Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

[Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2013/12/27 06:56:58


Post by: warboss


Just curious to see why people on an independent gaming site never bothered to start playing/collecting Heavy Gear or alternately why they stopped if they did start. I've been a long time fan of the game (world, art, core mechanic) but my fandom has definitely had it's ups and very steep downs over the past 20 years and am curious about other hobbyists and what they think of it. If you don't see the appropriate reason, feel free to select other and explain below but I'll try to include some (multiple choice) common reasons I've read/heard over the years. They've announced a new edition in the works (right on track for their typical 2-3 year edition lifespan) so I figured I'd ask with that in mind. This is specifically geared towards people who are NOT actively playing the game currently but who may or may not be fans.


[Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2013/12/27 11:57:36


Post by: Welsh_Furey


To many other games to take my cash that appeal to me more and no local interest.


[Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2013/12/27 12:51:09


Post by: Easy E


Sinc eit is Canadian, it is a bit more expensive than other similar games offered in the US.


[Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2013/12/27 13:26:28


Post by: Zond


There's never been a community for it here. It's pretty pricey to introduce new players too. and when I do research it seems that the various faction rulebooks are from different rule iterations, which seems like a hassle.


[Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2013/12/27 14:00:04


Post by: Eilif


High Price and no real gaming presence. I was looking at small scale scenery at my FLGS and a Heavy Gear boxed terrain set that was just a couple of small pieces of resin terrain was 100 bucks!

That said, the models are pretty cool. I always keep an eye out for used bargains at our store's gaming auction. Picked up a few gears for about a buck each at the last one.


[Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2013/12/27 14:05:55


Post by: mrondeau


No offence, but your poll kinda exclude one big category of reason: problems not with the basic mechanisms, but with their implementation, and their development.

In my case, as I know warboss knows, it's basically:
  • Utter and complete lack of game balance, concern for game balance or understanding of the general concept of game balance;
  • Not actually designing the models' stats to match the rules or their functions and capacities in the fluff ;
  • Not coherence, vision or structure in the army list, especially the squads;
  • In fact, not doing any game design whatsoever;
  • Not listening to playtesters' feedback, and then blaming said playtesters for the problems;
  • Not supporting the rules until the lack of support become embarrassing (i.e. people are talking);
  • Stopping supporting the rules a few weeks after the lack of support became embarrassing (i.e. people are no longer talking);
And the clincher: doing all that, year after year after year, with the same problems showing up after every release, losing playtesters and players every step of the way, with people politely (well, at first. I was less polite towards the end) pointing out the problems with the game "design" process and DP9 doing absolutely nothing to address those problems.
A strong tendency to exclude players who point out problems in favour of those who flatter them.
Lots of promises from DP9 that things would improve, never any actual improvements.

Oh, and I probably spent more time proof-reading my post than they take to proof-read their books.

To that, you can add that the current fluff reads like bad self-insert fan-fiction, that the current writers clearly don't care about the Heavy Gear universe (look at what happened to the poor Humanist alliance! Sacrificed to fluff up the designer self-insert new faction!), or even the genre of the universe/game (ugly Gundamish models do not belong in a somewhat realistic and gritty mecha combat.).

Also, they under-use (to a rather shameful (and never nested) level) parenthesis.

edit: my usual proof-reader got online 5 seconds after I posted, and found typos 10 seconds after starting proof-reading. Also, one 15 minutes later.


[Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2013/12/27 14:22:12


Post by: Stormcrow77


I never got into it because im a Battletech player.


[Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2013/12/27 15:21:43


Post by: warboss


Thanks for the responses so far guys and gals. The ones that I expected would be most common certainly are.

mrondeau wrote:
And the clincher: doing all that, year after year after year, with the same problems showing up after every release, losing playtesters and players every step of the way, with people politely (well, at first. I was less polite towards the end) pointing out the problems with the game "design" process and DP9 doing absolutely nothing to address those problems.
A strong tendency to exclude players who point out problems in favour of those who flatter them.
Lots of promises from DP9 that things would improve, never any actual improvements.

Oh, and I probably spent more time proof-reading my post than they take to proof-read their books.

To that, you can add that the current fluff reads like bad self-insert fan-fiction, that the current writers clearly don't care about the Heavy Gear universe (look at what happened to the poor Humanist alliance! Sacrificed to fluff up the designer self-insert new faction!), or even the genre of the universe/game (ugly Gundamish models do not belong in a somewhat realistic and gritty mecha combat.).


Agreed... I really should have put some of those in the poll considering I'm running face first into them as I type. I was warned that I'd encounter those exact problems but I figured I'd try to help (as you posted about as well) but I came in relatively (constructively) critical moreso than polite given my negative experience with the Southern Field guide. I've added a couple new options to the poll to cover them but I'm frankly not sure if you can "edit" poll responses/votes after the fact. I made sure not to change any existing poll options so as not to alter the votes and their reasons though.


[Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2013/12/28 02:19:59


Post by: Azazelx


I picked up a few Gears since they looked good, but as there was never a local community to game with or anyone interested in playing, the figures just sat unbuilt ...which is where they still are today, 10+ years later.


[Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2013/12/28 02:48:37


Post by: jedi76


Are they going under? I'm just getting started with HG, the models just scratch an itch for me and I was hoping they were on the verge of getting their stuff together rules wise.


[Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2013/12/28 03:15:45


Post by: Mattlov


Stormcrow77 wrote:
I never got into it because im a Battletech player.


This. I have sunk more than enough money into Battletech that I don't particularly need another mecha game. And I like the flavor of Battletech quite a bit more.


[Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2013/12/28 03:43:51


Post by: warboss


 jedi76 wrote:
Are they going under? I'm just getting started with HG, the models just scratch an itch for me and I was hoping they were on the verge of getting their stuff together rules wise.


I don't have any first hand insider knowledge of their finances and can only comment about what they say and what I've experienced publicly. They're coming out with an "alpha" new edition of the rules in January that is "significantly different" from the current ones and it's only been 2 1/2 years since the current FM rules came out; that quick edition turn over is usually (in my personal experience twice losing every player I knew) associated with significant player loss. They've only come out with one paper product a year and this year they skipped that in favor of a board game. The Heavy Gear videogame crowdfunding failed.. twice.. in a row. This thread about why you DON'T play Heavy Gear is now officially the most active thread about Heavy Gear on the largest independent minis gaming forum (more active that any P&M HG blog and the HG new release thread). Things from an outsider's view looking in are not rosy on Terra Nova unfortunately. That said, I don't want the game to fail and am doing my part in trying to help it (despite resistance). I've started some more optimistic threads on what the game needs over on the DP9 forums but I did at least want some sort of resource for the company to find out why people avoid them and their products. My recommendation is buy the figs you like at a discount (like with miniature markets 50% off sale... but the pickings are a bit slim now after so many weeks) and see if you like what is published in January. The alpha edition of the rules will be free to download so there is no harm in taking a look.


[Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2013/12/30 15:19:57


Post by: Balance


I'm still involved with DP9 albeit in a reduced aspect, partially because I'm getting a lot of stress from my day-job and don't have the time for it from my side-job. The company's still alive, and I'm hopeful the new rules will be a good new step, but I do worry that that the rules will need a lot more work and time to develop than the design crew seems to expect. These projects never go smoothly, which I don't think is a statement unique to DP9.

BTW, there's a few more days for the holiday sale from DP9... Buy 3 products, get 1 free.



[Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2013/12/31 11:17:38


Post by: Gargantuan


We stopped because the new south book made my brothers army unplayable and that just isn't a nice thing to do.


[Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2013/12/31 13:17:53


Post by: sing your life


The pricing in weird [colour rule book= 2X the price of the B&W rulebook]


[Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/02 04:05:31


Post by: warboss


I was sorry to see the B&W books go as well. Personally, I prefer the smaller format B&W versions for reasons beyond just price but I agree cost of entry is an important issue and the removal of the inexpensive option was inadvisable from a consumer standpoint.


[Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/02 12:11:37


Post by: doc1234


I actually like the models and have long said it's a game that a move to plastic (or even resin) would really go a long way to helping people want to get into it. Even the older minis look great even with my Gak poor paintskills on them

That said the rules could stand to be clearer. You need what, the rulebook, the gearups and the army books? I know the split format like that isn't unique, but being a Canadian company it makes getting any of that shipped out a big hassle on top of the already meaty entry price. Plus some of us don't really like having to bring a laptop along just to play

The writings pretty messy too. Having gone through both the blitz and arena books it's a damn pain to keep everything straight which is a shame. I like their system. Don't like the rulebooks layout. (Only have the Arena one as a physical copy, and even a glossary in that thing would have gone a long way)


[Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/02 12:51:00


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Stormcrow77 wrote:
I never got into it because im a Battletech player.


Where's this on the poll, 'cause it's what I'd vote for.

Yeah, so that and the fact that the prices are kinda insane for what you get.


[Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/03 00:03:08


Post by: wildger


I disagree with many of the comments above. Prices are not a main issue if you can take the advantage of sales from time to time especially with some online shops like FRP games or Miniature Market during previous Black Friday or X'mas sale.

The disorganized rules have been an issues for years. Finally, Dream Pod has announced that there will be a new edition for next year. I am really looking forward to it.

I was a Battletech player before. I regret that I did not pick up HGB sooner.

The new army book on the South will likely make some older players' armies for the south invalid. If you look at the new PRDF list, it is even worse. That sucks.

I rarely play these days due to RL issues. The biggest drawback is that HBG is definitely NOT a beer and pretzels type of game. With Battletech, you can still relax, enjoy and have fun. HGB unfortunately on the other hand is much more intense. Finding local players can be a challenge for many although not a major issue in my city.


[Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/03 02:24:33


Post by: warboss


An analysis of price as a reason though can't depend on once per year sales. I take advantage of those sales when they come up but that doesn't accurately reflect on the price most gamers would end up paying and shy away from doing so. I don't think the metal prices for HG are cheap but they're also not too expensive... it's the resin prices that are close to ridiculous and could benefit most from a switch to plastics.


[Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/03 02:44:44


Post by: chromedog


Scale. Once they dumped their original scale of 1/87 for the models, I walked away. The models reminded me of AT:Votoms, and this is why I collected a few.

I don't game in 15mm or smaller these days. The eyesight isn't what it used to be, and I honestly cbf'd painting small dribbles.


[Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/03 05:40:14


Post by: Ronin_eX


I ended up choosing "other" and while some of the other options are kind of relevant, I don't feel they are exactly what I'm looking for.

I have an opponent to play against, but it never took with the rest of my group (one guy kept on latching on to side-factions like Caprice which were and still are horrendously expensive to buy in to; the other two it was just straight up cost). But even then, I have enough extra stuff to run the game for two players. So group was never really an issue.

I must admit, I don't like the frequent edition changes. But at the same time, the original Blitz and later, Locked and Loaded had a whole load of issues that needed sorting. Like with Spartan, my wish is that they had just gotten it right the first or second time in. A lot of this was due to mismanagement and not using the playtest data well (and the previous developer doesn't have a lot of nice things to say on this front). But that said, despite the unholy storm caused by the new Southerner book, I actually loved the direction things were going with starting with the new Field Manual and going through Perfect Storm and Forged in Fire. I know that FiF invalidating people's lists sucked to high heaven, but given the mess L&L's army creation system was it was bound to happen (honestly, it can still use tweaking but the L&L system allowing all kinds of weird and wacky swap-outs and conversions is just some kind of nightmare; that the South also got that weird 4-man squad thing back in the original Blitz and it wasn't fixed until now just made it more painful). Though going back to a more BTech-style list-less system ala 2nd Edition could possibly fix that (but that comes with its own set of balance issues if you are looking to make things more pick-up friendly as Blitz was intended to do).

I think the basic system has some decent ideas, but the conversion from a small-scale hex game in to a miniature-based game was not a pretty transition (especially with all of the RPG-relevant data tracked in the original). It hangs on to too many concepts that worked in a hex-based game where your force consisted of 5-10 units on the board (concealment, I'm looking at you) but don't work so well in a minis game.

So, needless to say, Heavy Gear needs a new edition and no previously released edition changed that. So I still very much want to see a new edition, but am tired of the cycle they created by not fixing things when they had the chance before.

But my main reason for not continuing on with it (for now at least) is that, while I like the current direction... it is unbearably slow going. Prior to the latest announcement, we were looking at everything being "fixed" by 2015-2016 if they kept on track. As is, that has at least been shaved back to a full release by 2015. But for now, the game just requires too much cross referencing between multiple books for me to want to bother. I mean, I don't want them pumping stuff out willy nilly (the tail end of 2nd Edition HG showed why this is a bad idea), but when one is waiting on an army list update to be able to play the game without referencing 3-4 books it can seem like a very long wait.

So basically, my stance became to wait and see what they did before giving them any more money and trying to invest my group in their games.

Heavy Gear is still, bar none, my favourite complete gaming-universe. 2nd Edition Heavy Gear will always hold a special place in my heart (along with Warzone 1st Edition) as being the first thing I tried outside of the "GW Hobby". But I just can't hawk it at my group in the current state it's in and wont give it a go until there is a new edition for me to have a gander at. Until I can see some real progress, they wont be seeing anything from me. I want them to succeed, but we're talking N times bitten N+1 times shy here.

They have a shaky track record, they have shown in the past that they can and will shove out shoddy product before it is ready and outside of some bright spots recently, the mechanical side of the game has been a spotty mishmash. I want them to pull a Firestorm Armada V2.0 out of their arse with this new edition (I used to feel much of the above about Spartan... save for the fact that DP9 has been around longer and disappointed me more often) and produce something that is fun to play and well balanced. But the onus is on DP9 to show me they are capable of doing so.


[Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/03 06:10:13


Post by: warboss


 Ronin_eX wrote:
I must admit, I don't like the frequent edition changes. But at the same time, the original Blitz and later, Locked and Loaded had a whole load of issues that needed sorting. Like with Spartan, my wish is that they had just gotten it right the first or second time in. A lot of this was due to mismanagement and not using the playtest data well (and the previous developer doesn't have a lot of nice things to say on this front).


Do you happen to have a link to that discussion? I'd be curious to see what he said and whether any of it (taking it obviously at face value) has changed. I also agree with most everything you said.


[Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/04 03:58:51


Post by: Ronin_eX


Unfortunately the forum to which Mr. Buckmaster tended to post (RPGNet if you want to have a look) doesn't have a working search function. So I can't be much help dredging his old comments up. But if you go back through most of the HG-related posts he tends to chime in once or twice. Though considering how he didn't leave on the best of terms, I am inclined to take some of his vitriol with a grain of salt. But even then, it is easy enough to see the mismanagement of their resources as an outsider.

In the end, Heavy Gear kind of needs a ground up re-write at this point. I'm not sure if the next edition will be that, but at the very least I've liked the newer stuff they've been doing (though it comes with a side-order of screwing over a lot of established players in ways only those who transitioned from 2nd Edition 40k to 3rd Edition can really appreciate).

So this will be one of those things I keep an eye on and hope they succeed against all odds that it will be more of the same. If Spartan can surprise me with Firestorm Armada, I can pray that DP9 will do it with Heavy Gear's next edition.

As an aside: considering that they no longer have any off-shoot lines from fleet-scale, tactical or the RPG side of things (let alone other properties to worry about)... Am I the only one who kind of hopes the next edition drops the 'Blitz' from the name and just calls itself Heavy Gear?

I think that would, if nothing else, make for a clear reboot of the line. If they can follow it up with a decent set of rules, built from the ground up instead of a hodgepodge of stuff that came before with bits welded on at odd angles, that will be a major bonus as well.


[Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/04 04:42:01


Post by: warboss


Ah... the infamous RPG.net Heavy Gear thread. I posted angrily a few times there years ago when the company last decided to invalidate my book collection with a premature edition (original Blitz). I don't go to that forum much anymore but the last time I checked the old 60+ page thread on Heavy Gear was gone likely due to the forum software switchover.

edit: I did find this one though with a few familiar names both from the dp9 forum and even this thread.

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?711064-New-Edition-of-Heavy-Gear-Announced

One of their mods summed up my most frequent complaint nicely...

Of all the games I've fallen in love with, Heavy Gear has broken my heart the most times.

Maybe this time will be different! Maybe this time we'll get more than two or three army books before another new edition or soft reset or ... whatever.


Blitz made it to 3 books total... Locked and Loaded made it to 3... Field Manual only made it to 2...

edit 2: And Buckmaster even comments there later on in the thread.



[Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/04 13:43:17


Post by: mrondeau


I have to say here that Buckmaster is not actually as innocent as he claims. I know for a fact that the major problems in LnL were all reported, multiple times and with higher and higher emphasis my our playtest group. He kicked us out of the playtest for our trouble. Then, when everyone was complaining, said that no one saw the problems during the playtest.

Of course, the fact that the same attitude and the same problems with DP9's process remain even after he quits indicates that they are systemic.


[Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/04 14:19:58


Post by: warboss


mrondeau wrote:
I have to say here that Buckmaster is not actually as innocent as he claims. I know for a fact that the major problems in LnL were all reported, multiple times and with higher and higher emphasis my our playtest group. He kicked us out of the playtest for our trouble. Then, when everyone was complaining, said that no one saw the problems during the playtest.

Of course, the fact that the same attitude and the same problems with DP9's process remain even after he quits indicates that they are systemic.


I realize that. He personally and publicly said that L&L would come with a free PDF to update original blitz owners with the new rules (but not new fluff obviously) when the discussion about the premature retiring of blitz (following the same with 1st and 2nd edition RPG). When it didn't show and I inquired about it, he denied ever saying that till I posted the link. To his credit he apologized about it several years later though. In the meantime, I stopped buying anything HG for years for the second time (until basically a massive deal on a store closeout of southern minis got me back in and wiped out the "loss").


[Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/04 14:49:04


Post by: mrondeau


Ha, yes. That was probably from when LnL was simply going to address some of the issues with Blitz by adding an objective system and a new point system for the army lists, with some other updates to the lists. Instead we got a new edition, with a rather bad objectives system and the old point system for the army lists, which were completely changed without addressing the actual problems with the previous lists.

Then again, according to the new system (FiF), doubling your expected damage per shot is apparently worth nothing. Hard to say which one is worse.


[Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/04 17:45:42


Post by: warboss


We've got enough votes to post a link over at the DP9 forums so I'll log in to do that. Fanboys incoming! Hopefully something good comes of the info and responses in this thread and the pair of threads I started over there as well. *fingers crossed*


[Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/05 08:15:03


Post by: BrandonKF


-walks in- Hm. Hi.

-Brandon F.

Edit: Oh, you were expecting more out of the fanboy? I know the complaints of a few of those above. They have them for their reasons.

As it stands, we're already looking at a new free alpha playtest for everyone. so hey.

God bless you all.


[Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/05 09:18:56


Post by: H.B.M.C.


BrandonKF wrote:
As it stands, we're already looking at a new free alpha playtest for everyone. so hey.


I don't claim to know anything about Heavy Gear, but reading this thread tells me two things:

1. Testers aren't listened to (this is bad!).
2. People don't want more editions that invalidate everything before them.


[Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/05 09:59:17


Post by: BrandonKF


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
BrandonKF wrote:
As it stands, we're already looking at a new free alpha playtest for everyone. so hey.


I don't claim to know anything about Heavy Gear, but reading this thread tells me two things:

1. Testers aren't listened to (this is bad!).
2. People don't want more editions that invalidate everything before them.


The company made several moves to try not to invalidate models. Armies, on the other hand, are a different story. Several updates, including requirements of army-building, had to be changed.

The original Blitz! was very rudimentary. Blitz!: Locked and Loaded opened up things quite a bit, but also gave players a great deal of customization through which they could make their models their own.

Eventually, there was some people who were mentioning that these custom builds were a break in the system, and the company began editing in the new faction (NuCoal) to start over with more solidified squad bases that didn't have as many weapon options. This invalidated many players' armies as a result.

The tester not listened to above I have read over and over on the Dream Pod 9 forums. He's a very vocal sort.

The other choice (that of Gearstriders) was not one that many of the vocal old heads round here are big on. They see it as a break from realism. I give it this. Heavy Gear, when I first entered into it back when I was 16 and dumb and enjoyed all things military, was interesting because it did take a more realistic portrayal of mecha than Gundam (my introduction to the genre).

I don't really mind the Gearstriders, because they still aren't nearly as big a scout Mech from Battletech (for you BT fans, sorry, but your storyline went down the crapper in a big darn hurry when Dark Ages hit), and there is some precedence for their creation.

On the tabletop, of course, they're still a big target. Question being is how much cover and concealment a person wants to lay down on a tabletop to make things interesting. Heavy Gear can't be played on a open tabletop with five or six terrain pieces like Warhammer 40,000... it needs a lot of much-smaller terrain pieces.

-Brandon F.


[Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/05 15:24:30


Post by: HudsonD


We're talking about army restructurations that would have GW execs blushing there...

At the same time, your dismissal of the "vocal minority" is downright insulting to the many testers that tried hard to prevent the worse of the damage, and were happilly ignored by DP9.


[Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/05 15:39:21


Post by: mrondeau


Yes, I'm very vocal. I'm also not the only one that was ignored. I'm talking about a pattern, reported by many other playtesters. When someone (DP9) does the same thing over and over, somehow, I expect them to keep doing it. That's called "learning" and "pattern recognition". Something, ironically, that DP9 seems unable to do.

The reason unit builds were breaking the system is not because they were custom, it's because they were costed incorrectly. This is still the case. Speaking for myself, I wanted more restrictive lists for:
  • Accessibility: Make it easier for new players to figure out what they can use.
  • Coherence: When someone put a squad on the table its squad type should be obvious to anyone. A new player should be able to figure out what a squad can do easily. Just as importantly, they should be able to figure out what a squad cannot do easily.

  • The new system does neither: it adds some incoherent squads, with about the same number of model specific options as in LnL below. It went from "pick a squad, then modify it" to "pick a squad, pick a squad type, then modify it." The new system did not reduce the number of options, it just added steps to the army building process. No real change, just the illusion of change.

    As for invalidating armies, that's somewhat inevitable when changing the army book. Fair enough. They are way to mitigate the damage and to give a chance to player to prepare. DP9 did not even try to do so.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/05 15:54:03


    Post by: warboss


    BrandonKF wrote:
    The company made several moves to try not to invalidate models. Armies, on the other hand, are a different story. Several updates, including requirements of army-building, had to be changed.


    Lots of changes were also made to go along with their "creative vision" and not just balance. There wasn't a balance reason to suddenly tell MILICIA players like Albertorius that they couldn't use half their models together in squads or that the previously ubiquitious Sidewinder upgrade would be largely SRA only as a 5 Sidewinder squad. Those weren't balance issues but rather creative brain farts that screwed players over. The problem is that the "creative vision" shifts significantly from one product to the next and you end up with uneven and unfair jumps with the once per year product cycle as a new game design fad is brought in and the previous one is abandoned. Armies that have similar makeups end up with vastly different restrictions and requirements (or in the case of Paxton.. benefits for no additional TV price) seemingly for no rhyme or reason. Then add to that heavy handed switches for balance reasons like 4 gear squads that could have been handled alot better and the fluff derps like the proliferation of gear striders (see the link above to rpg.net to see what the original idea behind them was). The problems endemic to DP9 definitely resemble a hydra which is why the poll is multiple choice but unfortuantely there is no consisent vision that anyone is willing to stick to for HG so far. I hope that with Dave's entry to the field that will change but historically speaking that won't happen as the other cogs are still the same. I don't have any problem with DP9 changing gears (get it? hyuck, hyuck) but if they do so then I expect them to do it with enough forethought and planning to consider how it will be applied beyond just the immediate project being worked on and not just abandoned during the following book in favor of "the next big thing". Dp9 game design feels like dating a 17 year old hyperactive girl... I'm too old for that crap!

    In the end, I hope that they switch to a warmachine style of releases and not GW-style codex books. DP9 can't seem to adequately support individually the number of armies and minis they have in a timely and equitable fashion for almost a decade and that leaves players out in the cold and subject to the ever shifting whims of a select few. Coming out with a book that updates everyone similarly according to a theme gets them regular income from all of their remaining players and gives everyone something (general game rules/traits/scenarios and specific unit options and new models).


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/05 16:18:46


    Post by: HudsonD


    I suspect the frequent changes of vision are more indicative of a lack of vision, than anything else.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/06 01:14:15


    Post by: BrandonKF


    And you have been rather pointed in your conversations with plenty of folks on the board over there, haven't you both, mrondeau and HudsonD?

    Let me be honest. The way you guys write, chafes heavily. You talk of these things as experts. I get it. You both did a lot and put a lot of time and effort in. But not everyone IN Dream Pod 9 ignored you OR the other testers.

    You've grown so cynical of the product and the company, everything you say about it I read in shades of straight-up sarcasm mixed with bitterness. And it really bites. Perhaps that's why I have a hard time discussing with you both. Your history of hurt feelings makes it darn near impossible to write anything FOR the company and the IP without you guys jumping in and talking about the 'patterns' you guys went through with your own gaming groups. And if two very vocal ex-playtesters are so against the company, well then that doesn't bode well for someone who has never even tried the game, now is it?

    warboss, I get the idea behind the Gearstriders as mentioned over there. But I'll also say that quite a few of the newer players like them. The old heads (yes, I know that's you) aren't crazy about them.

    As for the fads they've gone through. The company tried many different things to stir up excitement and get people on board. Unfortunately the patterns of change, as mrondeau points out, were so frequent that it appears as though everyone was warded off from it.

    Myself, I've bought just about every single new book that came out. I've stuck with this thing as a fan.

    Granted, not as expensive as those people who bought a few dozen or so models for an army that was invalidated, and I grant that that is a harsh thing to go through. But I lost two dozen of my models (including two rather expensive HT-72s) in Iraq. It happened. It is over. The folks who still have models from the 90s can get back in the game with those very models if they so desired, because the company tried to keep their loyal fan base happy.

    As for the future, not in my hands (though I do wish it were sometimes). Plenty of things going on within Dream Pod 9 that I don't know about since I'm not an employee or management, I'm just a fan who enjoys the world greatly and enjoys writing about it, since it's one of the few 'real robot' genres there is that includes all of what being a human in a crazy, mixed-up world is without mucking it up with extra-terrestrials or nuclear-powered silos for mechs.

    -Brandon F.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/06 02:28:15


    Post by: doc1234


    I'm honestly more surprised no ones put together a "fixed" version online. 1) the game has fans, 2) it's a good setting, 3) the rules as are are good, just....messy if i'm right in all this. Honestly? I'm struggling to see why this hasn't gone the way of GW specialist games. Namely: If the company wants to feth around and play whimsical games, fine, but we have our nice community version over here that actually works.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/06 02:37:15


    Post by: BrandonKF


    There has been a great deal of discussion among the Grognards of that.

    My own blog I started working on a version that crossed between Heavy Gear and Infinity, using d20s like Infinity and making modifications to some of the special rules, like attack aircraft and bombers, making them much more lethal.

    warboss there built up his own small version, Flash, simplifying some of the dynamics and data cards. It's on his blog link.

    -Brandon F.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/06 02:38:15


    Post by: warboss


    GW games have a much bigger following and therefore more people willing to mod them. More importantly, though, is that with a DP9 edition lasting on average 2-3 years, any combined fan attempt to do the work themselves and fix it would only be useful for a short period of time before being invalidated along with the edition it "fixed".


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/06 04:34:38


    Post by: BrandonKF


    Sometimes I think it's caused more by the fact that there are a lot of different ideas running amuck in Grognard world.

    -Brandon F.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/06 09:07:37


    Post by: HudsonD


    BrandonKF wrote:And you have been rather pointed in your conversations with plenty of folks on the board over there, haven't you both, mrondeau and HudsonD?
    Let me be honest. The way you guys write, chafes heavily. You talk of these things as experts. I get it. You both did a lot and put a lot of time and effort in. But not everyone IN Dream Pod 9 ignored you OR the other testers.

    You've grown so cynical of the product and the company, everything you say about it I read in shades of straight-up sarcasm mixed with bitterness. And it really bites. Perhaps that's why I have a hard time discussing with you both. Your history of hurt feelings makes it darn near impossible to write anything FOR the company and the IP without you guys jumping in and talking about the 'patterns' you guys went through with your own gaming groups. And if two very vocal ex-playtesters are so against the company, well then that doesn't bode well for someone who has never even tried the game, now is it?

    What can I say ? Nothing hurts like the truth. I do not tolerate false witnessing, regardless of its intent or sincerity.
    You readily admit you know nothing of what happens behind the scenes, then you just as easily dismiss it as "bitterness". What makes you think there's just the two of us ? Why are you even worried a couple of loud voices would be enough to turn players away, if the product was actually good ? Why do you think the player base has been shrinking steadily ? Why do you think the playtest team is replaced every year or so ?
    I haven't spilled half of what I know about DP9's inner workings, mostly out of professionalism.

    BrandonKF wrote:Sometimes I think it's caused more by the fact that there are a lot of different ideas running amuck in Grognard world.

    Are you seriously trying to tell us you think DP9 changes its lead designer every couple of years, because of a private forum section where players can post house-rules ?


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/06 10:58:09


    Post by: BrandonKF


    The second post was speaking of what doc1234 was discussing, HudsonD, about players creating their own fan-made rulesets.


    Hard truths cut both ways. I don't believe it is just the two of you. But I don't 'dismiss' it as bitterness. It is bitterness. 4 years I've been reading your posts, and they've continued on with this angle of cynical sarcasm for a good bit of it. That includes Heavy Gear Assault.

    I am not worried. I am fed up. Every darn time I always read the same thing out of you, that you know more about Dream Pod 9 than most, that you keep your tongue in check. But if the teams keep changing, as you say, what do you know about the current team?

    I don't know what you went through, and you won't tell because of your professionalism and because of your NDAs, whatever. But if all that is the case, than why on the LGA's green Earth would you even hint about it in the first place?

    If you can't stand the company and you don't like the IP and the people who run it anymore, than drop it. Otherwise, don't put out this crap here on Dakka, then go back into the DP9 Forums and chat it up like you know everything (again). It's double-mouthed as all get-out.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/06 15:23:19


    Post by: IceRaptor


    I effectively left the game back in late 2012 (pre-Field Manual) because of various issues. I was very tired of teaching the game to people, because there's a major learning cliff to understand how to make units effective in the game. You couldn't just get a guy in the open and shoot him, and expect to do damage - you either needed to just be a better model flat out, or learn how to stack enough modifiers to make it worth your time. And that only works until someone started bringing indirect fire to the table... at which point you just sit in the corners and pummel each other. It became a very unfun game to play, especially compared to other games on the market (Warmachine, Mercs, Infinity in particular). It's sorta like learning to play Infinity, except instead of needing to learn a new subset of skills (camo / tags / hacking / etc) to broaden out your capabilities, the answer basically boils down to get the cheapest IF and FO units, and the most expensive DF units, and you're set.

    I still play games with my Heavy Gear models, but I've stopped buying them - they are simply too expensive for me at this stage in my life. $20 for a single model - that I need 5 of - is a pretty high premium, even compared to 40k or Infinity. At least in Infinity / Malifaux / Mercs I can pickup a single model that I like the look of, and work it into my army - whereas with HG I need to fit the force constraints that are, quite frankly, nuts. They *still* screwed up the newest books by yet again going half-way with their changes, but taking all the pain of the change on the chin. They broke army builds in the FiF book, but *still* have army specific and even group specific swaps for models in the group, instead of just creating a new group.

    I stayed involved with the game since 2012 in a quasi-official capacity, but I finally walked away after Gencon. There's only so much time and effort I was willing to pour into the black-hole of HG gaming. I love mecha, and their rules were... okay... but there's not enough to keep me playing or buying anymore. I'll play my own houserules, or Gruntz, or Tomorrow's War, or other games instead.

    That's my 2 TV at least.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/06 18:17:14


    Post by: HudsonD


    BrandonKF wrote:

    Hard truths cut both ways. I don't believe it is just the two of you. But I don't 'dismiss' it as bitterness. It is bitterness. 4 years I've been reading your posts, and they've continued on with this angle of cynical sarcasm for a good bit of it. That includes Heavy Gear Assault.
    I am not worried. I am fed up. Every darn time I always read the same thing out of you, that you know more about Dream Pod 9 than most, that you keep your tongue in check. But if the teams keep changing, as you say, what do you know about the current team?
    I don't know what you went through, and you won't tell because of your professionalism and because of your NDAs, whatever. But if all that is the case, than why on the LGA's green Earth would you even hint about it in the first place?

    I do my best to keep up to date on the latest, in many ways. If someday I'm wrong, then I'll apologize. So far, the facts have been on my side.
    I've read your post a few times, and I haven't yet found that "hard truth" you promised. If you have facts to provide, please do so.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/06 20:08:06


    Post by: Killionaire


    Heavy Gear is a really interesting game. Ignoring the RPG and previous edition history (which I never played) and starting with Blitz as of Field Manual (the current Edition), the game has a lot of really wonderful selling points, some neutral bits, and bad stuff. I love so much about the game, that the parts that suck only stick out the more.

    + A really innovative style of gameplay, where maneuver is not only preferable, but REQUIRED to succeed in a direct fire engagement. This is really cool, as you literally cannot park on a hill and just rocket launcher the enemy to death. Some guys rollerskating past you will machine gun you from three directions and kill you. Awesome. NOTE: THIS DOES NOT APPLY TO INDIRECT FIRE
    + Lovely models. I do actually greatly like the multipose models, and their general style. Gears and Striders are interesting.
    + Combined Arms. Having Tanks and Infantry and Howitzers make the game much more diverse, especially as they all behave so differently. Great.
    + Objective System. It's certainly novel, where your force org chart determines your likely objectives. Has a number of downsides, but it's cool that the emphasis is on completing the mission.
    + Electronic Warfare. It's everywhere, powerful, flexible and damn near mandatory. That's neat. Though part of the problem is INDIRECT FIRE related.

    = Pricepoint. The prices aren't cheap, but they aren't stupid hideous either. People seriously need to stop comparing games on the 'individual mini vs GW plastic guy' level, since no game (outside of I suppose, Spartan's ship based games) are on that level, but rather on the 'what it takes to play a full list'. This is why games like Infinity are awesome, since the total game is substantially cheaper than most.

    Now onto the negatives. They're bad. I mean real bad.

    - POOR SENSE OF GAME DESIGN / SLAVISH ADHERENCE TO LEGACY
    This is where Indirect Fire comes in as well as other glaring issues. That beautiful model of maneuver based combat? Destroyed by the fact that Indirect Fire needs no line of sight, has trivial spotting requirements, massive blast radiuses. Cover does nearly nothing.

    Stuff like this really boggles the mind. Much of it is a due to a complete lack of understanding of both quantifiable theory on how to design this game (ie, the easier, cheaper to field attack should not be mathematically way more powerful and require less pieces to enact') , and slavish adherence to legacy materials. All of the damage numbers come from an RPG that has only a passing resemblence to what the game is right now, and the units are designed with that RPG in mind (my ultra-high end gear has 8 different weapons, but can only fire 1 at any time... why?)

    Other systems, instead of being outright broken and damaging, are instead clunky and awkward or unplayable.
    This is also where the inane terrain rules come into play, where you go at 1/2, 1/3 or 1/4th speed if you ever touch them. Mostly 1/4th, if you do Read as Worded. Which makes them pretty much impassable, when the fastest units in the game capable of traversing such terrain move a blistering 3 inches, in a game that can have a 48x60 longwise board.
    Concealment is another problem. You get a point of concealment for every object between a unit and an enemy, including every 4/6/whatever inches of woods, plus for smoke and--- it gets insane, checking so many things prior to shooting. Which incidentally, is again nearly entirely avoided by Indirect Fire.
    Stealth is another broken system. Instead of making a target harder to hit slightly or whatever, specific armies are literally immune to fire unless you're right on top of them. And unless Indirect Fire is used.

    Slavish Adherence to legacy rulesets are much to blame. For example, Melee does NEARLY NOTHING in the game, and it's almost impossible to harm someone except with one very specific and very rare weapon. The problem with Indirect Fire stems from it's attack modifiers being based on old modifiers from an earlier edition of the game, where all of the other modifier numbers were extremely different.

    - POOR RELEASE SCHEDULE / HANDLING OF FEEDBACK
    DP9 has a worse GW-styled release schedule than GW. That's hideous.
    The game has the following factions: North, South, NuCoal, Peace River, Earth, Caprice, Utopia, Black Talons.
    The following armies are up to date and playable in a competitive manner: South, NuCoal

    That's... just wrong. Especially for the poor bastards who play Earth, Caprice or Utopia, who have NEVER been remotely viable, and pay 3 times as much for worse versions of upgrades other people get.

    By releasing one book every year, and a handful of models (largely resculpts), it's feast or famine. There's a reason every other company has switched to a warmachine style 'every faction gets something' schedule: It keeps you interested, no matter what you play.

    Likewise, when something cool does come out, it's not marketted right. Even fans of the game don't see anything on most gaming news sites, nothing on their frontpage, and need to instead dive into some obscure forum threads for basic information like that a new unit box came out.

    It also doesn't help that the company's book editing is poor, and schedules slip a lot. And that they don't like it when called on it.

    - MINDLESS DIE-HARD FANS WHO ARE KILLING THE GAME.
    A striking number of fans stand by the 'the company can do no wrong' line, and lash out at others as 'whiners'. This further stifles the value of real, effective criticism and game growth, and makes the echo chamber effect all the more noticable. Others have brought this up in greater detail in this thread, so I won't go into it further.

    ----

    Alas Heavy Gear, you really DO need a 'Firestorm Mk2' treatment. A professional new ruleset, backed by excellent miniatures, made as a quality product with good marketing, a responsive and growing community and so-forth. We'll see what 2014 holds, but if the new ruleset is slated for 2015, with a 'beta' starting January...


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/07 01:14:40


    Post by: ferrous


    Oh, whaddya know, I do remember my login info.

    That Buckmaster post how DP9 is afraid of math, yeah...

    That seems to be one of the biggest problems and often why the game design seemed to fall flat on its face. DP9 had some really groggy math fans of the game, and could come up with percentages and figures for why certain things where overpowered, but seemed to be largely ignored by the rules makers. And so we got NuCoal. Hey IF too powerful? Let's take something that was already overpowered and make it triple-linked! It's the only faction that was tailor made to the ruleset, instead of shoe horned in. Though even barring that, even grenades from first edition should've been blindingly obviously overpowered. They had better range than the default guns, and a better chance of doing damage.


    A wargame like Heavy Gear deserves to have some really strong statistics guys in the mix keeping things real. Along with a decent god damned editor and technical writer to make sure gak is understable and can't be misconstrued. Murky rules that take forever to get answers from the POD on seem to be a staple. Witness that awesome rules thread that sits mostly idle, and should've been shutdown. (Oh at least they locked it finally)


    EDIT: And the reason why there hasn't been a good indie ruleset so far is that there just isn't enough of a playerbase to take it up. There are a couple of different attempts, but with an already small playerbase, it's just not worth it. The forums are just tiny, with barely a handful of players ever online at once.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/07 01:17:28


    Post by: mrondeau


    ferrous wrote:
    DP9 had some really groggy math fans of the game, and could come up with percentages and figures for why certain things where overpowered, but seemed to be largely ignored by the rules makers.

    Hi.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/07 01:21:42


    Post by: ferrous


    mrondeau wrote:
    ferrous wrote:
    DP9 had some really groggy math fans of the game, and could come up with percentages and figures for why certain things where overpowered, but seemed to be largely ignored by the rules makers.

    Hi.


    Oh I know, what's even more sad is that even now, there are still some really decent maths guys who can do some quick work and show tables and percentages on why certain things are underpowered or overpowered.

    Though there are still a subset of the fanbase that is afraid of math, and actively scornful of it. Which of course boggles my mind, as a balanced game is good for everyone.

    My one hope, is that if they do an open playtest, maybe they'll actually listen to feedback this time. Basically pull a warmachine, and have the rules open and ready to undergo massive revisions. But I think it's too late, most people who would give the best feedback are already gone.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/07 01:56:46


    Post by: warboss


    Over on Heavy Gear farm, the proud tradition of all Gears being equally created (under VCS) but some being more equal than others (like Paxton PiG gears) continues to this day. It's weird that you'd have to argue the point that you shouldn't get something for nothing (or alot of somethings) if there is ostensibly a (flawed) system for calculating everything but you do... and you lose the argument.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/07 03:10:19


    Post by: IceRaptor


    mrondeau wrote:
    ferrous wrote:
    DP9 had some really groggy math fans of the game, and could come up with percentages and figures for why certain things where overpowered, but seemed to be largely ignored by the rules makers.

    Hi.


    I think I count in that camp as well...


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/07 03:16:47


    Post by: mrondeau


     IceRaptor wrote:

    I think I count in that camp as well...

    Indeed.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/07 04:42:28


    Post by: H.B.M.C.


    BrandonKF wrote:
    Sometimes I think it's caused more by the fact that there are a lot of different ideas running amuck in Grognard world.

    -Brandon F.


    Grognard world? So we're just falt out insulting people I see?

    What I'd suggest now is that you keep digging. Eventually the hole you've dug yourself into will become a tunnel that leads the other side, and probably a light to escape into.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/07 06:26:39


    Post by: warboss


    ferrous wrote:
    My one hope, is that if they do an open playtest, maybe they'll actually listen to feedback this time. Basically pull a warmachine, and have the rules open and ready to undergo massive revisions. But I think it's too late, most people who would give the best feedback are already gone.


