, in the examples I made I tried to avoid setting details as much as possible and tried to focus on what the game is supposed to be about (samurai drama!, Tactical mecha combat and light character RP!). That kind of stuff.
Asking you, so thank you for replying.
So, if I've understood your answer correctly, what you want is the aim of the game? What the players are meant to be doing in the setting. Am I right?
For me, theme means mecha, war, on a planet far away... etc. Hence why I asked for clarification. But, I can see that I was making an assumption, and what you're saying is the game needs to sell the sizzle.
Paint it Pink wrote: So, if I've understood your answer correctly, what you want is the aim of the game? What the players are meant to be doing in the setting. Am I right?
As a general thing, yes: what is this game about? What are the players supposed to be doing? What themes are you supposed to be exploring?
Once you define the aims of the game, what players are there for and what are the main themes your games are supposed to be about, you can define what rules are best suited to help with those aims, the player options you need to allow the characters do what they're supposed to, what subsystems you might need to deal with the themes of the game, etc.
In essence, I strongly feel that defining the main themes and expected game experience for a game are the first steps before starting to write anything like actual rules. Then you write a first draft, and test the feth out of them, after which you check whether the rules succeed on the above aims (which wont). after you see what you need to toss and what you can keep, you do it again. And again. And again.
Also, the emergent gameplay during those alpha test may well change the aims of the game and the needs of it, so testing (and testing, and testing, and testing again) is the second most important part of gaming design, IMHO.
By way of example: a friend of mine is writing an "anime magical girls" RPG, which is currently on its 28th rules draft. It started as a Savage Worlds mod, but after a couple rounds of testing it was clear that the rules weren't giving him the results he wanted, so he started changing stuff and borrowing from other parts. The current draft borrows heavily from PbtA and FitD game theory, with a lot of additional stuff.
I have playtested maybe ten of the 28 drafts, myself.
EDIT: Now I know what "selling the sizzle" means ^^. Yes, they need to make the game as appealing as possible and aim to fill the players' need, but IMHO you absolutely need to address the aims and themes of the game with actual rules. You need the steak. That's part of the reason why I think it's so important to define them.
HudsonD wrote: I wouldn't go as far as to call HG a political science experiment, but...
I think HG takes political science fiction as far as it takes military science fiction. The V-engine exists in our world, but it's not exactly what they have on Terra Nova. High winds and weird magentism exist on our planet, but don't limit aircraft the way they do on Terra Nova. HG takes tech, and turns it up - not to 11, but stretched it just enough to make a fun wargame without needing fantasy elements or space magic. It does the same thing with political theory. "What if a country *literally* voted with their dollar?" etc.
HudsonD wrote: I wouldn't go as far as to call HG a political science experiment, but...
I think HG takes political science fiction as far as it takes military science fiction. The V-engine exists in our world, but it's not exactly what they have on Terra Nova. High winds and weird magentism exist on our planet, but don't limit aircraft the way they do on Terra Nova. HG takes tech, and turns it up - not to 11, but stretched it just enough to make a fun wargame without needing fantasy elements or space magic. It does the same thing with political theory. "What if a country *literally* voted with their dollar?" etc.
I wouldn't say it's what makes the wargame fun, I'd say it's what makes the setting fun.
HG pushes things a little further than present day, and only a little, making for a very believable, liveable setting. Most of us could totally spend a couple weeks vacation there, and I don't mean just Ashanti
The existence of such "single-issue" societies, and their interactions, through rivalry, cooperation and conflict is as core a theme as life on the frontier.
HudsonD wrote: I wouldn't go as far as to call HG a political science experiment, but...
I think HG takes political science fiction as far as it takes military science fiction. The V-engine exists in our world, but it's not exactly what they have on Terra Nova. High winds and weird magentism exist on our planet, but don't limit aircraft the way they do on Terra Nova. HG takes tech, and turns it up - not to 11, but stretched it just enough to make a fun wargame without needing fantasy elements or space magic. It does the same thing with political theory. "What if a country *literally* voted with their dollar?" etc.
I wouldn't say it's what makes the wargame fun, I'd say it's what makes the setting fun.
HG pushes things a little further than present day, and only a little, making for a very believable, liveable setting. Most of us could totally spend a couple weeks vacation there, and I don't mean just Ashanti
The existence of such "single-issue" societies, and their interactions, through rivalry, cooperation and conflict is as core a theme as life on the frontier.
That's a better way of putting it. A push and a shove instead of technobabble.
Firebreak wrote: That's a better way of putting it. A push and a shove instead of technobabble.
Indeed.
The thing is, science fiction, good science fiction at least, is always about the present, and you can definitely notice it in Heavy Gear. Or at least you used to.
Firebreak wrote: That's a better way of putting it. A push and a shove instead of technobabble.
Indeed.
The thing is, science fiction, good science fiction at least, is always about the present, and you can definitely notice it in Heavy Gear. Or at least you used to.
Or at least, where the present may be taking us based on events from the past (Foundation, for example).
No one does angsty horny teenagers better than Darling in the FranXXX.
It is very literally the anime where subtext is text
Spoiler:
Jokes aside, if you haven't checked out TBZ I would recommend you to take a look if you're interested in high action drama laden roleplay. I have GMed it about a dozen times in conventions (plus a whole lot at home) and it has always been a real treat.
Any news on the RPG? Or the nublitz rules that have been in layout supposedly since August or September? Ashley informed me of this (thanks again!) so I figured I'd post it here as well in case there are other luddites like me who don't visit those newfangled sites like reddit.
Am I the only one that would prefer some more blitz proportions on them? They look quite nice but they feel to me more like the tactical era minis than the original Rafm or later Blitz stylings.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Paint it Pink wrote: I suggested the guy sell these to Robert because it would help the company with another income stream.
Might be a good idea. I don't think 28mm minis would bite into the blitz marketshare.
Though I can't recall exactly/link the exact source (Phil Leclerc forum post when he was doing the original blitz minis?), iirc the tactical era minis were designed the same way. They tried to exactly match the technical drawings rather than being based on them like the first Rafm ones.
I can confirm the comment, and yeah, I'm a big fan of Phil's resculpts, who fudged proportions a bit, especially on the arms.
I mean, the arms, as shown on the technical drawings, are actually too short, so...
HudsonD wrote: I can confirm the comment, and yeah, I'm a big fan of Phil's resculpts, who fudged proportions a bit, especially on the arms. I mean, the arms, as shown on the technical drawings, are actually too short, so...
Damn GRELS keep putting kick me signs on all those tact scale gears' v-engines!
Looking good! I've said it before but it bears repeating.. I like the extra gubbinz (to borrow an old ork term) that add the the HG asthetic without drowning it out.
.