    I suspect some of them (but not all) will return if temporarily to check out and comment on the new edition. Of course, even if the rules undergo massive revisions based on feedback (assuming that feedback is mostly wheat and not chaff), none of that matters if the typical cycle of DP9 closed door unfriendly yearly random twists and turns in game design punctuated by edition flip flops every 2-3 years continues. Is it really progress if the rules are tweaked to the satisfaction of the playerbase only to have a randomly chosen army and its players screwed over a year later by a poorly thought out army book? That's why I'm advocating a warmachine style book release where everyone gets something and DP9 gets something ($) from everyone. I frankly don't know if that will help or hinder but at least it's something different and would force the company to see how a particular change would affect all players and not just the project lead's darling chosen faction.

    edit: fixed erroneous quote


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/07 13:21:52


    Post by: mrondeau


    warboss's quote is erroneous, ferrous said that, not I, but I agree 100%, so I'm stealing ferrous's sentence. For that matter, I will look at the new rules and at how they intend to test them. I'm not spending anymore money on DP9, but I enjoy reading rules anyway.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/07 18:37:08


    Post by: MrThud


    I own a HG:B army and an occasional player versus two other opponents in my area. I've stopped really playing the game for quite some time, though I do lurk on the forums and post every once in a while. There's a few reasons I've stopped buying models.

    1. Lack of company support for its ruleset

    This is a glaring one. For years the company provided zero rules support. Any sort of rules question was essentially being pitched into a black hole. Then, after a protracted, heated argument last year about just how poorly written the Heavy Gear rules are (prompted by a new player basically asking how good the rules are), the company announced there would be a forum specifically for answering rules questions. Weekly answers were provided, which was great. It lasted three or four weeks, then the person in charge just flat out stopped answering. No official word on why he stopped, no questions about if rules support are over are answered. This wouldn't be so much a problem if the rules were well written and edited, but they're in a state I would consider barely adequate.

    How can you take a game seriously if the developers themselves don't seem to care about it themselves? You get the feeling that DP9 is operating primarily as a model-making company, with the actual game behind the models a distant second.

    2. Lack of transparency

    This one's closely related to the first, but any communication with the company is largely one way. They announce new releases, then will have a spurt of activity where they will answer feedback, then it reverts to the "no questions, please" mode. You get the occasional comment that they monitor the forums closely, but why don't they chime in with comments more often? It gives the appearance that the people on the forums have more invested in the game than the developers themselves.

    3. Price

    This is maybe par for the course for miniatures gaming, but everything is just too expensive for what you get. To get a decent two player game you'll need a myriad of rulebooks & army guides, plus two sets of fairly expensive models. You can get good board games with equal or more tactical depth for half that price or less. I like the detail on the models, but to me it's second to the game play, so it's hard for me to justify keep dumping money into a game whose rules I find ho-hum.



    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/08 22:29:55


    Post by: BrandonKF


    HudsonD wrote:
    I do my best to keep up to date on the latest, in many ways. If someday I'm wrong, then I'll apologize. So far, the facts have been on my side.
    I've read your post a few times, and I haven't yet found that "hard truth" you promised. If you have facts to provide, please do so.


    Not asking for an apology, HudsonD. Perhaps that's the disconnect here. You're thinking I'm demanding you make an apology, when what I would rather have is for you to leave behind whatever bad blood ran between you and the others.

    ferrous wrote:Oh, whaddya know, I do remember my login info.

    That Buckmaster post how DP9 is afraid of math, yeah...

    That seems to be one of the biggest problems and often why the game design seemed to fall flat on its face. DP9 had some really groggy math fans of the game, and could come up with percentages and figures for why certain things where overpowered, but seemed to be largely ignored by the rules makers. And so we got NuCoal. Hey IF too powerful? Let's take something that was already overpowered and make it triple-linked! It's the only faction that was tailor made to the ruleset, instead of shoe horned in. Though even barring that, even grenades from first edition should've been blindingly obviously overpowered. They had better range than the default guns, and a better chance of doing damage.

    A wargame like Heavy Gear deserves to have some really strong statistics guys in the mix keeping things real. Along with a decent god damned editor and technical writer to make sure gak is understable and can't be misconstrued. Murky rules that take forever to get answers from the POD on seem to be a staple. Witness that awesome rules thread that sits mostly idle, and should've been shutdown. (Oh at least they locked it finally)

    EDIT: And the reason why there hasn't been a good indie ruleset so far is that there just isn't enough of a playerbase to take it up. There are a couple of different attempts, but with an already small playerbase, it's just not worth it. The forums are just tiny, with barely a handful of players ever online at once.


    As I pointed out, warboss has his own indie ruleset on his blog, as do I. I'm more than willing to hear you folks out.

    H.B.M.C. wrote:
    BrandonKF wrote:
    Sometimes I think it's caused more by the fact that there are a lot of different ideas running amuck in Grognard world.

    -Brandon F.


    Grognard world? So we're just falt out insulting people I see?

    What I'd suggest now is that you keep digging. Eventually the hole you've dug yourself into will become a tunnel that leads the other side, and probably a light to escape into.


    The forum is called 'a pint of grog'. So I call'em Grognards. Not insulting, stating the fact that there have been dozens of ideas floated between dozens of individuals.

    mrondeau wrote:warboss's quote is erroneous, ferrous said that, not I, but I agree 100%, so I'm stealing ferrous's sentence. For that matter, I will look at the new rules and at how they intend to test them. I'm not spending anymore money on DP9, but I enjoy reading rules anyway.


    The alpha is to be released sometime later in January or February. It will be open to any player who decides to chime in on the DP9 Forums.

    Mr. Dubois writes:

    "Dream Pod 9 is announcing development of a new edition consolidated core tabletop wargaming rulebook for Heavy Gear. The full Beta rules will be released as a free e-book and b&w printed booklet in Summer 2014. The full color new edition core rulebook (both electronic and printed editions) will follow in early 2015.

    The new rulebook will consolidate all the rules and complete army lists for all factions into one book for the first time and will introduce concepts for speeding up game play and simplifying army selection. Rules updates will be determined through an Alpha development phase which players are invited to participate in. The Alpha test period will occur between January and June, 2014. Support for the Alpha and Beta rules will be via a development webpage with a blog and weekly updates. The Dream Pod 9 forum will host playtester feedback and discussion in a special section to be announced.

    The future for Heavy Gear will be the new edition consolidated core rulebook containing the storyline, rules, and core army lists for all factions currently available. The vast array of Heavy Gear armies will continue to be supported and expanded within the new standardized army construction rules system. Heavy Gear players will be able to participate directly in future development through playtesting, design competitions, and collaborative army design committees.

    The recently released Blood Debt - Peace River Army List and forthcoming Northern Army List (early 2014) e-books only exclusives for Heavy Gear Blitz will allow all current players of HGB not involved in Alpha development to continue to enjoy playing until the new rules are released in 2015. Material from the originally planned printed books will be incorporated into the new edition rulebook.

    The Heavy Gear universe will continue to expand with new miniature releases, re-sculpts, and the continuation of the storyline.

    We need the participation of all Heavy Gear fans to help us develop the most fun mecha combat tabletop wargame available. We can’t make it happen without you and your enthusiasm in getting friends involved and bringing the game to your local stores and gaming groups."

    -Brandon F.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/09 07:11:10


    Post by: HudsonD


    BrandonKF wrote:

    Not asking for an apology, HudsonD. Perhaps that's the disconnect here. You're thinking I'm demanding you make an apology, when what I would rather have is for you to leave behind whatever bad blood ran between you and the others.

    Your assumptions and disregard for not only my points, but also pretty much everyone else's, are showing in a very obvious way there.

    Everything I've posted, I've done so out of respect toward truth and facts. If you post something wrong, I will call you on it. As I have, many times already.
    If one day, you are able to make your own points, and provide facts and evidence, instead of repeating official statements, then we might finally be able to have a conversation.

    The forum is called 'a pint of grog'. So I call'em Grognards. Not insulting, stating the fact that there have been dozens of ideas floated between dozens of individuals.

    Using plural for "dozens" is kind of pushing it, although not technically inaccurate. Furthermore, you appear to have completely missed the real intent of the Grog sub-forum.

    The alpha is to be released sometime later in January or February. It will be open to any player who decides to chime in on the DP9 Forums.
    Mr. Dubois writes (...)

    This would be the perfect illustration to my previous point. What are you trying to achieve by re-posting official DP9 statements as if they were actual arguments, in a thread where people are complaining about the gap between DP9's promises and their actual delivery ?
    To put it another way, after so many failed deliveries, and with DP9's output visibly reduced, what makes you think that this time, it'll be different ?


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/09 23:32:48


    Post by: BrandonKF


    Unlike you, I haven't been one to demand that the Pod throw out the old legacy rules, primarily because it was rather simple for me to re-learn the basics with their basis being in the Tactical and RPG setting. However, I, like many others, had difficulty finding opponents, primarily due to the fact that I was in the Army at the time, and also because I lacked a reliable source of transportation.

    Now, the legacy rules are preparing to go by the wayside. This is an effort on the part of the Pod to reach out to casual wargamers to make some of the more difficult rules simpler, and to make certain vague rules clearer in their intent. Many people have spoken with regards to the detection rules, and these are being looked at.

    -Brandon F.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/09 23:34:22


    Post by: warboss


    BrandonKF wrote:
    However, I, like many others, had difficulty finding opponents, primarily due to the fact that I was in the Army at the time, and also because I lacked a reliable source of transportation.


    You had a main battle tank. Neither sleet nor snow nor jihadis or concrete walls could stop you from getting to a game!


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/09 23:37:53


    Post by: BrandonKF


     warboss wrote:
    BrandonKF wrote:
    However, I, like many others, had difficulty finding opponents, primarily due to the fact that I was in the Army at the time, and also because I lacked a reliable source of transportation.


    You had a main battle tank. Neither sleet nor snow nor jihadis or concrete walls could stop you from getting to a game!


    Try putting your 8 million dollar tank through a concrete wall, see what your Sergeant does to you. Hell, he made me do push-ups on the back deck in zone in full battle rattle for running the track over the dang concrete on the side of the highway.

    Pissed me off, truthfully speaking, but it was his tank, I was just the driver.

    -Brandon F.

    Edit: Note that was my first tank commander. He was good, all around. The next couple I had were pretty good, too. But I still had a heck of a time with hitting things every now and then. That'll happen when you drive non-stop.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/10 04:21:59


    Post by: jedi76


    Simpler rules that create the same effect with less steps to get there would be nice. Concealment and cover kinda make my feeble brain hurt so that and stealth could be adjusted. I mean these are giant robots, i dont care how stealthy and black your armor is, you get in visual range you should be able to get shot. I actually really like the nucoal and southern field guides I thought they were great books. I'm new to the game though, I don't even have locked and loaded and new army books do not effect my collection yet. This new 2015 rulebook with all the armies and new rules worries me that it won't have much room for fluff and chrome. So basically I'm kinda hoping they still do some kind of book for the other factions. I was looking forward to collecting field guides for all the factions.



    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/10 07:43:48


    Post by: HudsonD


    BrandonKF wrote:
    Unlike you, I haven't been one to demand that the Pod throw out the old legacy rules, (...)
    Uh ? What and who are you talking about ?

    BrandonKF wrote:
    Now, the legacy rules are preparing to go by the wayside. This is an effort on the part of the Pod to reach out to casual wargamers to make some of the more difficult rules simpler, and to make certain vague rules clearer in their intent. (...)
    No. This is first and foremost an effort on part of the Pod to stay alive.
    To cut a long story short, the Pod's stance has been thoroughly hostile to wargamers, and they're starting to realize gamers are actually a bigger market than the shrinking core of hardcore fans. I wish them luck to secure that "new" market...


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/11 00:42:26


    Post by: ferrous


     jedi76 wrote:
    Simpler rules that create the same effect with less steps to get there would be nice. Concealment and cover kinda make my feeble brain hurt so that and stealth could be adjusted. I mean these are giant robots, i dont care how stealthy and black your armor is, you get in visual range you should be able to get shot. I actually really like the nucoal and southern field guides I thought they were great books. I'm new to the game though, I don't even have locked and loaded and new army books do not effect my collection yet. This new 2015 rulebook with all the armies and new rules worries me that it won't have much room for fluff and chrome. So basically I'm kinda hoping they still do some kind of book for the other factions. I was looking forward to collecting field guides for all the factions.



    Yup, lots of clunky rules, cover wasn't too bad, it was just percentage of model covered (0 percent, less than 50 percent, greater than 50 percent, 100 percent), and with an additional modifier if behind "Solid".

    Concealment on the other hand, was a pain. I'm not sure why they didn't simplify and use the same system as cover, at least then you only have to learn one system. Stealth was weird, ECM and ECCM awful, Command points and some of the weird stuff should've been stripped out a long time ago. Like out of order actions, firing with command points, etc. All a muddy overcomplicated mess.

    Weapons and ranges were a mess, they've cleaned up the weapon ranges a little, still some weapons that are just useless due to the ranges. I think they should cull some of the weapons, do you really need a very light, light, medium, heavy and very heavy version of some weapons?

    The melee changes were kind of dumb, I'm not sure how they picked 3" for melee range, it seems absurdly long for a game like HG, I would've gone with maybe 2" at maximum. (and most of the default melee weapons are awful, granted they couldn't buff them or they'd be better than the default shooting weapons, which were also awful. Which is why the first piece of advice when army building tended to be, "Swap all the weapons out, also swap all the default models out too if you can"

    Speaking of, Army building is a mess, they changed it but it's not any simpler, and everyone just makes PL3 armies, and sometimes PL1 armies, as those have the least restrictions. And the fact they nerfed PL imbalances to 'wins ties'. Might as well just remove PL altogether.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/11 01:51:12


    Post by: BrandonKF


    @jedi, As someone who enjoys the fluff immensely, I can agree that I do desire to see plenty of fluff created. However, one of the things that ferrous points out is the amount of rules. For now, better to start by stripping it down to the bare engine and getting that to work smoothly.

    The fluff as it stands is already well-established within the game's universe, and doesn't require as much explanation as it used to.

    I've heard it said that army-building is confusing, but I've also read others say that the priority levels and the missions were part of what attracted them to the game, since it wasn't just "get points, get models, equal them out".

    Weapons are probably getting simplified.

    As for the ECM and ECCM, personally I just can't agree with much of how anything there is made. Primarily because I know how the stuff works.

    Stealth, on the other hand, I get. Giant robots is one thing, but these aren't Mechs, and they aren't Gundams, either. Not even the Gearstriders are as tall as that. So the idea of making them 'stealth' isn't all about 'painting them black'.

    Melee I believe was given a 3-inch range primarily because of the fact that there was a bit of question about how effective it really was, and if it should even be included at all. Obviously, with mechs, you have a humanoid frame that can mix it up like a human being, and the Duelists do that all the time, but there's a lot of question about whether or not it's feasible or even sensible to do so on a future combat field when your opponent packs that much firepower.

    Cover and concealment was an idea that was promising. Clearly, one you can't shoot through, the other you can.

    @HudsonD, I pray whatever you do from here on is blessed as well.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/11 01:58:18


    Post by: ferrous


    Yeah, but if the concealment rating was calculated the same as or nearly the same as cover, it would be so much easier to figure out.

    how much of the model is covered by terrain?
    None == No concealment
    Some Cover == some concealment ,1 point
    Cover == Concealment ,2 points
    Full Cover == Full Concealment 3 points
    Then modifiers for whether they moved or fired, or chose the Hide action, or have stealth.

    None of this measure and for every full X inches of soft, heavy, solid cover, add Y points of concealment.


    EDIT: Stealth I agree with, the models are small-ish, around 5 meters tall, not 10 meters. Much like tanks, they can hide behind cover, and use advanced stealth tech or EW to remain hidden.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/11 02:01:57


    Post by: BrandonKF


    Personally I was thinking of going more the route of 'count however many pieces of terrain there were and see if your Detect rating surpassed it'. If not, roll 1d6, add your Sensors rating, and see if that surpassed it for an Active Sensor roll.

    But hey.

    Edit: Wanted to say yes to the whole measurement thing as well. I get that if you're trying to look through lots of thick concealment you're not going to see your target, but that was really one of the slower parts.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/11 02:42:02


    Post by: ferrous


    Yeah, the main thing is they haven't simplified it, and it's something technically done all the time unless the target is completely out in the open.

    Anyway, that's kind of my beef, is that we could ask just about any of the grogs, and they will give a quick brief list of all the things that suck about HG. Unfortunately we tend to all have different ideas on how to fix it, but that should be the job of the actual designers.

    Instead we get weird melee changes (Melee was lame, but not that lame, 3" and adding shotguns to melee weapons is not only confusing but abusable.) And other things get ignored.

    We'll see how it goes. My problem is that in the past, they've always made the playtests private, and even when I was helping playtest, they still seemed to ignore the feedback given and end up doing things I didn't agree with.

    Though not always, at least they got rid of Point Blank, but I saw that and Hand Grenades as things that should've been blindingly obvious if they had playtested the first time. And the weird patch the rules with +5TV updates to models was also terrible, but they continued to do it multiple times. (Dedicated Tank Hunter Initiative, That weird Hover Maneuver upgrade for +5TV, glass back removal for +5TV, etc.)




    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/11 04:31:42


    Post by: warboss


    I think we can all agree that having one front toe of a gear behind solid cover but the rest of it being completely out in the open and visible via model true LOS but the model is effectively invisible because of the ridiculous concealment rules is a bad thing.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/11 14:41:31


    Post by: HudsonD


    This thread has become a microcosm of everything wrong with HGB. I guess that's appropriate...
    We could discuss about the details of how the concealment should really work for days, and it's been done before. The thruth is, it's just one of the many core systems of HGB that require help.
    As is, HGB suffers from a cascade of critical failures at many levels. Army building, rules coherency, unbalanced objectives, unbalanced armies, unbalanced units, miniature costs, terrible after-sale support, etc...
    In such conditions, is it any wonder that player recruitment is difficult, and player retention virtually impossible ?

    If the next edition manages to solve all those issues, I suppose the game stands a chance. IF.

    BrandonKF wrote:
    (...)
    @HudsonD, I pray whatever you do from here on is blessed as well.
    Aka "I'm not able to answer any of your points, so I'm going to go sulk in a corner and hope you go away somewhere far". well, thank you for your contribution !

    On second thoughts, I'm not done with you yet.
    Plenty of people in this thread, myself included, have worked hard to try and improve the game from the inside. We've built and maintained communities, against the odds. What have you done, that allows you to so easily dismiss our experiences in favor of your opinions ?


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/11 17:08:39


    Post by: warboss


     HudsonD wrote:
    This thread has become a microcosm of everything wrong with HGB. I guess that's appropriate...


    In a way, that was the original intent. I wanted a single reference point where DP9 could (if they wanted to) see why some people choose not to play their flagship game. I don't think that is what you're referring to but I agree with the alternate meaning of the sentance. I'd hazard a guess that the other popular reasons of inadequate support, frequent edition changes, and price largely cause the lack of local players or product purchase options. I hope all of those but price will change with the new edition (new rules obviously don't lower model MSRP).


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/12 00:39:52


    Post by: BrandonKF


    HudsonD wrote:This thread has become a microcosm of everything wrong with HGB. I guess that's appropriate...
    We could discuss about the details of how the concealment should really work for days, and it's been done before. The thruth is, it's just one of the many core systems of HGB that require help.
    As is, HGB suffers from a cascade of critical failures at many levels. Army building, rules coherency, unbalanced objectives, unbalanced armies, unbalanced units, miniature costs, terrible after-sale support, etc...
    In such conditions, is it any wonder that player recruitment is difficult, and player retention virtually impossible ?

    If the next edition manages to solve all those issues, I suppose the game stands a chance. IF.

    BrandonKF wrote:
    (...)
    @HudsonD, I pray whatever you do from here on is blessed as well.
    Aka "I'm not able to answer any of your points, so I'm going to go sulk in a corner and hope you go away somewhere far". well, thank you for your contribution !

    On second thoughts, I'm not done with you yet.
    Plenty of people in this thread, myself included, have worked hard to try and improve the game from the inside. We've built and maintained communities, against the odds. What have you done, that allows you to so easily dismiss our experiences in favor of your opinions ?


    1. Miniature cost was hardly a part of the problem.
    2. Unbalanced units I wouldn't know about, since every one of those units was intended for a specific function. Hence, 'game balance' was largely about how you used those units.
    3. In reality, the weaponry and how Accuracy interacted with and resolved Damage might have played a bigger part on the 'balance' of the game than anything.
    4. After-sale support on my part was excellent, thank you very much, HudsonD. Even in Iraq, I still got my miniatures inside of 2 weeks, and they did very well to help me when I didn't have a piece or one was malformed.
    5. You contributed over 6 years ago. And you've been hissing, scratching, *****ing, moaning and groaning the last 5 years about all that is wrong with Heavy Gear and what it would take to fix it. I don't know what the hell happened to you, but it's clear you have a huge friggin' chip on your shoulder, and while you say you have worked hard to help the Pod, you clearly haven't done anything to forgive the individuals involved and continue on with your life.

    I'm not done with you by a long shot, I was trying to be cordial.

    You want me sulking in a corner, or you want me to come out and tell you I think you are being a huge pain in the *** for no other reason than to be just that? Because that's the way you write and act.

    What have I done? I've tried to be a voice of reason, I've tried to keep things cordial.

    I've tried to stir up interest in the game, and also tried to be polite with those who disagreed. Like you.

    I have made my suggestions about what might improve the game, not exactly expecting people to listen, but hoping that perhaps it might help if it simplified a problem.

    To answer your points, as you put them:

    You claim that this is an effort on the Pod to stay alive. I'll refute that. Most everyone claimed the Pod was dead when the computer game Heavy Gear II went down and Activision held the copyrights. Then someone stepped up and said, "Hey, let's simplify this game and revamp the models." This company you hold in such low esteem thanks to your bad experiences (which I have no doubt is partially caused by your own bad attitude of wanting to be a chief and not being a brave) has continued on for 20 years.

    You claim the Pod has been hostile to wargamers. I'll refute that. I think that the atmosphere around the gaming community has been made hostile because there are those who are wanting to perfect the game as they see fit.

    The legacy rules from the old Tactical rules and RPG rules were partially the reason why I enjoyed the game, since I am a roleplayer first and foremost, not a wargamer. With the legacy rules of using the older Tactical scale as a basis, I was able to keep re-using the old editions that I had bought, which was a significant purchase in and of itself for a 17-year-old boy.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/12 01:05:10


    Post by: warboss


    Can't we all get along and join together to fight the real enemy... Paxton? :(


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/12 01:19:32


    Post by: BrandonKF


    Just as long as you remember not to get me after we get them. ;-)

    -Brandon F.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/12 16:45:55


    Post by: HudsonD


    Well, it's good to finally see some efforts at conversation on your part. It's not much, but it's a start.
    I do notice two things, however. Much like DP9, you only act with your back to the wall, when you are left with no other choices. Furthermore, you consider any disagreement and criticism as personal offenses.

    BrandonKF wrote:

    1. Miniature cost was hardly a part of the problem.
    2. Unbalanced units I wouldn't know about, since every one of those units was intended for a specific function. Hence, 'game balance' was largely about how you used those units.
    3. In reality, the weaponry and how Accuracy interacted with and resolved Damage might have played a bigger part on the 'balance' of the game than anything.
    4. After-sale support on my part was excellent, thank you very much, HudsonD. Even in Iraq, I still got my miniatures inside of 2 weeks, and they did very well to help me when I didn't have a piece or one was malformed.
    5. You contributed over 6 years ago. And you've been hissing, scratching, *****ing, moaning and groaning the last 5 years about all that is wrong with Heavy Gear and what it would take to fix it. I don't know what the hell happened to you, but it's clear you have a huge friggin' chip on your shoulder, and while you say you have worked hard to help the Pod, you clearly haven't done anything to forgive the individuals involved and continue on with your life.


    1.
    Miniature cost is very much a part of the problem. A single Drake costs 50 $US, which is more than a GW SM dreadnought, for only a fraction of the size. A vanilla GP squad costs the same price as a tactical squad, for half the minis. A single Visigoth costs 30$, 3/4 of a Razorback, despite the fact it would look more at home in Epic than 40K. The army books are 60$, which is the price for a full hardcover 400 pages book in most other lines. I could go on and on, you get the point. DP9's prices are very high, on par with GWs. If you can't see how this is a problem, I guess it's a lost cause.

    2 & 3.
    Spoken as someone who has no idea of what 'game balance' is, and I now feel the need to ask, how many games have you actually played ? Not quick demo games with a single squad, actual games with fully sized armies, against a competent opponent.
    I've played dozens such games. I've been in playtests since 2006, wrote articles, and actual rules bits. What makes you think I don't know about the issues in the game ? The game is not balanced, whether it's gameplay elements, units stats and costs, squad compositions, or objectives.

    4.
    Sorry to rain on your parade, but that's nothing exceptional for a gaming company. Or any company, for that matter. The better question would be, why is there such a high-rate of miscasts ? Besides that bit, the actual after-sale support from DP9 is very much lacking. Should I mention the rules thread that was maintained for only 3 weeks ? Arena that was released broken, got a single errata and then nothing else ? The list of products DP9 has released and promptly forgotten goes on...
    If anything, DP9 is one of the few companies that make GW's errata and FAQs look downright plentiful.


    5.
    First things first, I've resigned a bit more than one years ago, get your facts straight.
    I've managed to get a lot more done than you have. Precisely because of the bitching.
    Furthermore, what kind of fantasy world do you live in, where intents and feelings replace a finished product in a customer/business relation ? I have no need to forgive the Pod, because it's not a personal matter between individuals. If they release a good product, I'll praise it. If they release a crappy rush-job, I'll call it like it is. The fact that I have, indeed, praised very little in the last five years should tell you more about the Pod, than about me...


    I'm not done with you by a long shot, I was trying to be cordial.
    You want me sulking in a corner, or you want me to come out and tell you I think you are being a huge pain in the *** for no other reason than to be just that? Because that's the way you write and act.
    What have I done? I've tried to be a voice of reason, I've tried to keep things cordial.
    I've tried to stir up interest in the game, and also tried to be polite with those who disagreed. Like you.

    Cordial, voice of reason, polite, refuting... These words you use, you should check what they really mean.
    As for being polite, you aren't supposed to try, you're supposed to be. Being polite and being nice are two different things however, as we'll see below...


    To answer your points, as you put them:
    You claim that this is an effort on the Pod to stay alive. I'll refute that. Most everyone claimed the Pod was dead when the computer game Heavy Gear II went down and Activision held the copyrights. Then someone stepped up and said, "Hey, let's simplify this game and revamp the models." This company you hold in such low esteem thanks to your bad experiences (which I have no doubt is partially caused by your own bad attitude of wanting to be a chief and not being a brave) has continued on for 20 years.

    I will not dignify your asinine assumptions about my experiences and intents with an answer.

    "People thought it was dead, and it actually wasn't, therefore it can't die !"
    See, you keep using that word "refute", but I'm not sure it means what you think it means. It's not an exorcism, just saying it out loud, doesn't make it happen. You also need to provide actual arguments. I'm still waiting for those...
    As for DP9's health, they haven't released a single actual book in a year, they've cancelled their next releases, their latest book spent one year in "writing" before being released incomplete and unedited. The credits section is shrinking with each new release, and there's no more color art. That's some very ominous alarm signs for any gaming company...
    On second thoughs, your statement is erroneous. DP9 did die. The team that released gems such as HG RPG 2nd ed hasn't existed in a long time. Early 2000s, actually.
    Sure, the company never actually closed doors, but the team behind Blitz (released in 2006) and everything after, has basically nothing to do with the 90s era DP9. Let's judge this "new" company not on the legacy of its name, but on its own merits.

    You claim the Pod has been hostile to wargamers. I'll refute that. I think that the atmosphere around the gaming community has been made hostile because there are those who are wanting to perfect the game as they see fit.

    "There are no problems, the only issue I see are those evil haters that dare ask for improvements".
    Thankfully, the fans are there to protect DP9 from the haters and chase them away from the forums, like other thriving companies, such as Palladium, and just as Palladium, DP9 is very happy to have its fans chase away the "haters". This is precisely that kind of attitude that has shrinked the playerbase to virtually nil, and more importantly, mauled their market share since the "golden era" of early blitz.
    That very mindset permeates their every project, from start to release, including writing and playtests, especially writing and playtests, and is the core issue affecting the company and the game. Any quality release in such an environment is pure blind luck, and any hopes of market share growth are futile.

    The legacy rules from the old Tactical rules and RPG rules were partially the reason why I enjoyed the game, since I am a roleplayer first and foremost, not a wargamer. With the legacy rules of using the older Tactical scale as a basis, I was able to keep re-using the old editions that I had bought, which was a significant purchase in and of itself for a 17-year-old boy.

    This is very nice. I loved the RPG as well. What are you doing on a wargame forum though ?


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/12 17:46:19


    Post by: warboss


     HudsonD wrote:
    The legacy rules from the old Tactical rules and RPG rules were partially the reason why I enjoyed the game, since I am a roleplayer first and foremost, not a wargamer. With the legacy rules of using the older Tactical scale as a basis, I was able to keep re-using the old editions that I had bought, which was a significant purchase in and of itself for a 17-year-old boy.

    This is very nice. I loved the RPG as well. What are you doing on a wargame forum though ?


    The irony is that neither of you currently play blitz and are the biggest fans of the defunct RPG that I know... you've got more in common that you think! I do however agree with the technical points that Hudson makes (although not with the emotion behind it at the moment...although I've been there). While I've enjoyed running and playing in RPGs, my Heavy Gear fandom is strictly wargame based and almost always has (we tried the RPG in 1st edition to use our minis more).

    Brandon, as an RPGer, you've been able to reuse the editions that you. Unfortunately, both times I've gotten into blitz and went through the effort of getting a group going, the seemingly inevitable edition swap within 2-3 years of 1st printing has destroyed the group. Both times, every player (including myself) stopped playing and stopped buying. When we got into Blitz and started special ordering, the store who stopped carrying HG because they were stuck with useless stock with the 1st/2nd edition flipflop decided to dip their toes into Blitz as well... and were rewarded with more dead stock when original blitz was abandoned and they didn't bother ordering anything again AFAIK (I moved away a few years ago). DP9 had to start shipping stuff directly to stores and published an angry press release saying that no distributor would carry them because they didn't agree with the distributor terms being demanded of them specifically. That's about the time you came into the game from your intro post on the forums. That's the frame of reference that at least I'm operating from. I really like the HG world and art style and even the (flawed) mechanics but DP9 tries really, really hard to convince me otherwise. :( Hudson is operating from the perspective of someone who tried for a few years behind the scenes to help and had a frustrating experience... I can see where he's coming from and I've only playtested for less than a year. There are some well meaning and knowledgeable people (not referring to myself specifically) who are trying to help but there is both vertical and lateral pressure to keep things broken lest the busted clock somehow only be correct once per day. Unfortunately, the game has sunked quite low despite some good changes (like the new Field Guide format) and some of the intially well meaning and passionate people involved with the game are now part of the problem and not the solution. 1+1 does not =2 frequently and unfortunately with HG.

    The minis look nice (with a few exceptions).... the new books look nice... so what do you think, Brandon, is holding the game back? Or do you think that the game isn't being held back but is currently successful instead? If the latter, how so? I don't mean it in a confrontational matter but I'm curious to know what (if any) changes you personally think the HG product line should make. I'm guessing adding the letters r, p, and g will be in there somewhere.

    Hudson, I know you've peeked behind the curtain of DP9 development and had both your eyes poked 3 Stooges style as a thank you but you have to realize that not everyone has an interest in getting that involved in the game. If people still enjoy the heyday 2nd edition (it was DP9's heyday even if it screwed me over personally) and that's their primary method of interacting with the company, they won't nor do they need to prioritize the same things nor see it from the same point of view. From a RPG perspective, having a single tank at $30 isn't an expensive purchase for an RPG like buying a $90 unit of three for the wargame. There is room for more than just one point of view in the thread.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/12 19:44:34


    Post by: mrondeau


    warboss, while I agree with your post overall, there are a few points where I think you are missing the trees for the forest.
    The first one is that DP9's attitude is reinforced and enabled by the fans. It's easier to ignore the people pointing out the problems when you have a group of fans telling you that your work is perfect and that all your problems are caused by the complainers. That's what we observed during LnL's playtest.

    The second one is that even the few improvements fall short of their potential, often in trivial, easy to fix ways. The new field guide format is a good example. In theory, I should be quite happy about it. In practice, I just roll my eyes. The variant names are unhelpful, specific to each guide, and can mean completely different things depending on the model. Most are simple primary weapon swap. Just call them by the new primary weapon! It's a trivial change that make learning and playing the game much, much easier. Add to that that the Combat Groups and their variants are not coherent or well designed, and that you still have about the same number of options for each CG as before, and what should be an improvement become a cosmetic change. That's without going into the half-backed regiment system. One thing that DP9 seems determined not to learn is that publishing a book commit you to its content for a few years, at least. It's important to do the best job possible, since the company and the players will be stuck with any problems for a while. Whenever possible, don't change thing halfway! Change them, or wait.

    This bring me to the last point: the game sold by DP9 is a wargame, not a RPG. Trying to please the RPG crowd is futile (they want a RPG) and only harm the wargame. I would say the opposite to anyone trying to turn a RPG into a wargame. Both can coexist, but they cannot be the same product. It's like having a car and a bicycle. Having both is common, but replacing a car's engine with pedals is not going to make anyone happy. When publishing a wargame, publish a wargame. If you want to publish a RPG, publish a RPG.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/12 19:49:37


    Post by: HudsonD


    Honestly, while I may disagree with some parts of the above Warboss post, it's well-written and well-thought, and far closer to the concept of "voice of reason".

    I absolutely love the setting. Or at least I did until the recent rewrites, but I digress... The 2nd ed RPG remains for me a masterpiece, both in the setting, and the mechanisms. Whenever I speak of it these days, however, I use past tense. It's a line that's been dead and unfinished for 15 years. The books are long OOP, and DP9 will not touch the poor scans available on DTRPG. Why not ? This would satisfy fans of the RPG for a very minimal amount of effort, but really, your guess is as good as mine, there...

    Being a huge fan of the RPG doesn't prevent me from looking at things from other directions though. An RPG is an RPG, a wargame is a wargame, and I love both. What's good for one, might be terrible for the other, and vice-versa. Give me a good RPG, or a good wargame, but don't give me an half-assed attempt at doing both in a single product. Blitz, from the onset, was supposed to be a wargame, but since L&L, it's been marketed toward RPG fans, one of the many critical errors made by DP9 in managing the Blitz line.
    Ultimately, I'd like nothing more than Heavy Gear to succeed, and be a game worth playing. The latest book, however do not satisfy me as a customer, from either point of view. They're bad for a wargamer, and bad for a roleplayer. You don't want to get me started on the writing, and how much it departs from the original concept (not that I would mind the later that much, if it was done well). As for the balance and playability, which should be the crucial points in a wargame, well... The less said, the better.

    Buying a few minis to look good on the shelves, or have something to look at while playing an RPG is good, in fact, I've done it more than once, and there used to be a Jaguar on my desk for a long while... Will such casual purchases be enough to sustain sales though ? I doubt that...

    Edit : Yeah, that, and everything mrondeau just wrote above, as well.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/12 20:15:18


    Post by: warboss


    I also agree about making the wargame a better wargame and not a fluff expansion of the defunct RPG. I used to make it a point to respond with the term "defunct RPG that failed on its own merits" when people's suggestions on how to "improve" the wargame amounted to basically turning it into an rpg. Campaign story/plot! More fluff! Special characters that change the story/world! None of those improve a wargame whose fundamental rules need some serious work and are more akin to adding an awesome stereo to a car whose transmission won't go past 1st gear.


    I would have vastly preferred PRDF style releases (although better balanced with abilities/benefits paid for) for all existing factions put out in the first year of Nucoal's book instead of having armies languishing in the meantime. I'd have preferred 1/3 of the page count in the new style books to not have been made and all that money on art, writing, and editing (lol, yes, they likely paid someone to edit however badly, Hudson) to have been spent on putting out books faster. Putting out books faster usually means that the impact of changes in one book will be considered for the next (although that doesn't seem to be the case with Paxton). All of the above though assumes that a bit more common sense, forethought, and direction be applied to the IP than currently (with the exception possibly of nublitz as it is too early to tell with that one).


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/12 20:23:25


    Post by: mrondeau


    Arg! No! Don't tell him that editors are paid! I'm counting on him not knowing that for my thesis!


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/13 00:47:50


    Post by: BrandonKF


    HudsonD wrote:Well, it's good to finally see some efforts at conversation on your part. It's not much, but it's a start.
    I do notice two things, however. Much like DP9, you only act with your back to the wall, when you are left with no other choices. Furthermore, you consider any disagreement and criticism as personal offenses.


    I responded with my back to the wall because it happened to get me mad. Straight up. I wasn't in the frame of mind to write nicely.

    1.
    Miniature cost is very much a part of the problem. A single Drake costs 50 $US, which is more than a GW SM dreadnought, for only a fraction of the size. A vanilla GP squad costs the same price as a tactical squad, for half the minis. A single Visigoth costs 30$, 3/4 of a Razorback, despite the fact it would look more at home in Epic than 40K. The army books are 60$, which is the price for a full hardcover 400 pages book in most other lines. I could go on and on, you get the point. DP9's prices are very high, on par with GWs. If you can't see how this is a problem, I guess it's a lost cause.


    Fair enough. I'll accept that, although I still say that in comparison to the plastic and pewter miniatures I purchased as a kid from GW, the comparison to the resin and white metal models of the current DP9 lines are rather good. As for the cost of the books, I'll agree it's ridiculous.

    2 & 3.
    Spoken as someone who has no idea of what 'game balance' is, and I now feel the need to ask, how many games have you actually played ? Not quick demo games with a single squad, actual games with fully sized armies, against a competent opponent.
    I've played dozens such games. I've been in playtests since 2006, wrote articles, and actual rules bits. What makes you think I don't know about the issues in the game ? The game is not balanced, whether it's gameplay elements, units stats and costs, squad compositions, or objectives.


    Nowhere near as many as you.

    4.
    Sorry to rain on your parade, but that's nothing exceptional for a gaming company. Or any company, for that matter. The better question would be, why is there such a high-rate of miscasts ? Besides that bit, the actual after-sale support from DP9 is very much lacking. Should I mention the rules thread that was maintained for only 3 weeks ? Arena that was released broken, got a single errata and then nothing else ? The list of products DP9 has released and promptly forgotten goes on...
    If anything, DP9 is one of the few companies that make GW's errata and FAQs look downright plentiful.


    Okay, before we get on about the rules thread, I was speaking to the quality of the miniatures. As for the number of miscasts, I can't say because I haven't seen much of the models in the last couple years.

    5.
    First things first, I've resigned a bit more than one years ago, get your facts straight.
    I've managed to get a lot more done than you have. Precisely because of the bitching.
    Furthermore, what kind of fantasy world do you live in, where intents and feelings replace a finished product in a customer/business relation ? I have no need to forgive the Pod, because it's not a personal matter between individuals. If they release a good product, I'll praise it. If they release a crappy rush-job, I'll call it like it is. The fact that I have, indeed, praised very little in the last five years should tell you more about the Pod, than about me...


    Well, since we can use the word bitching around here, I'll simply state that I haven't bitched to anyone because I'm just a fan. I playtested a little bit and showed off the game to some friends, but that's about the extent of my 'official' capacity within the Pod.

    I always felt that if I made suggestions, rather than throwing out moans and groans, it might be more constructive.

    Cordial, voice of reason, polite, refuting... These words you use, you should check what they really mean.
    As for being polite, you aren't supposed to try, you're supposed to be. Being polite and being nice are two different things however, as we'll see below...


    Being nice is only possible when others are nice in turn. I know what they mean, thanks. And I've been nice. Doesn't seem to make much difference nor change the tune of the posts.


    I will not dignify your asinine assumptions about my experiences and intents with an answer.


    You ought to. It would make it a hell of a lot more easy for me to hold a conversation with a man who was straight-up about where he's been, what he's done and what's going on.

    This is very nice. I loved the RPG as well. What are you doing on a wargame forum though ?


    Short answer? Here to answer a cynical man. And also to let you know that what they're trying to do now is make a wargame.

    Okay.

    If I've been a part of the hardcore roleplayers that's hurt the game, I duly apologize. I don't know jack-squat about what's gone on behind the scenes. Mostly I've just seen folks come and go on the forums. And there's been a lot of heated conversations, a lot of locked threads, and a lot of crap that I just can't stand.

    As for writing... I believe I've made my offers multiple times to write for the Pod. And you wouldn't even have to pay me. I would just do it for the love of the game.

    Special characters I wasn't crazy about, simply because the game was good at the bare bones and didn't need additional characters to make further rules.

    And editing-wise. Again, I'm a wanna-be writer, but I take a good deal of pride in making sure my stuff reads well.

    What exactly do you not like about the recent re-writes to the setting? Unless you really, really don't like the Gearstriders. Is that it? Or is it the second invasion of the Earth? Or is it the changes to the Humanist Alliance and the addition of the New Coalition?



    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/13 01:43:13


    Post by: solkan


    I'm pretty sure there's a corollary to Godwin's Law involving comparing anything a company does to something that GW has done. And there's a point where a fan of a game becomes a toxic black hole of negativity. Where they become convinced that the game company will never improve, or never improve in the ways that they want the company to improve. Yet that same fan remains completely unwilling to either let go or move on. It's just too bad that there isn't some equivalent of divorce to break up fans in bad relationships like that.

    Dream Pod 9 is a company of part timers selling games with $10-14/metal miniatures, or $20-120/resin model miniatures. Because the options for making those same miniatures in plastic are Magical Pixie Dust, or outsource production to China. (DP9 and Corvus Belli seem to be in the same boat, really...) That's not going to change for a few more years. And if it does, it's probably be because everyone ended needing to sell 3D printer schematics instead of models.

    On a realistic scale, if someone wanted to compile a competing set of fan-written rules, they could do just as good a job as the DP9 people. And that would be a much better way of arguing that various rules need to get changed to the improve the game.

    I'm going to go back to putting together some more of their models for that nice racing game that they released. And patiently waiting for productive news about the rules changes.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/13 01:57:15


    Post by: BrandonKF


    @solkan. Fan rules.

    http://heavygearthunder.blogspot.com/p/these-are-stats-provided-heavy-gear.html

    As for HGv5, the alpha is being looked over at this time for its release. And they are wanting to make this a pure wargame without the inclusion of the more 'roleplaying' attributes.

    -Brandon F.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/13 03:29:21


    Post by: solkan


    BrandonKF wrote:
    @solkan. Fan rules.


    I've seen those, and they look quite nice.

    I just want to make a big sign that says, "It's okay if you give the model an agility (or piloting) stat and tell us to use that for defense rolls!" and mail it to the Pod, instead of having to use the defense stat for everything that's really a piloting roll.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/13 03:56:27


    Post by: BrandonKF


    Thanks, solkan. Though you being a Infinity player makes it easier for you to understand the stats.

    One of the things that I really have been curious about is getting rid of all the different terrain types. Some of it, like deep water, could be used to make individual Models like the Water Dragon extra-lethal in their chosen areas of usefulness, but not everyone uses all the terrain types, I'm sure.

    I agree on the idea of a separate stat for difficult terrain, but I don't know how many attributes you want to put into a select model.

    -Brandon F.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/13 08:11:02


    Post by: doc1234


    Just going to chip in here and say- so DP9's cost is justified because the minis are better than what gw did in the 80s-90s?

    Also @solkan dont forget the second part of that law stating for every black hole, there's an equally opposite toxic fan refusing to let the company improve by saying theres nothing wrong.

    Will say I agree on the "if it's broke fix it yourself". Chore as it may be to play sometimes i really enjoy playing arena. May be a bit of a mess, but that's what home rules are for. (Though helps i'm used to playing mostly peoples one page pdfs and such. I rarely expect too much )


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/13 08:58:56


    Post by: BrandonKF


    @doc1234, Personally I don't know what prices everyone would think is agreeable for the game, though I am curious to hear about it.



    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/13 15:23:28


    Post by: mrondeau


    BrandonKF wrote:
    I don't know jack-squat about what's gone on behind the scenes.

    So, you don't have much experience playing the game, the limited experience you had was from a RPG perspective, you do not care about rule support, and you don't know what's happening during the playtests. Yet, you think that those who have experience with the game from a wargaming perspective, care about rule support and have been parts of playtests should defer to your, apparently completely unsupported, opinion and should not mention those problems ever. If I don't know about a subject, I might ask questions, but I don't tell those who actually know that I know more than them.

    Also, what make you think that we did not start by making suggestions in private ? Let me re-put things in perspective: we reported game-killing problems and were not just ignored, we were denigrated as "complainers". During a playtest. Those problems were acknowledged later, when what took us, and about anyone I tried to demo LnL to, 5 seconds to realize became obvious to anyone. When everyone was complaining, DP9 finally did what should have been done before publishing LnL and tried to address the ~3 inches effective weapon range (except the sniper favourite weapon, the grenade, with its incredible 12 inches.)

    That same attitude, from what I saw at the beginning of the playtest for FiF and what I heard of the other playtests, is still present.
    Problems should be ignored, not reported. The only issue is those that report problems. DP9 still does it, you are doing it right now and here. I won't speculate as to why DP9 still think like that, even after changing part of the team. All I know is that it's still there. That's why I say "DP9": even if some of the individual are replaced, the attitude is still there.

    Finally, me and HudsonD are not actually that vocal. We only seem to be because essentially no one is talking about DP9 and HG the wargame. You can find discussion about HG the RPG on other sites. It's the same thing here in Montréal, DP9's hometown where they are either unknown, or a joke.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/13 21:03:34


    Post by: MrThud


    To be honest, it's these kind of testimonials that don't really have me enthusiastic about helping test the new rule set. In the recent past DP9 has been unresponsive to player feedback on their current rules. That's just the view of a regular player too, let alone one who's been involved in any sort of playtesting capacity. I just have trouble seeing them do a sudden 180 and give the sort of attention to feedback that would be needed to properly test and implement a clean set of rules.

    Do I really want to put the energy into helping bring HG up to snuff? I dunno, I'm having trouble bringing myself to thinking it'd be worth the investment, either time or money-wise. I'd love to be proven wrong, but I'm probably going to continue holding off committing either time or money until I have some confidence it's not just wasted.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/13 23:17:27


    Post by: paulson games


    I'd gotten into heavy gear back in the late 90's. Before the minis were out I had the funky combat system that was played with cards and cardboard tokens which came in a plastic box that looked like a case for a vhs tape.

    Tried their miniatures for a while, had a very hard time getting them at any of the local stores and I remember them being on the expensive side but I really enjoyed the size and look. I also had been into the jovian chronicles stuff. This was the very early internet era so it was very difficult to network with people to find games and particularly where to get stuff outside the of the LGS.

    Then revised rules and the scale change hit, I don't have a problem with a new system being introduced but when you have to replace your entire collection of minis that becomes a major problem. Imagine if every time GW released a new codex you had to buy an entirely new army not just tack on a few new units. That was really, really rough to justify. Also from what I remember the game went silent/underground for a couple of years and I had thought they'd gone under, later I saw the new scaled minis, lots smaller and just as expensive which added up for a total pass.

    The game had been interesting and had there just been one or two set backs I might have hung on but it felt like they bungled things at every possible opportunity.

    I'd also wish that Jovian had stuck around but again you can't buy a game that you can't find and nobody stocks.


    For me battletech was simpler had way more players and I could get it at just about every game shop which is why we ended up playing it after we got cold feet on HG.



    Edit: man there seems to be some bad blood/history here that's carried over from other forums, which never looks good to people checking out the prospects of the game. Playtesting feuds should stay off public forums as it just looks bad as nobody else knows what the fighting is over.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/14 01:34:42


    Post by: ferrous


    Game balance was definitely a big issue, and it seemed like there was a contingent of players who either refused to think it matters, or thought 'skill trumps all'. Both irritate the hell out of me.

    Balance matters. That guy who goes and buys a bunch of expensive models, only to realize after a few games that they all suck, or need to be reglued with all new weapons. Yeah, there's a chance he's never coming back, and it looks like there were a lot of those people.

    Or my personal favorite, where one of the guys held a tournament with terrible custom rules as an example of how Regiments of Note were not overpowered.

    Mostly it was the rules black holes that were a pain. Part of it is just poorly written rules in the first place, like the "If two models are base to base, randomly determine which one you hit with directfire" My RAW friend went and stuck el cheapo units next to his expensive units, and suddenly directfire weapons became 50% less effective.

    Other times, its just asking for a clarification, and having to wait for my hair to turn grey before getting an answer.

    They also seemed to completely abandon a lot of the expansionanist forces. Anyone who bought Utopia, Eden, or Caprice have basically been left out in the cold. With updates to basic rules that just completely whomped Utopia, in back to back Gear Ups.


    Though I had pretty decent after market support when it came to models, I recall asking for bits and getting them with my orders for free. (They later offered bits for sale, which is fine too)


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/14 04:52:44


    Post by: warboss


    ferrous wrote:
    Game balance was definitely a big issue, and it seemed like there was a contingent of players who either refused to think it matters, or thought 'skill trumps all'. Both irritate the hell out of me.


    That is part of why I decided to take a voluntary break from posting for a bit until the North and Nublitz comes out before they made me take an involuntary one. The guy who responded to the conversation about unbalanced game design with "I don't care... I'll just use my skill and tactics to compensate!" likely is missing a firm grasp on either judging from the lack of common sense in that statement. In game tactics is not a replacement for sound game design and a cohesive direction for the IP. Unfortunately, I feel like Paxton failed on that level. When the North PDF comes out, I'll be better able to elaborate on the details.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/14 14:28:24


    Post by: IceRaptor


     warboss wrote:
    The guy who responded to the conversation about unbalanced game design with "I don't care... I'll just use my skill and tactics to compensate!" likely is missing a firm grasp on either judging from the lack of common sense in that statement.


    Which is infinitely more humorous because the current iteration of HG is very modifier based, and not very 'skill' based. You just need to stack modifiers and the dice become less relevant than in other games, so balance is even more paramount. +1 ATK from a model with +1 ACC goes a long way and makes your need for 'tactics' basically moot.

    To quote a post mrondeau made many moons ago: "tactic" is not synonymous with "magic"


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/14 20:01:01


    Post by: wildger


     warboss wrote:

    Which is infinitely more humorous because the current iteration of HG is very modifier based, and not very 'skill' based. You just need to stack modifiers and the dice become less relevant than in other games, so balance is even more paramount. +1 ATK from a model with +1 ACC goes a long way and makes your need for 'tactics' basically moot.


    Can you define what you mean by not very skill based? These modifiers do not come free. You have to plan ahead and relies on your opponent to make mistakes. To me, it is much more skill based with Battletech or 40K or any other games I can think of.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/14 20:08:51


    Post by: ferrous


    Yeah, actually, Ice, I'm with wildger, in that it does take skill to stack the modifiers.

    Winning a lot with a bad list just means that the players you're facing aren't very good. The guy didn't seem to comprehend that, even though it's pretty simple to think about, "Hey, so what happens if you were to play yourself, but instead of that gakky subpar list, one list was full of elite gears with weapon upgrades and double / triple linked IF support?"

    When it comes to playing someone of equal skill, thats when game balance really comes out. But it's really a trickle down effect that helps everyone, having models balanced and fun and not, "Don't ever take these if you want to have a good time"

    And its not like every tabletop game is balanced, but even 40k has managed to get it down to just a handful of subpar choices. Blitz, there are huge swathes of stuff you just don't want to do, and upgrades that are pretty much mandatory if you want to not get murdered by someone who does take them.

    They've tried a little bit, some of the default choices aren't absolutely awful, but a lot of them still are. The list that takes MACs as upgrades compared to the list that takes LBZKs or AGMs or any of the good weapons, is all things else being equal, going to slaughter the other list. Someone who tries to take lots of ECM to block FOs is going to be sorely disappointed by the fact that cheap spotters will easily overrun the ECMs and be more cost effective. Ie they can take those cheap spotters, and still take everything they want, while taking a recon unit full of ECM is mostly subpar. And recent clarifications make it nearly impossible to block CP usage, though at least they finally partially limited the "I fire again" CP usage. And that kind of slow half assed fix is what we can usually expect from DP9, even though we'll complain about it for years.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/14 22:43:40


    Post by: IceRaptor


    wildger wrote:
    Can you define what you mean by not very skill based? These modifiers do not come free. You have to plan ahead and relies on your opponent to make mistakes. To me, it is much more skill based with Battletech or 40K or any other games I can think of.


    In my experience, there level of skill required during play is fairly consistent with Warmachine or Malifaux, perhaps a bit less than Infinity and more than 40k, sure. But if you break it down, tactics in the game aren't really that complicated. For direct fire - get to optimal range, try to get your opponent out of cover. Make sure you're using coordinated attack, and try to get a rear attack or crossfire modifier if possible. Of that list, only crossfire is really the one that takes 'skill' to execute - the rest are just normal actions you'd take in any other wargame. Indirect Fire is quite frankly even easier - just repeat the above for the spotter, and make sure you parked your IF elements behind solid cover. And for the reasons that ferrous mentioned below, it's not that hard to swamp ECM to make sure at least one shot gets through.

    The only things I consider that takes some skill in Blitz (besides crossfire, described above) is managing your activation order, your support elements and possibly your CP pool, depending on the army. Air strikes and airborne troops certainly take some finesse to pull off, and player skill is probably best evidenced by how efficiently you manage your activation sequence. It shares a similarity to WM in that respect; you want to try to get your opponent to activate his better models against your junk before you activate your good units, if possible. But that almost depends more on your opponent's objectives than it does your skill, in my experience. How quickly you burn through your CP pool can be a reflection of skill - but simply loading up on sat. uplinks can remove the skill from that equation.

    Army selection takes some element of skill, most certainly. You want as many modifiers as possible, with some junk to throw away as well. That can be difficult - but no more difficult than WM / Infinity / 40k.

    Blitz is better than Battletech, certainly. But there's almost no 'tactics' in that game, except for positioning. Well, at least the games I've played - without infantry, vehicles, mostly open maps, etc. Blitz is arguably less complex than Warmachine because the secondary player has so many options to remain 'active' (CPs, reaction fire, etc). And it's significantly less than Infinity, which has almost a punishing complexity. 40k... I've not played since 3e so I can't really comment.

    ferrous wrote:
    And its not like every tabletop game is balanced, but even 40k has managed to get it down to just a handful of subpar choices. Blitz, there are huge swathes of stuff you just don't want to do, and upgrades that are pretty much mandatory if you want to not get murdered by someone who does take them.


    Pretty much. But that's part of my point - if tactics were that important, an army of LAC/MAC toting troops would be able roll over a smaller army of AGM equipped models. That doesn't tend to be the case though; the player that made the more 'optimal' choices during army construction - i.e. maximized their modifiers - has enough benefits that they tend to roll on through the game. This was especially true before the DEF modifier reset; try taking a DEF -1 army against a DEF +1 army to see what I mean. Tactics can help you, but they won't win you the match - just minimize your loss. To be fair, most wargames experience this to a greater or lesser degree - the PP forums are awash with 'theory-machine' to try to figure out optimal / suboptimal builds. And taking grunt, non-link team infantry in Infinity is just asking for pain. But unlike those games, in HGB the modifiers tend to be more important than the dice roll (intentionally) so the disparity stands out more.

    ferrous wrote:
    And that kind of slow half assed fix is what we can usually expect from DP9, even though we'll complain about it for years.


    You might be surprised by the new rules... but the jury is still out on how they support them.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/14 23:00:56


    Post by: warboss


    wildger wrote:
     warboss wrote:

    Which is infinitely more humorous because the current iteration of HG is very modifier based, and not very 'skill' based. You just need to stack modifiers and the dice become less relevant than in other games, so balance is even more paramount. +1 ATK from a model with +1 ACC goes a long way and makes your need for 'tactics' basically moot.


    Can you define what you mean by not very skill based? These modifiers do not come free. You have to plan ahead and relies on your opponent to make mistakes. To me, it is much more skill based with Battletech or 40K or any other games I can think of.


    You misquoted me there.. I wasn't the one who said that.

    ferrous wrote:They've tried a little bit, some of the default choices aren't absolutely awful, but a lot of them still are. The list that takes MACs as upgrades compared to the list that takes LBZKs or AGMs or any of the good weapons, is all things else being equal, going to slaughter the other list.


    Things become even more complex when you consider that some field guides charge 5tv for an MAC and that upgrade might be a replacement for other weapons... whereas other more recent armies get it for free for almost any model.

    IceRaptor wrote:You might be surprised by the new rules... but the jury is still out on how they support them.


    Dave did mention publicly that they would be significantly different. DP9 seems to gave gone back into silent running mode since though.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/14 23:51:54


    Post by: ferrous


    iceraptor wrote:
    You might be surprised by the new rules... but the jury is still out on how they support them.


    Yeah, I'll definitely be taking a peek when they become public. From what I've gathered, they are actually making some pretty radical departures, enough that some people are unhappy already because of it. That said, a lot of the issues with Blitz are right down to the fundamentals, so those kind of changes are needed. Hopefully it will still feel like Heavy Gear.


    EDIT: The quote function on this board is terrible.

    My one sincere hope when they do fixes, is no more stupid TV patches. (+5 for the roaring upgrade, +10 for the Conqueror upgrade, +5 for the glass back removal, +10 to increase maneuver by 1 -- just change the damned stats permanently instead of forking the model and making army construction more confusing.)


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/15 00:01:09


    Post by: warboss


    Just an FYI.. I do have some house rules for making FS gears viable at -1 maneuver but.. fair warning... you may be surprised how much they need to change. I started with the end results that I wanted (FS gears like Grizzlies being more resistant to "small" arms fire like LAC/MAC but still vulnerable to the bigger stuff like MBzk and up) and then adjusted the stats until it worked.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/15 01:35:33


    Post by: wildger


     IceRaptor wrote:

    In my experience, there level of skill required during play is fairly consistent with Warmachine or Malifaux, perhaps a bit less than Infinity and more than 40k, sure. But if you break it down, tactics in the game aren't really that complicated. For direct fire - get to optimal range, try to get your opponent out of cover. Make sure you're using coordinated attack, and try to get a rear attack or crossfire modifier if possible. Of that list, only crossfire is really the one that takes 'skill' to execute - the rest are just normal actions you'd take in any other wargame.


    Unlike other games, especially comparing to WM, many do not prefer direct fire as the first choice of attack .Unlike 40K, getting into optimal range may be difficult depending on the terrain set up, because you will be hit by reactive fire. The worst is being detected as in an open field.

    IceRaptor wrote:
    Indirect Fire is quite frankly even easier - just repeat the above for the spotter, and make sure you parked your IF elements behind solid cover. And for the reasons that ferrous mentioned below, it's not that hard to swamp ECM to make sure at least one shot gets through.


    It sounds very easy on paper. In reality, how many spotters can you have? Usually, the squad leader is the one to spot because he can coordinate attack as well. It can be blocked by ECM. Yes, you can swamp it with another trooper but then you won't have the coordinate attack modifier for not being the leader. Your target may still be in partial cover. You can use this strategy if you are numerical superior. Otherwise, you put your troops in open space and get slaughtered the next turn. A smart player will certain include a unit with high detect rating and this will force all you units in cover until you prepare a dash.


    IceRaptor wrote:
    How quickly you burn through your CP pool can be a reflection of skill - but simply loading up on sat. uplinks can remove the skill from that equation.


    Sat uplink takes an action. Most units only have one action. A leader may have 2 or 3 actions. Often, he has so much to do that there is no action left for him to use the sat uplink. In the standard 4 turn game, if you can afford a turn to have a unit hiding behind the cover to use sat uplink, you likely have already controlled the board. In my gaming experience, I have rarely seen anyone taking this option - most players rather use the TV on something else. Sounds good on paper but rarely useful.

    IceRaptor wrote:
    Army selection takes some element of skill, most certainly. You want as many modifiers as possible, with some junk to throw away as well. That can be difficult - but no more difficult than WM / Infinity / 40k.


    From what I understand, the modifiers do not come into army selection as all. The main option is the choice of weapons with different range modifiers. Which one is more useful depends on the terrain set up and scenario chosen. The more powerful ones comes with a higher TV costs. A lot of times, you have to make a decision on which troop will get the better weapons and which will not. You cannot have everything. Besides, for each fraction, the choice you have to make is the squad, not the individual jacks like WM. Each squad has limited choice of weapons it can field. Finally, there are no junk units for CEF or Black Talon, not even PRDF.

    IceRaptor wrote:
    Blitz is arguably less complex than Warmachine because the secondary player has so many options to remain 'active' (CPs, reaction fire, etc). And it's significantly less than Infinity, which has almost a punishing complexity. 40k... I've not played since 3e so I can't really comment.


    The secondary player in HGB definitely has many options to remain "active" such as ECM and ECCM in addition to what you have mentioned. If you do not consider them as complex, I don't know what else to say. HGB does not have magic like WM. I do not like to play WM because so much focus is spent on the caster. Yes, it takes skills to pop open their special talents in the appropriate situation and that is about it. Once your castor goes down, game over. HGB, on the other hand, resembles the modern battlefield and more realistic IMO.

    ferrous wrote:
    Blitz, there are huge swathes of stuff you just don't want to do, and upgrades that are pretty much mandatory if you want to not get murdered by someone who does take them.


    May I ask what upgrades are mandatory? I cannot consider upgrading the pilot's skills or having better weapons to be mandatory. Anyone would like to use the same options whether they are playing WM, 40K or other wargames. In HGB, you have the options to field an inferior forces on purpose. The standard is set at PL2 or 3, not PL1. With exception of two fractions, the rest are quite balance with each other.

    IceRaptor wrote:
    Pretty much. But that's part of my point - if tactics were that important, an army of LAC/MAC toting troops would be able roll over a smaller army of AGM equipped models. That doesn't tend to be the case though; the player that made the more 'optimal' choices during army construction - i.e. maximized their modifiers - has enough benefits that they tend to roll on through the game. This was especially true before the DEF modifier reset; try taking a DEF -1 army against a DEF +1 army to see what I mean.


    In the real world, a whole unit of T54 tanks are not going to take down a handful of M1A1 Abrahm. In 40K, several hordes of goblins are not going to defeat an unit of elite space marines. On the other hand, for your information, the same LAC/MAC troops are able to swamp the few AGM models with Indirect Fire (if armed that way), given the appropriate supporting elements. Besides, the goal of the game is to meet the objectives, not to kill all your opponent's models. Yes, your force may be taking a beating but you can still win the game. If you want to play a game for the purpose of smashing your opponent's army, HGB may not be suitable for you. According to the current Field Manual, there is no such thing as a DEF +1 or -1 army.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/15 02:51:22


    Post by: ferrous


    wildger wrote:

    It sounds very easy on paper. In reality, how many spotters can you have? Usually, the squad leader is the one to spot because he can coordinate attack as well. It can be blocked by ECM. Yes, you can swamp it with another trooper but then you won't have the coordinate attack modifier for not being the leader. Your target may still be in partial cover. You can use this strategy if you are numerical superior. Otherwise, you put your troops in open space and get slaughtered the next turn. A smart player will certain include a unit with high detect rating and this will force all you units in cover until you prepare a dash.

    Coordinated is nice, but entirely unnecessary for IF and FOs, as FOs are often not even in the same squad, just from dedicated spotters. And spotters are cheap, ATV infantry without guns are dirt cheap, you get four of them, and they can zip around the board faster than most gears, and can move right into autodetect range to bork with stealth, or move around cover to get an open FO. Dedicated scouts could do this as well, the cheapo ferrets could get just about anywhere for 35TV. Also recon drones are eviiiiil on those same models are hard to stop.

    wildger wrote:

    Sat uplink takes an action. Most units only have one action. A leader may have 2 or 3 actions. Often, he has so much to do that there is no action left for him to use the sat uplink. In the standard 4 turn game, if you can afford a turn to have a unit hiding behind the cover to use sat uplink, you likely have already controlled the board. In my gaming experience, I have rarely seen anyone taking this option - most players rather use the TV on something else. Sounds good on paper but rarely useful.

    If one wants to make a list to take advantage of Sat Uplinks, one had to get Sat Uplinks either on cheapo units, or units with Autopilot. The North could do this pretty easy, as they had cheap Sat Uplinks, and it became a game of trading actions. Trading a 40TV action on an un-upgraded model so that an elite Jag with AGMs can fire again on a target that already has been TD'd? No Brainer. I agree that there are models out there that can get Sat Uplinks, and they just aren't worth it. But this is a simple list optimization, and it was definitely worth it, and annoying as hell to fight against. Basically a well built list can use several CP a turn, every turn, and sacrifice very little.

    wildger wrote:

    From what I understand, the modifiers do not come into army selection as all. The main option is the choice of weapons with different range modifiers. Which one is more useful depends on the terrain set up and scenario chosen. The more powerful ones comes with a higher TV costs. A lot of times, you have to make a decision on which troop will get the better weapons and which will not. You cannot have everything. Besides, for each fraction, the choice you have to make is the squad, not the individual jacks like WM. Each squad has limited choice of weapons it can field. Finally, there are no junk units for CEF or Black Talon, not even PRDF.

    HAHAHAHAH. No junk units? CEF is full of junk units. Every single Frame is a junk unit*, and FLAILs were junk until recently. Most of their allies are junk as well, like Golems, and Utopia is sadly overpriced, and melee changes have made them very weak. PRDF is full of junk units as well. (Not that I've even looked at the last revision) BT, there are units that are clearly better than others. Many of the two action units are just better, with access to much better guns.

    wildger wrote:

    May I ask what upgrades are mandatory? I cannot consider upgrading the pilot's skills or having better weapons to be mandatory. Anyone would like to use the same options whether they are playing WM, 40K or other wargames. In HGB, you have the options to field an inferior forces on purpose. The standard is set at PL2 or 3, not PL1. With exception of two fractions, the rest are quite balance with each other.

    Glass back surgery on mambas is mandatory pretty much, taking one of the big models and not getting the conqueror upgrade, taking the Cobra and not getting the Brahmin upgrade is also a waste, etc. Back in the GUs, when they changed manuever, all the hover vehicles had absolute gak maneuver after that revision, but could spend 10TV as an option to have it go back up, which was pretty much mandatory. Like I said just about any of the stupid upgrades as patches on the rules, mandatory, and they should've made them that way in the first place.

    Also, gun upgrades pretty much were mandatory. There is a massive difference between a force that takes Jaguars, and a force that takes Jaguars with weapon upgrades. An all vanilla force will get slaughtered against an optimized list. And the person who decides to take a ton of troopers gears will get slaughtered as well, unless they took them for cheap FO and splurged and got good IF, either by again getting good weapons or swapping to models with good default loadouts. (Like Sidewinders before FiF)

    PL2 is a rarity, almost no one took it. Why? 2 Core. Most of the core units are bunk. GP squads are terrible for the most part. Certain factions that got other things as Core were okay, but most people just went PL3 so they could skip taking Core, AND get more CP, it was a no brainer.

    wildger wrote:

    In the real world, a whole unit of T54 tanks are not going to take down a handful of M1A1 Abrahm. In 40K, several hordes of goblins are not going to defeat an unit of elite space marines. On the other hand, for your information, the same LAC/MAC troops are able to swamp the few AGM models with Indirect Fire (if armed that way), given the appropriate supporting elements. Besides, the goal of the game is to meet the objectives, not to kill all your opponent's models. Yes, your force may be taking a beating but you can still win the game. If you want to play a game for the purpose of smashing your opponent's army, HGB may not be suitable for you. According to the current Field Manual, there is no such thing as a DEF +1 or -1 army.

    Actually thats another flaw of the game, if someone wanted to, they could go all recon and take only recon related objectives and just try to dance around for four turns but easily outdo any ECM attempts to stop them by a standard force. Its quite effective, but not much fun to play.



    *The F6-16 ain't bad, but you can't just get it, so you're saddled with gak. Better off just going tanks and GREL.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/15 05:53:59


    Post by: wildger


    ferrous wrote:

    Coordinated is nice, but entirely unnecessary for IF and FOs, as FOs are often not even in the same squad, just from dedicated spotters. And spotters are cheap, ATV infantry without guns are dirt cheap, you get four of them, and they can zip around the board faster than most gears, and can move right into autodetect range to bork with stealth, or move around cover to get an open FO. Dedicated scouts could do this as well, the cheapo ferrets could get just about anywhere for 35TV. Also recon drones are eviiiiil on those same models are hard to stop.


    This is one reason why IF dominates the game. If your enemy waste a shot on the infantry, he cannot turn on your gear. I consider than as cheap meat shields or objective grabbers more than spotter. Ferret is so nice that it is often number one on the to-hit list. Unfortunately, not every faction can have it.

    ferrous wrote:

    If one wants to make a list to take advantage of Sat Uplinks, one had to get Sat Uplinks either on cheapo units, or units with Autopilot. The North could do this pretty easy, as they had cheap Sat Uplinks, and it became a game of trading actions. Trading a 40TV action on an un-upgraded model so that an elite Jag with AGMs can fire again on a target that already has been TD'd? No Brainer. I agree that there are models out there that can get Sat Uplinks, and they just aren't worth it. But this is a simple list optimization, and it was definitely worth it, and annoying as hell to fight against. Basically a well built list can use several CP a turn, every turn, and sacrifice very little.


    You got me on this one. I don’t bother to look at L&L because the North will get a major change in a month. I don’t think you can get a Sat Uplink unless you upgrade to a thunder Jaguar which does not have the option for an AGM or autopilot. Besides, spending 40TV for the combination is quite different from simply a Sat Uplink.

    ferrous wrote:

    HAHAHAHAH. No junk units? CEF is full of junk units. Every single Frame is a junk unit*, and FLAILs were junk until recently. Most of their allies are junk as well, like Golems, and Utopia is sadly overpriced, and melee changes have made them very weak. PRDF is full of junk units as well. (Not that I've even looked at the last revision) BT, there are units that are clearly better than others. Many of the two action units are just better, with access to much better guns.


    I played many miniature games before. There are actually rarely any junk units but they can be over or under-priced. Utopia cost will be changed in the future. Yes, within a faction, there are units that are more useful. Can you think of any other game that is different?

    ferrous wrote:

    Glass back surgery on mambas is mandatory pretty much, taking one of the big models and not getting the conqueror upgrade, taking the Cobra and not getting the Brahmin upgrade is also a waste, etc. Back in the GUs, when they changed manuever, all the hover vehicles had absolute gak maneuver after that revision, but could spend 10TV as an option to have it go back up, which was pretty much mandatory. Like I said just about any of the stupid upgrades as patches on the rules, mandatory, and they should've made them that way in the first place

    Also, gun upgrades pretty much were mandatory. There is a massive difference between a force that takes Jaguars, and a force that takes Jaguars with weapon upgrades. An all vanilla force will get slaughtered against an optimized list. And the person who decides to take a ton of troopers gears will get slaughtered as well, unless they took them for cheap FO and splurged and got good IF, either by again getting good weapons or swapping to models with good default loadouts. (Like Sidewinders before FiF)


    So, what you are actually saying is that those players who spent the effort to build up a proper army are going to win. I cannot agree more. I feel that those who fill up their armies with simply vanilla troop without a second thought really deserve to lose big time.
    When I build a PRDF, I tried to add in field armor (+10TV) for every gear. It is like putting on extra armor on tanks in the real world. I do not consider as mandatory or stupid even though it is regarded as a standard for all PRDF players. Glass back surgery is only 5TV per gear. It is a very cheap option to eliminate the rear back facing and you complain about it? Why would you not want such an upgrade? Why wouldn’t you give your biggies the best?
    This is like playing WHFB without spending any points in magic or items. If you deliberately want to create an inferior army to be defeated, that is your choice. Don’t say that the game is bad. All gears are listed with the minimal equipment, how you want to upgrade them is entirely up to you. Army building is part of the fun.

    ferrous wrote:

    PL2 is a rarity, almost no one took it. Why? 2 Core. Most of the core units are bunk. GP squads are terrible for the most part. Certain factions that got other things as Core were okay, but most people just went PL3 so they could skip taking Core, AND get more CP, it was a no brainer.


    You mean using more than one infantry unit with ATV is useless. People who play CEF and NuCoal may not agree with you and there are quite a few who play these factions. I haven't looked into FiF yet and therefore I cannot make a comment for the South.

    ferrous wrote:

    Actually thats another flaw of the game, if someone wanted to, they could go all recon and take only recon related objectives and just try to dance around for four turns but easily outdo any ECM attempts to stop them by a standard force. Its quite effective, but not much fun to play.


    You really have to educate me on this one. The only real recon objective is RECON. I don’t see how a recon unit has an advantage on ESCAPE, BLOCKADE, PROTECT, SURVIVE, HOLD, ASSASSINATION, BREAKTHROUGH, SEIZE, and WIPE THEM OUT. Even with SCOUT, you must be within your detect distance for two turn to do a FO to work. I don’t think you can dance around long for that.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/15 15:05:37


    Post by: IceRaptor


    wildger wrote:

    Unlike other games, especially comparing to WM, many do not prefer direct fire as the first choice of attack .Unlike 40K, getting into optimal range may be difficult depending on the terrain set up, because you will be hit by reactive fire. The worst is being detected as in an open field.


    Being in the open is generally penalized in any game system; Blitz isn't special in that regard. It's a bad ideal in Infinity, and it's not a great ideal in 40k or Mercs. In WM & Malifaux it tends to be mitigated by the shorter range of weapons, and the need to orchestrate charge lanes. And yes, reaction fire can make you think twice about simply walking forward and gunning down your opponent; you generally want to stick to cover to do so. Again - that's not uncommon in games that are based around shooting. Depending on the version of 40k, my understanding was that it was still generally advisable to have cover rather than to not have cover; so even that 'simple' game has the same mechanisms.

    The point that's different on Blitz is that the alternating activation allows you to potentially bleed your opponent's actions (via reaction fire) versus forcing them to wait for their turn to come around. That is a tactical element, sure - it's essentially pitting your skill in resource (actions) management against your opponent. But they have to 'take the bait' as it were, and it tends to fall down (IMO) against equally skilled opponents. I liken it to army building - if you put a veteran against a newbie, the vet will have a more optimized army and know how to use their activations better. But that's not what we're discussing - which is wether or not the game is more 'tactical'. IMO, having a tactical depth means that in a game with two equally skilled (or experienced) players, there are options that one player can exercise to magnify their strength against the second player. There's a thin veneer of that in Blitz, but we found that once you had 5-8 games under your belt you played all the same way. Use chaff for FO, use elites for direct fire and spam CPs on IF attacks.

    But I'm willing to concede that can be a local meta. I don't know how everybody plays, just how I saw it evolve in the Dayton area.

    wildger wrote:

    It sounds very easy on paper. In reality, how many spotters can you have? Usually, the squad leader is the one to spot because he can coordinate attack as well. It can be blocked by ECM. Yes, you can swamp it with another trooper but then you won't have the coordinate attack modifier for not being the leader. Your target may still be in partial cover. You can use this strategy if you are numerical superior. Otherwise, you put your troops in open space and get slaughtered the next turn. A smart player will certain include a unit with high detect rating and this will force all you units in cover until you prepare a dash.


    Every model you bring can be an effective spotter. You don't have to win an ECM contest, you simply have to have more spotters than your opponent has ECM + CP. Even if your opponent spends every action on ECM - plus a stack of CPs - you're bleeding him of any effective retaliation because it's very rare to have a cheap ECM model. Bringing elite spotters is a waste of time - they simply aren't action efficient. Can you do it? Sure, and in that case what you're talking about becomes more visible and a central resource management concern. But what we saw was that people pretty quickly figured out that Infantry on ATVs or cheap Gears were 'better' than a high-end recon model because your opponent just can't marshall a response to them.

    As far as the coordinate attack modifier - that applies to every model in the squad, regardless of whether or not the CGL did the FO or not. IIRC you can coordinate with your CGL, set models in that CG on standby and then follow up with a FO from a completely separate squad in the future and have it apply, but that's going from an admittedly hazy memory at this point. I don't remember if standby or coordinated had language in it that excluded the modifier off-sequence, like crossfire is excluded for reaction fire.

    In my experience, high detect ratings weren't worth that much. Great, you spotted me through 5 points of concealment? You're still -2 to ATK. Good luck with that; you better be stationary and firing a weapon with a high AE rating, and you're hoping that it doesn't scatter too much. You're probably better off spending that FO moving forward to get a partial cover FO or similar. And you can effectively dash around the backside of cover (if you're using smaller, 40kish clumps of area terrain) without exposing yourself in this fashion.

    This in particular is a point that hinges very much on how you deploy terrain. Someone who plays with lots of small clumps of solid desert terrain will have a vastly different experience than someone who puts 12" round stands of trees down (which forces you to wade through said trees). Blitz is perhaps more finicky with respect to terrain that any other game I've played, including Infinity (which is saying quite a bit).

    wildger wrote:

    Sat uplink takes an action. Most units only have one action. A leader may have 2 or 3 actions. Often, he has so much to do that there is no action left for him to use the sat uplink. In the standard 4 turn game, if you can afford a turn to have a unit hiding behind the cover to use sat uplink, you likely have already controlled the board. In my gaming experience, I have rarely seen anyone taking this option - most players rather use the TV on something else. Sounds good on paper but rarely useful.


    Wow. That's completely opposite my experience. Cheap Sat. Uplinks (wild ferrets, I'm looking at you) are an incredible force multiplier. Expensive ones (Chatterbox Iggies, HC3A) are wastes of time. I've even seen RZ Black Mambas with HGLs used in this fashion - autopilot behind solid cover, fire the HGL with action 1, generate a CP with action 2. It's all about action efficiency; if I can transfer the action from that 35 TV wild ferret to a 90 TV Grizzly so it can do it's death blossom of MRP attacks again, that's worth orchestrating my plan around. Throw NuCoal into the comparison - especially with the 3x Linked MRP Hussar - and it's simply obscene. Sat. Uplinks are very much something that you simply have to bring if your opponent brings one - if you're stuck with 6 CPs and they are looking at 6 CP + 2 Sat. Uplinks a turn, your ability to project force on the table is incredibly diminished compared to them. Local players who can't get cheap Sat. Uplinks were considered seriously under the ball when it came to competitiveness (unless they were playing Talons, but that's a whole other discussion).


    wildger wrote:

    From what I understand, the modifiers do not come into army selection as all. The main option is the choice of weapons with different range modifiers. Which one is more useful depends on the terrain set up and scenario chosen. The more powerful ones comes with a higher TV costs. A lot of times, you have to make a decision on which troop will get the better weapons and which will not. You cannot have everything. Besides, for each fraction, the choice you have to make is the squad, not the individual jacks like WM. Each squad has limited choice of weapons it can field. Finally, there are no junk units for CEF or Black Talon, not even PRDF.


    I simply have to disagree here. When choosing models, you should be looking at ACC and DAM of the weapon upgrades, because those are going to determine how your army fights. I used to love taking Jaguars with HPZFs because you were basically giving them a short-ranged HBZK, and for a mere +5 TV! Just looking at the range and DAM modifiers
    don't give you the full picture, because a high DAM weapon with long ranges but low ACC tends to be less useful than a high ACC weapon with range and damage. There's a reason that an ATM is so expensive, and it's because - all things considered - it's hitting like a x35 or x40 weapon with +0 ACC.

    You do have to make decisions, and it can be very hard (we tended to make it harder by limiting the TV size to 800 or so before the recosts) - I'm not discounting that. But generally speaking, there are very obvious good choices (cheap FOs, cheap Sat. Uplinks, cheap +1 ACC weapons) and very poor ones (-2 DEF models for direct fire, high TV cost models generally).

    As far as junk units - that's just not my experience at all. CEF is very difficult to make a cost-effective force out of, because of the stupidly complicated building plan that was put into place. Frames are horribly overpriced for what they do, and while the HTs (and the LHTs) are pretty awesome, the rest of the army tends to fall flat. The HPC-64 is fairly suboptimal, as are GRELs due to their high cost. You can make them work, it requires your opponent to be bringing a less competitive list. Black Talons were fairly nasty, but that's due to their massive CP pool and I suspect with recent rules changes we'd find them quite a bit more fragile. A local player was very effective with a BT 'chum' list so I'm inclined to agree that BT don't have many obvious weaknesses, except possibly recon. Paxton - before their new book - was a joke, and very difficult to play with. Lots of -1 DEF units, units with 6" range weapons, that sort of thing. Very difficult to win with, in general. You got major props for winning with Paxton around our shop.


    wildger wrote:

    The secondary player in HGB definitely has many options to remain "active" such as ECM and ECCM in addition to what you have mentioned. If you do not consider them as complex, I don't know what else to say.


    There's very little skill required on the secondary player's part when making those decisions - it's just a resource management tree. Do I make the reaction fire now, or wait until later in the turn? What's the chance that I'm going to get killed on this shot, or land an effective shot in return? Same for ECM - do I block this FO, or let it through? There's no difference - except in cover modifiers - so I have to block every ECM until I'm out of actions or my opponent is. Again, the skill is in resource (action) management. It's functionally equivalent to figuring out if your model is close enough to charge, or be charged, in WM. Do I put my screen in front, assuming that my opponent will wipe them out? Or do I try to leave charge lanes open?

    The reason I say that it's easier in Blitz is because in Blitz, you're making that decision on a model by model basis. In WM, you generally have to think of a subset of your army, because during your off-turn you're stuck. You have to plan more carefully in WM because you don't have anything that can mitigate your opponents reactions. In Blitz though your reaction fire might take down the guy firing back at you, weakening your opponent's tactical plan for that turn. So which is really more 'tactical'? The one where you have to make - and live by - a plan, or the one where bad planning on your part can be mitigated by game mechanics (reaction fire, CP fire)?

    wildger wrote:
    HGB, on the other hand, resembles the modern battlefield and more realistic IMO.


    Sure, it's got guns and those guns (generally) hurt. So you tend to slink around cover, shoot guys before they get close, and call in fire missions that your opponent can't do anything about and that slaughter them. It's more realistic than WM, sure. But that's not a high bar for a game about Steam-powered robots powered by magic : I kid, I kid! But seriously, being realistic and being a fun game are two different things. If you prize realism (at least, verisimilitude) over gameplay then we simply aren't looking for the same thing in a game, and that's cool. I just prefer to have everything I could want to bring at least have some useful niche - rather than bullet catcher - and am willing to reduce the 'modern combat' angle a bit to get it.

    IceRaptor wrote:
    Pretty much. But that's part of my point - if tactics were that important, an army of LAC/MAC toting troops would be able roll over a smaller army of AGM equipped models. That doesn't tend to be the case though; the player that made the more 'optimal' choices during army construction - i.e. maximized their modifiers - has enough benefits that they tend to roll on through the game. This was especially true before the DEF modifier reset; try taking a DEF -1 army against a DEF +1 army to see what I mean.


    wildger wrote:

    In the real world, a whole unit of T54 tanks are not going to take down a handful of M1A1 Abrahm. In 40K, several hordes of goblins are not going to defeat an unit of elite space marines.


    At some point, quantity does trump quality. There's a spectrum, of course - but that was demonstrated in WW2 very effectively and continues to be true today. Hordes of goblins *will* eventually overwhelm the space marines - that's the entire premise of the ork army, isn't it? And especially in a game where you want the player that enjoys the ideal of horde to have an equal chance of success as the player that enjoys the ideal of the elite space marines - shouldn't there be an equal chance of success? Or are you okay with the ideal that army X simply always wins over army Y no matter how different the points costs are? If they are equal, I would think you'd want X and Y to have roughly equivalent chances - maybe X wins more often in situation A, and Y in situation B, but over the larger course of time they end up being similar. That's why we give them points in the first place.

    wildger wrote:

    On the other hand, for your information, the same LAC/MAC troops are able to swamp the few AGM models with Indirect Fire (if armed that way), given the appropriate supporting elements.


    Now wait a minute, you're changing the situation. You aren't talking about LAC/MAC troops, you're talking about MRP/HGM troops. You know that LAC/MACs don't hold up against AGM/HGLC troops - or you wouldn't have tried to caveat the situation. 300 TV of LAC/MAC troops will die to 300 TV of AGM/HGLC because the balance of the system is screwy. 800 TV of IF + spotters will generally butcher 800 TV of AGM/HGLC troops, until said troops airdrop behind them. The context is important. My point was that if tactics were a first-class citizen, then 300 TV of LAC/MAC troops should have an equal chance of success against 300 TV of AGM/HGLC troops, given players of equal skill. That's not the case - and you're trying to equal skill in army composition with tactics. They are - IMO - not the same thing.

    wildger wrote:

    Besides, the goal of the game is to meet the objectives, not to kill all your opponent's models. Yes, your force may be taking a beating but you can still win the game. If you want to play a game for the purpose of smashing your opponent's army, HGB may not be suitable for you. According to the current Field Manual, there is no such thing as a DEF +1 or -1 army.


    Ugh, I hate every time this line is trotted out. Yes, the game is about objectives. So why even bother with TV or PL limits? Just throw models on the table and whoever gets the most OP wins, right? We play with TV specifically because we expect the outcome to be reasonably balanced. Objectives throw that out the window. If you want HGB on easy mode, play lots of fast, cheap scouts and take as many Recon & Scout objectives as you can. You'll win more games than you lose! Saying that the game is about objectives lets the designers be lazy, because you can't reliably quantify success or failure of armies in relation to each other, which is where the ideal of balance (that is, equivalent chances for success with the outcome determined by skill) comes from.

    The proof of this was in a tournament we ran. Objective based, mostly assault / defend / recon with a small amount of WiT / Assassinate through in. 6 veteran players, 1 newbie. The new ran a BT list and tabled this opponents every turn - guess who got their objectives every table and guess who didn't? The vet BT player was #1 and the newbie was #2. Killing your opponent's models can very effectively prevent them from achieving their objectives, leaving you the winner after taking a single objective.

    There's a different mentality between objective play and 'wipe them out' play, sure. But saying Blitz is only suited for 'objective player' essentially concedes that the game has some nasty warts. And playing a few 'objective' games will bring those warts out anyways - leaving you back at square one. Games should (IMO) be written to the competitive standard, with objectives on top of them, rather than thinking that asymmetric objective play somehow fixes all the flaws in the game.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/15 17:08:39


    Post by: wildger


    IceRaptor, it is very apparent that you don't like the entire game system for HBG. Have fun with other games then.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/15 18:04:19


    Post by: IceRaptor


    wildger wrote:
    IceRaptor, it is very apparent that you don't like the entire game system for HBG. Have fun with other games then.


    That's what you took from those posts? That I dislike the entire game?

    Wow.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/15 18:06:05


    Post by: Balance


    Just speaking for myself, I appreciate IceRaptor's comments, even if I take them a bit personally.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/15 18:14:33


    Post by: HudsonD


    Yeah, I'm sure Iceraptor hates the game so damn much, he took the time to write detailed explanations of its inner workings, what work, and what doesn't.

    Likewise, I'm pretty sure, he made up all of that on a whim, and totally didn't build that knowledge over years of playing that system. Yup. Same reason he wrote articles on the game's base mechanisms, because he hates the game.

    I won't even quote the books where he's listed in the credits and all...


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/15 18:42:35


    Post by: wildger


     IceRaptor wrote:
    wildger wrote:
    IceRaptor, it is very apparent that you don't like the entire game system for HBG. Have fun with other games then.


    That's what you took from those posts? That I dislike the entire game?

    Wow.


    To me, you sure sound that way even though this is not your intention. I guess the more appropriate words for me to use is dissatisfaction or you wish certain rules can be changed to a better way.

     HudsonD wrote:
    Yeah, I'm sure Iceraptor hates the game so damn much, he took the time to write detailed explanations of its inner workings, what work, and what doesn't.


    For your information, in my use of language, "do not like" does not equal "hate". "Bigger" does not necessary equal to "huge". I thought that this is very apparent in English language.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/15 18:47:34


    Post by: ferrous


    wildger, I think you misunderstood. When I mention that the +5TV glass back surgery is a dumb upgrade, I mention it because its not really a choice. If it's stupid not to get, why make it a choice at all? Same with all those upgrades I listed. (Brahmin, those maneuver upgrades from GU3 etc) Why make the game confusing for new players with stupid gotcha's like, "haha you didn't spend the 5TV to make your model good". Those kind of false choices are a detriment to the game.

    (Though for glassback in particular, I would've much prefered they changed the rules and instead of a 5TV removal, they changed the damned rule and just made it less stupidly harsh, so that the model retains some of it's flavor instead.)

    And Ice, hell, I think he's actually working on the new edition, which I'm glad about, as he recognizes the problems inherent to the earlier versions. And doesn't just gloss over problems.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    I'm also totally fine with having army elements that are nothing more than bullet catchers, but they should be priced accordingly in TV so that they aren't overpriced death traps.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/15 19:08:15


    Post by: Killionaire


    This thread shows a serious problem with the HG community: White-knighting. Lots of 'there is no problem!' sort of chatter, which tends to downplay basic mathematics, modern game design principles, and at times, intellectual flexibility.

    ---

    Iceraptor is absolutely correct on pretty much all counts. Game balance is a serious issue, most particularly in IF (which requires so few resources to accomplish devastating results) and army building / points balance.

    - The classic example of weapon swaps is pretty damn clear. +10 TV to equip the Jaguar with an AGM instead of it's LRP? WILL TAKE EVERY TIME. It massively increases the unit's lethality for a pittance.

    - On several occasions, a cost DOWNGRADE can improve a unit's lethality (Junglemower, ATM swap for Grizzlies) for example.
    Before someone goes 'you don't have to swap weapons!', well... only technically correct. But also the wrong play. Imagine in 40k, if a Land Raider cost 200 points but was only armed with 1 bolter. For +10 points, you can sub out those bolters for 2 Lascannons. Who WOULDN'T take that?

    - Likewise, the pretty-much-mandatory upgrades for -1 DEF to 0 DEF for Cobras and Grizzlies costs only 5TV, on platforms that generally cost 80 TV, but have the in-game effect of nearly DOUBLING their armor. Why on earth is that even an option and not just baked into the unit's stats? This violates a pretty basic principle of game design to limit the player's choices to meaningful ones.

    - Another classic example is that yes, there are junk units.
    CEF is honestly full of them. Frames are TERRIBLE for their price. They overpay hideously for their skill upgrades (ANN is highly overpriced), their survivability is poor, their weapons are poor and they're all required to take a paid-for mission pack that equips them with useless doo-dads. Look at the base CEF Battleframe, vs say, a base NuCoal Chasseur Mk2. The Mk2 is faster, better armed, better armored, more HP, better upgrade options, cheaper skill upgrades, and more flexibility in their squad, as well as not having downsides such as sensor dependence. All while being around 35 percent cheaper!

    That's a clear example of 'this unit is junk', because your points aren't as good as an opponent's points at doing all of the same things required to play and win the game. Sure, the CEF tanks are fine (only some loadouts are clearly 'more fine' than others, since the Particle Cannons are garbage). so all that means is that you gimp yourself by taking CEF frames.




    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/15 20:22:11


    Post by: warboss


    wildger wrote:
    IceRaptor, it is very apparent that you don't like the entire game system for HBG. Have fun with other games then.


    IceRaptor has done more to improve the current state of the game publicly via online guides, convention volunteering, and general cheerleading and private behind the scenes work to hopefully secure the future of the IP than any 10 well meaning but unfortunately ignorant white knights combined. He didn't do that over the years because he didn't like the entire game system.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/15 20:27:39


    Post by: Snack


    Oh, dear...what have I stumbled across on the internets. I promised I wouldn't check into the DP9 forums. Swore off the rulebooks and sold all my figures.

    But it appears the DP9 forums came looking and found me lurking.

    Now my interest is piqued with the mention of new rules...but I won't hold my breath.

    "Just when I thought I was out...they pull me back in."

    Snack


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/15 20:34:29


    Post by: ferrous


    Killionaire, that reminds of how much I really hated the addition of NuCoal. Seemed like RetCon Fluff, combined with massive power creep, along with taking a lot of things that were unique to certain factions (Hovertanks, hover walkers, GRELs without flaws)

    Also a bit jarring to have the smallest faction with the least amount of resources somehow popping out units that were better in every way to every other faction.

    In a vacuum, it did do some things right, like designing models around the system, instead of taking an existing design and trying to have it work with the system. And trying to get more viable +1 firecontrol models, though I really think the Cuirasser should NOT exist. Nucoal would be more interesting if they didn't have the exact same Elite model as the South.

    But the stupid variant naming, the weird Armored/Infantry/Gear regiment unnecessary complication for army building, KADA BS, triple linked MRPs, having a weapon that has the same designation but different stats, having the TV costs for all their stuff being wildly incompatible with existing factions, etc. So much bad with only a small amount of good.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/16 19:47:48


    Post by: HudsonD


    I'll add the terrible backstory to the above, but besides that, TPS was the worst thing that could happen to DP9.

    The book was actually pretty bad, yet the minis were good, and a whole new line, so they sold well. It's not a bad thing in itself, but it convinced DP9 that TPS was the best thing ever, and that it was the way to go. This is how we ended up with FIF, that pretty much murdered the southern players, and DP9's main source of income.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/16 20:13:22


    Post by: ferrous


     HudsonD wrote:
    I'll add the terrible backstory to the above, but besides that, TPS was the worst thing that could happen to DP9.

    The book was actually pretty bad, yet the minis were good, and a whole new line, so they sold well. It's not a bad thing in itself, but it convinced DP9 that TPS was the best thing ever, and that it was the way to go. This is how we ended up with FIF, that pretty much murdered the southern players, and DP9's main source of income.


    Yeah, the models were generally good. Much better than the lackluster Utopia and Eden models. Though I really didn't like the "Tank with arms", tank strider model, it just looks silly. Okay, yes we're dealing with mechs so some level of disbelief has to be involved, but that one was just a bridge too far for me.



    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/16 20:17:43


    Post by: BrandonKF


    Again, disagreeing with HudsonD. The idea of the Humanist Alliance teaming up with the other disparate factions to gain easier access to creating its own units makes sense fluff-wise, and it also helped introduce the Chasseur as more than a one-trick pony out of the Badlands.

    I know a lot of the older heads don't like it for its breaking up the whole power structure between the North and the South and all, but it made sense to me. The only really ridiculous, over-the-top retconning in my eyes was the inclusion of the Hussar Gearstrider.

    As far as Objectives, Threat Values and whatnot, no I can't correlate as well as some of the others here. What I can say is that if you're going to play with TVs and expect a 'fair fight' because of equal TVs, it's as likely folks are going to go for the best stuff they can get for the buck. Whereas if you were to play with more restrictive lists and choices (which is what TPS started), there's more of an attempt to change the power structure.

    Yes, TPS also had those units tailor-made for Blitz, and why not? Sleek new models introduced a whole new set of awesomeness.

    Of course, I'm more jaded to like NuCoal, since I'm not as big on the whole North-South thing that a lot of earlier players seemed to be raging about. (Note: Rage in this case is major enjoyment.)

    And most Southern players even remarked on the boards that they KNEW they were going to get murdered because their 4-Gear cadres were going the way of the dodo. Now, if you're saying that the Southern players are the main source of income for Heavy Gear, that makes me curious.

    Edit: I see ferrous and I agree on the Hussar. Still, it was an awesome design, all respect given.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/16 20:33:49


    Post by: HudsonD


    I don't like it because it breaks the established fluff in horrible ways, by introducing a mary-sue faction with a perfect leader that can do nothing wrong and are perfect good guys, in a setting that was renowned for "shade-of-grey" approach.

    The southern mini line, last time I heard, was DP9's main money-maker, a bit like Space Marines for GW. I suspect FIF may have slightly devastated it, however.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/16 20:42:05


    Post by: ferrous


     HudsonD wrote:
    I don't like it because it breaks the established fluff in horrible ways, by introducing a mary-sue faction with a perfect leader that can do nothing wrong and are perfect good guys, in a setting that was renowned for "shade-of-grey" approach.

    The southern mini line, last time I heard, was DP9's main money-maker, a bit like Space Marines for GW. I suspect FIF may have slightly devastated it, however.

    I didn't know that. I wouldn't have guessed, considering that the North was the protagonist of the video game series. But as a southern player, I can understand it =)



    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/16 20:58:14


    Post by: doc1234


    I thought that too, with all the south gears being snakes, the video games/ even the old tv show the south being dang evil i'd thought they were always marketed as the bad guys?


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/16 21:02:02


    Post by: ferrous


    BrandonKF wrote:
    Again, disagreeing with HudsonD. The idea of the Humanist Alliance teaming up with the other disparate factions to gain easier access to creating its own units makes sense fluff-wise, and it also helped introduce the Chasseur as more than a one-trick pony out of the Badlands.

    I know a lot of the older heads don't like it for its breaking up the whole power structure between the North and the South and all, but it made sense to me. The only really ridiculous, over-the-top retconning in my eyes was the inclusion of the Hussar Gearstrider.

    As far as Objectives, Threat Values and whatnot, no I can't correlate as well as some of the others here. What I can say is that if you're going to play with TVs and expect a 'fair fight' because of equal TVs, it's as likely folks are going to go for the best stuff they can get for the buck. Whereas if you were to play with more restrictive lists and choices (which is what TPS started), there's more of an attempt to change the power structure.

    Yes, TPS also had those units tailor-made for Blitz, and why not? Sleek new models introduced a whole new set of awesomeness.

    The problem with making the models entirely tailored to the current system is two-fold. One is that it makes them better than all the other models that currently existed. Massive Power creep. And second, is that once the system gets revamped, which seems to happen a little too often for my liking, they could go from powerful to useless. (Sort of like Utopia with stun and melee rule changes) For example, they can get ECCM on their CGLs, but I don't think they can get it on non-CGLs. A single rule change, like say ECCM costs an action to use, would hurt them pretty bad.

    Like I said, some of the TPS changes to army building were good, like having squads with default upgrades, and generally shrinking down the number of TV upgrades/swaps, and rounding TV costs at the squad level instead of at a per model level. Those were all decent ideas for the most part.

    I think some changes were unnecessarily complicated, and detrimental to the game. Rather than fix the fact that the MBZK is stupidly better than taking a MAC, they limit it to two per squad*, which is really a band aid, and is also one of the other reasons the South was 'better' with four man squads, as they weren't stuck with as many vanilla models in a single squad. If they had just fixed the weapons, either by making the MBZK cost more, or do less well, or the MAC do more. Basically, weapons need to fulfill roles, by swapping to a different weapon, it should feel like I'm changing the role of the model, and losing the previous role should make a player pause a little, and ask themselves if it's worth losing that role. As the system stands now, a higher damage weapon is almost always better, and usually the difference in range isn't pronounced enough to make a difference. So if the question is do I upgrade this model to the MBZK/AGM/HGLC if I can, the answer is almost always yes in the current system.



    * And at one point they tried to fix the imbalance with North and South and weapons by letting the North get an entire squad of MBZKs if they wanted... which again is a band-aid, and not surprising that they tried to undo it on later army builds.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
     doc1234 wrote:
    I thought that too, with all the south gears being snakes, the video games/ even the old tv show the south being dang evil i'd thought they were always marketed as the bad guys?


    Yup, in the first Heavy Gear video game, they had a territorial war online game mode, and the number of Northern Players was like 2:1. Thinking about it further, maybe it's because they are the most Votoms like?


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/16 22:23:34


    Post by: BrandonKF


    HudsonD, I read the TPS fluff myself... there were plenty of shades of grey in the city-states' fluff. The 'leader' wasn't exactly a leader, per se, just somebody who got them together.

    The first video game was spoken of from a Northern perspective, giving the Southern Republic the look of a corrupt Republic (which is what they want, and what they are). But the Northies aren't innocent by a long shot. Of course, if they'd included that back fluff of that Ceritto character shooting a Jerusalemite girl execution-style, and provided it in the video game, I have no doubt tons of folks would have gone Southie.

    As far as weapon sizes, I believe it's safe to say that the whole weapon size difference has to go. It worked for the RPG, but it doesn't work for a wargame, at all.

    -Brandon F.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/17 22:24:44


    Post by: Balance


     doc1234 wrote:
    I thought that too, with all the south gears being snakes, the video games/ even the old tv show the south being dang evil i'd thought they were always marketed as the bad guys?


    To be pedantic, the TV show had the Southerners, with a Badlander kid, as the 'Good Guys.' It was still horrible, though.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/17 22:26:58


    Post by: warboss


    On a slightly more positive note, anyone excited about the mod possibilities on PC for Titanfall? The mechs in that game are a bit bigger than gears but they have 3 "classes" (scout, trooper, heavy) and mod support may be possible (although not at launch). I don't know when or if HGA is coming out but Titanfall is due in about 3 months.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/18 01:43:24


    Post by: BrandonKF


    Another positive note is that they just announced they'll have the developer's blog up next week, as well as have the rest finished by the end of January.

    As for HGA, it's being worked on.

    I wouldn't know about Titanfall. It looks great, but since I don't have anything that can run it, I'll have to read everyone else's experience with it.

    -Brandon F.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/18 03:34:21


    Post by: solkan


    You left out the important words:
    http://dp9forum.com/index.php?showtopic=15785&page=7#entry279436
    Thanks everyone for your patience and excitement. We're putting the final touches on the alpha test rules and army list documents. In addition there will be some play tools such as a quick reference sheet and some printable templates.

    Preparation to begin the developers blog to discuss the changes and be a hub for announcements will be live next week on the web site. I'll announce it here once it is ready and published.

    All this is still on track to go live with the public alpha playtest by the 31st of this month.

    -Dave McLeod


    So, one way or the other, find out soon.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/18 03:36:53


    Post by: Kelly502


    I picked it up in the beginning, it was creeping along... Then something happened and I couldn't find the models anywhere. Sold it all at a game store auction.

    Played quite a bit while I had it, we had an RPG going along with our games. It was fun for a time.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/20 15:11:49


    Post by: IceRaptor


     warboss wrote:
    On a slightly more positive note, anyone excited about the mod possibilities on PC for Titanfall? The mechs in that game are a bit bigger than gears but they have 3 "classes" (scout, trooper, heavy) and mod support may be possible (although not at launch). I don't know when or if HGA is coming out but Titanfall is due in about 3 months.


    I am very eagerly waiting for EA's take on Gears. If you've watched gameplay videos, they pretty much nailed it exactly; down to the skating part. Though they use big frigging rockets instead of tiny wheels. Hell, even the AI assistants are basically the NNets. If you watch the most recent gameplay videos infantry pose a serious threat to Titans, though they are very squishy. Sound familiar?

    Overally, a reboot of HG with a more modern concept - as expressed through Titanfall - could revitalize the game. But I think they aren't thinking that big and are instead focused on rehashing 80s real robot tropes.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/21 04:28:09


    Post by: warboss


    I'd be fine with simply adding mod support and trying to plug some gear models into there. The skeleton work is beyond my capabilities but I think someone out there with the skills might be enough of a HG fan to do it. I'd be more excited to play Titanfall with the HGA hunter model than I am to play an arena shooter.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/23 22:57:40


    Post by: BrandonKF


    First blog post for the development is out:

    http://www.dp9.com/content/new-heavy-gear-development-curator-blog-introduction


    -Brandon F.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/24 01:08:43


    Post by: warboss




    Thanks for the link. I do hope the following:

    I will be the curator and the arbiter of the rules but I can’t do that without sober second thought from play testers. It is the community that will be the driving force that decides the future of the game. In future development blogs I’m going to detail about how the players can get involved in play testing, core rules development, and army development. We can’t do this without you, so Gear up!


    doesn't end up actually being a situation where suggestions/comments/concerns are posted and then ignored completely for months. And by ignored I don't mean instantly adopted but rather completely ignored with silence from the powers that be for weeks/months.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/24 03:12:31


    Post by: BrandonKF


    Not thinking so.

    -Brandon F.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/25 15:52:36


    Post by: warboss


    I suspect there will be a big initial push, Brandon, with a big show of interacting with the community that will slowly sputter out halfway to Gencon and by then we'll be back to inactive feedback threads similar to the FAQ.

    On somewhat related news, is it just me or can you no longer add Heavy Gear bags to your cart on the battlefoam website? I still haven't gotten mine from their November sale and wanted to double check the shipping but noticed the "add to the cart" buttons are gone from all the HG bags (and them only). While it's possible that they're simply out of stock, the sale at 50% off felt like a clearance sale to close out the existing stock. I'm curious if they're just done with the HG bags.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/25 17:11:06


    Post by: HudsonD


    The UK side of the battlefoam website still has the bags available.

    As for the new rules, I'll admit I'm genuinely curious to see it, but I'll believe the changes in design processes only when I see them.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/25 17:31:06


    Post by: warboss


    That may be true but they're across an ocean (obviously) and were set up and operate separately in some fashion. To my knowledge (which may be wrong), they don't participate in the Black Friday "Christmas" sale like US Battlefoam . Just like with the Wayland and Miniature Market 50% off sales, we'll see if they end up restocking or if the big sale was just to get rid of dead stock.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/25 17:53:04


    Post by: HudsonD


    I don't think our respective posts are contradicting. If you still want such bags now, they're available in the UK, for now.

    As for whether they'll be made again, that's another topic. I don't think Wayland has restocked, and it's been months. That's seriously ominous.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/25 18:23:48


    Post by: solkan


    Considering that Battlefoam's even late in delivering the bags that it promised for it's Wild West Exodus kickstarter, it's entirely likely Battlefoam is running behind on producing (or getting produced) enough embroidered bags.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/25 19:28:32


    Post by: warboss


     solkan wrote:
    Considering that Battlefoam's even late in delivering the bags that it promised for it's Wild West Exodus kickstarter, it's entirely likely Battlefoam is running behind on producing (or getting produced) enough embroidered bags.


    It's possible it is just a coincidence and nothing more. It's also possible that the exclusive distributor for Heavy Gear in the EU just hasn't gotten around to restocking what they sold 6 months ago at no profit during the sale. It's also possible that FRP's putting most of HG on permanent clearance with half the line being either out of stock or 1 left (limited/low stock in their parlance) is just a coincidence. It's also possible that Miniature Market, another big US online seller, dumping the line at cost without restocking is also a coincidence along with Coolstuffinc not bothering to carry much beyond the starters (and even those are half out of stock with the ones in stock at 1)... leaving only a single independent online distributor fully supporting purchases (warstore) in the two biggest markets (EU and US). It could just be a coincidence as well that the only paper product for the flagship blitz line was downgraded to a barebones PDF last minute by DP9 instead of the full paper and minis supported gencon release it was supposed to be. It's possibly an unlucky coincidence that the world championship for HG at the biggest North American gaming convention with tens of thousands of individual gamers only got two or three people to attend while at the same time DP9 didn't have minis and books to sell at the booth beyond Rally. It might be unrelated that the two back to back crowdfunding endeavors for the HG video game were not able to raise combined a quarter of the goal they set. The above may just all be an unfortunate series of unrelated events beyond the obviously anecdotal reports of not being able to find minis or players reported as the number one reason in the poll above.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/25 19:44:50


    Post by: Shrapnelsmile


    "lots of promises from DP9 that things would improve, never any actual improvements.

    "Oh, and I probably spent more time proof-reading my post than they take to proof-read their books.

    To that, you can add that the current fluff reads like bad self-insert fan-fiction, that the current writers clearly don't care about the Heavy Gear universe (look at what happened to the poor Humanist alliance! Sacrificed to fluff up the designer self-insert new faction!), or even the genre of the universe/game (ugly Gundamish models do not belong in a somewhat realistic and gritty mecha combat"
    _____________ _______________
    This, along with poor game balance had me Bartertowning my first army box within a month.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/25 20:27:49


    Post by: warboss


    A friend pointed out that in my comparison of previous 50% off sales and subsequent general lack of restocks comparison of battlefoam with FRP, Wayland, and Miniature market that I made a mistake. The battlefoam sale was actually at 75% off initial retail price as the prices listed on their site currently and just prior to the sale were already half of what they were when the bag premiered in 2011. For instance, the standard loadout bag during the sale was $20 but is now (unavailable) on battlefoam's site at $40.. but it $90 on DP9's site as well as around that price on the few other retailers that offer it. I apologize but the Battlefoam HG clearance was at 75% off the price you'd pay elsewhere. Make of that what you will in relation to the lack of restocks post sale but I'm starting to think that this will be the sink or swim edition for Heavy Gear. While I long ago retired my rose colored glasses along with fanboy status, I still encourage people who have minis laying around their basements or back in their closets to check out whatever they publish in a few weeks. It'll supposedly be free so the only cost is a bit of your time and frankly, from looking at the bleak outlook I've presented above, it may be the last hurrah. If the rules are indeed a big improvement and DP9 does make a basic change with how they approach the IP and the community, it deserves some attention. Hell, it's not like I can do much else with my $1500 worth of minis!


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/27 23:59:05


    Post by: Coldhatred


    I've honestly been interested in it. Seems like a faster paced Battletech. I've never seen it played however and my FLGS doesn't stock it.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/28 01:46:19


    Post by: warboss


     Coldhatred wrote:
    I've honestly been interested in it. Seems like a faster paced Battletech. I've never seen it played however and my FLGS doesn't stock it.


    It is faster. I don't play battletech but from the demo games I've been given over the past two decades it plays about two to three times faster... the problem is that you field two to three times as many models in the defacto 600-800TV game size so there isn't a net benefit. The new rules are supposed to be much faster paced.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/28 10:36:30


    Post by: Albertorius


    Well, after much prodding, I'm compelled to post here (and over at DP9 apparently xD)

    I don't play anymore for a lot of reasons. There's the fact that I basically need to make new players to be able to play, or that the minis and the books are both GW-level expensive and almost impossible to get over here (I've lost count of the times a prospective player has ran away after seeing the prices). There's also the fact that the current rules have a lot of holes, and there's no rules support whatsoever. And the power creep between "armies the designer play/like" and "armies that don't", which can get ridiculous. Or the fact that the new southern book basically broke all my southern armies (and no, I didn't do 4-gear cadres). Or the "improved" army creation rules that are even more convoluted and leads to... weird lists (as most games tend to go PL3, the best way to do gear lists tend to be with armor regiments, and viceversa, for example). Or the variant names that mean different things all the time...

    Well, you get the idea.

    I actually stopped paying attention to the game during the release of the southern book, but to be honest, the breaking point was the NuCoal book and the new fluff.

    See, I'm a HG setting nerd. And the NuCoal fluff makes no sense whatsoever. None at all. Worse, to buff it up, they basically killed off another faction, for no net gain I can think of, and adding convolute migration and stupid ball tossing all over Terra Nova, clearly demonstrating that the writer didn't have a working understanding of what distances and surface means at all.

    One of the things HG needs is to have two universes. It needs a rpg setting and a very distinct wargame setting. They did it once, with Lightning Strike. But they apparently can't anymore (yes, yes, this is assuming the rpg is not dead, which it is :( ).

    Anyways, maybe THIS TIME it will be the time. Maybe THIS TIME they'll do a good job with the core system. Maybe THIS TIME, they'll give rules support that doesn't fiddle out in two weeks after the uproar. Maybe THIS TIME they actually make a wargame.

    ...yeah, well. Once fooled and all that.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/28 15:56:02


    Post by: warboss


    Albertorius wrote:
    Well, after much prodding, I'm compelled to post here (and over at DP9 apparently xD)

    *snip* And the power creep between "armies the designer play/like" and "armies that don't", which can get ridiculous.


    Welcome, Albertorius! (CrouchingGrizzly, HiddenCheetah here) Yeah, that part became painfully obvious to me with the Paxton release. I don't have access to the super secret revised VCS so the only squad I can compare with any certaintly is the bazooka GP with LBzk Jagers for the South and RFB Warriors for the PRDF and it's obvious which one the lead playtester collects. If you try to bump up the Southern GP to the same starting level as the Paxton one (and add a few MACs on the stock units), the south gets a squad that is WORSE in multiple ways despite costing 20TV more and needing a vet slot. Even if the TV difference between RFB and LBZk is 5tv for the pair, the south pays 15tv more for a squad with NO ecm, WORSE Detect, sucks up a vet slot, and has NO immunity to crossfire like the PRDF squad gets for free.. I can't compare the other squads since the units are so different (the Jaeger and Warrior are almost identical except that the Warriors are better in two ways). Don't get me wrong... I have no problem with Paxton getting those benefits but rather if there is a supposedly overriding system for calculating everything then everything should have a cost if it gives you a benefit but that idea was thrown out the window with Paxton. It happened before with Nucoal and took DP9 half a year to address the differences with the revised "beta" threat values (not sure why it was released months later as optional along with the post 1940 updates... which were included automatically with no "option" in nucoal). The southern book had a lot of issues (the chief one being the inability to use your previously legal minis as we both experienced.. you moreso than me) but at least the TV were on par with Nucoal largerly (except for maybe the drake). PRDF though definitely has a "favorite son" threat value adjustment throughout. Luckily, it's only valid for the the next few days as the updated rules are significantly different.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/28 16:23:39


    Post by: mrondeau


    I hate to say those words, and I have not looked at the details of the squads involved, but:
  • ECM, on a Warrior, is worth essentially 0: they have neither the skill nor the rating required to do anything with it, and PRDF is too Action starved to waste an action. On the Chieftain, that's something else.
  • The higher Detect is likewise not worth much. Usually, the -2 Cover modifier is what will prevent the shot, not the Concealment
  • LBJZ are significantly better than RFB, by a large margin.

  • Of course, the first two might not be worth more, but they are still worth more than 0. Despite that, with 2+ bazookas, the Southern CG should costs more.

    That being said, the designer thinks that a shorter range weapon, like the 6" RFB, is better that a longer range weapon, like the 12" LBZK, so it's still obvious which faction he collects.

    EDIT: It should go without saying, but all that is dependent on the current rules. New rules, new point system.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/28 16:51:29


    Post by: warboss


    mrondeau wrote:
    I hate to say those words, and I have not looked at the details of the squads involved, but:
  • ECM, on a Warrior, is worth essentially 0: they have neither the skill nor the rating required to do anything with it, and PRDF is too Action starved to waste an action. On the Chieftain, that's something else.
  • The higher Detect is likewise not worth much. Usually, the -2 Cover modifier is what will prevent the shot, not the Concealment
  • LBJZ are significantly better than RFB, by a large margin.

  • Of course, the first two might not be worth more, but they are still worth more than 0. Despite that, with 2+ bazookas, the Southern CG should costs more.

    That being said, the designer thinks that a shorter range weapon, like the 6" RFB, is better that a longer range weapon, like the 12" LBZK, so it's still obvious which faction he collects.


    Detect 3 is a huge difference versus detect 2 as it usually on a properly terrained table makes or breaks a direct fire shot... and a bump of 1 only costs 1tv. Think of it this way... two gears (one jaeger and one warrior) are on opposite ends of a 2" wide hill. They've gotten most of the way around but there is still a 2" low part (providing "some cover" less than knee height and two concealment) is still between them. The Warrior has a direct fire shot whereas the Jaeger doesn't and the cover modifier is only "some". Most shots with a Detect2 unit that I've had disallowed because of concealment were at some cover (so NO modifier). It's not an issue of disallowing a -2 shot but in most cases I've encountered a flat modifier shot. The difference between detect 8 and 9 is functionally negligible but 2 to 3 is a huge boost in practical terms and generally allows a shot when it matters (optimal to low suboptimal range depending on the weapon and terrain). ECM I agree isn't very useful (especially on a GP unit) but it is useful in certain situations, especially when you effectively get a rebate for having it (DP9 is paying YOU threat value to have it in the GP!). The official answer I got is that the warrior is calculated at 2tv higher (basically you pay 1 tv for each benefit of detect and ecm) but that doesn't seem to fit in with the GP squad (and I question whether other squads got the same hidden discount but are much harder to detect, pun intended). I'm not saying that they should be charged a 5tv premium per gear but if people don't think that those benefits are worth it (like yourself), then you should have the option of removing them for 10tv for the squad (-2tv per gear) and not simply getting them for free (on top of free LD and EW skill upgrades on your CGL because of fluff... the actual reason I was given). I have a simple metric that I use in HG... does it provide a benefit even occasionally? If so, then it should cost something. The PRDF squad sees further, has added situational tactical options via ECM, doesn't require a vet slot for commonly used CGL upgrades, has FULL immunity to crossfire and costs significantly less than the southern equivalent. I agree that the LBzk is marginally better but only by 1-2TV each comparatively and that doesn't account for the 20TV difference when the squads are equalized as much as possible. That is no bueno in my book and I shudder to think what other rebates were shoehorned into squads that are harder to find.

    Anyways... back to to the recent blog post about Nublitz... I find it a bit odd that the post is dedicated to describing what a gear is instead of previewing portions of the Nublitz rules that changed. While I'm not opposed to the post, I suspect that around 99% of people that are left in HG fandom that will bother to read the blog will already be familiar enough with the universe to know what a gear is and are more interested in getting a preview of an upcoming rule. Since the rules are described as "significantly different", IMO blog posts this week would be better spent easing players into the new ruleset instead of just throwing them into the deep end on Jan 31st.



    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/28 17:30:12


    Post by: mrondeau


    First, I have played on well terrained table. One of the issues with the game is that terrain affects gameplay in a lot of ways.
    For example, I'm used to terrain that provide Concealment and Cover. Small hills were not usual on our table. So, fair enough for Detect 3 vs 2, with the caveat than on some terrain, the difference does not actually exist.
    Crossfire is similarly very variable depending on terrain. I'm not used to see much happening, so for me that was also worthless. You'll notice I did not mention it before, because I know that this was not typical. Since I'm not used to it, I cannot evaluate its worth that well.

    ECM: yes, it should be worth something, but really not much. I think I have actually used it twice. Ever. Most of the time, shooting is better. In fact, when given the choice, I immediately removed it from all Warriors, except the Chieftains. I would say that adding ECM (and the skill to use it...) should be an option. If so, it should have a good rating, so that it's actually useful, and, of course, should have the appropriate cost.
    In all case, except for the RFB vs LBZK thing, those are definitively not negative, and are not worth negative points.

    The LBZK has 12", vs 6". That's a +1 in the key range. It's also capable of beating the armour of basic gears without risking to go Out-of-Ammunition. That's not a marginal improvement, that's a boost on expected damage at 12". Kinda important, in my experience.
    Of course, the stupid insistence on +5 TV increments is harmful here: a RFB is worth something, so +5. A LBZK is better than a RFB (+5) but worse than a MBZK (+10)... oops, can't price things correctly.

    That being said, I'm not defending DP9. In fact, I'm condemning them: I'm not joking when I say that the designer thinks that RFB > LBZK, and that the ECM, Detect and Crossfire immunity are significant bonuses. I disagree, but from that point-of-view, the PRDF squad should indeed cost way more than the southern one.
    I, personally, think that they should cost about the same when you have 1 LBZK and 1 RFB, and the Southern one costing a little bit more as you add more LBZK and RFBs. In all cases, I cannot justify 20TV and a Veterant slot. The last one is rather puzzling, in fact. It's just a bunch of decent anti-gear weapons. GP are supposed to have a bunch of decent anti-gear weapons.

    I'm not commenting on the blogs because there's not actually content to comment on. Kinda disappointing. Since I wanted to comment on HG, I had to resort to correcting someone on the Internet. (please imagine that's a smiling ALEPH. The choice of emoticon is rather restricted.)


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/28 17:50:45


    Post by: warboss


    mrondeau wrote:

    In all case, except for the RFB vs LBZK thing, those are definitively not negative, and are not worth negative points.

    The LBZK has 12", vs 6". That's a +1 in the key range. It's also capable of beating the armour of basic gears without risking to go Out-of-Ammunition. That's not a marginal improvement, that's a boost on expected damage at 12". Kinda important, in my experience.
    Of course, the stupid insistence on +5 TV increments is harmful here: a RFB is worth something, so +5. A LBZK is better than a RFB (+5) but worse than a MBZK (+10)... oops, can't price things correctly.


    Just a side note in case you don't have the pdf. The Lbzk does have an optimal range of 12 which does initially on paper make it better for some ranges than an RFB. In essence, the stock RFB is better at 0-3 due to the paxton only melee trait, the same at 3-6, worse at 6-12, and the same at 12-24, and worse at 24-48. I don't know about you but I rarely shoot much further than 24" with a Lbzk due to cover modifiers so I generally consider the first 24" to be the most imporant with direct fire weapons. The lbzk in terms of bonuses/penalties definitely comes out a bit ahead... but the new pdf gives you the 0TV option of adding the "assault" template to your RFB warriors which gives them sniper at the cost of 1 detect and sensor dependent. When you factor that 0Tv swap in, the RFB is better in terms of shot modifiers at 0-3 and better at 12-24 and the same at 3-12. The RFB also has the possibility of getting to damage 16 with ROF which puts some elite and upgraded trooper gears into a 1:1 damage/roll category that the LBzk doesn't have a possiblity of doing.. and the RFB has the option of possibly damaging multiple light trooper/scout/infantry models due to ROF as well which is an option that the LBzk doesn't have at the cost of running out of ammo (but with a reload possible). I find the RFB to be a very tactically viable option previously (but admiteddly worse than a LBzk overall) but that distinction in paxton is largely gone as it is (of course) much better than the same option available elsewhere. In the end, I console myself that the Mary Sue nepotism will be largely moot in a few days.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/28 17:58:08


    Post by: mrondeau


     warboss wrote:

    Just a side note in case you don't have the pdf. The Lbzk does have an optimal range of 12 which does initially on paper make it better for some ranges than an RFB. In essence, the stock RFB is better at 0-3 due to the paxton only melee trait, the same at 3-6, worse at 6-12, and the same at 12-24, and worse at 24-48. I don't know about you but I rarely shoot much further than 24" with a Lbzk due to cover modifiers so I generally consider the first 24" to be the most imporant with direct fire weapons. The lbzk in terms of bonuses/penalties definitely comes out a bit ahead... but the new pdf gives you the 0TV option of adding the "assault" template to your RFB warriors which gives them sniper at the cost of 1 detect and sensor dependent. When you factor that 0Tv swap in, the RFB is better in terms of shot modifiers at 0-3 and better at 12-24 and the same at 3-12. The RFB also has the possibility of getting to damage 16 with ROF which puts some elite and upgraded trooper gears into a 1:1 damage/roll category that the LBzk doesn't have a possiblity of doing.. and the RFB has the option of possibly damaging multiple light trooper/scout/infantry models due to ROF as well which is an option that the LBzk doesn't have at the cost of running out of ammo (but with a reload possible). I find the RFB to be a very tactically viable option previously (but admiteddly worse than a LBzk overall) but that distinction in paxton is largely gone as it is (of course) much better than the same option available elsewhere. In the end, I console myself that the Mary Sue nepotism will be largely moot in a few days.

    Ok, yes, that unassaultish assault package turns things around completely. That should not cost 0 TV. That should very much not cost 0 TV! The drawback was the 6-12" range, which is important. This removes the drawback completely and boost up to 24".


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/28 18:36:52


    Post by: Albertorius


    warboss wrote:[Welcome, Albertorius! (CrouchingGrizzly, HiddenCheetah here)

    Hiya, CGHC. Nice to see you
    Yeah, that part became painfully obvious to me with the Paxton release. I don't have access to the super secret revised VCS so the only squad I can compare with any certaintly is the bazooka GP with LBzk Jagers for the South and RFB Warriors for the PRDF and it's obvious which one the lead playtester collects. If you try to bump up the Southern GP to the same starting level as the Paxton one (and add a few MACs on the stock units), the south gets a squad that is WORSE in multiple ways despite costing 20TV more and needing a vet slot. Even if the TV difference between RFB and LBZk is 5tv for the pair, the south pays 15tv more for a squad with NO ecm, WORSE Detect, sucks up a vet slot, and has NO immunity to crossfire like the PRDF squad gets for free.. I can't compare the other squads since the units are so different (the Jaeger and Warrior are almost identical except that the Warriors are better in two ways). Don't get me wrong... I have no problem with Paxton getting those benefits but rather if there is a supposedly overriding system for calculating everything then everything should have a cost if it gives you a benefit but that idea was thrown out the window with Paxton. It happened before with Nucoal and took DP9 half a year to address the differences with the revised "beta" threat values (not sure why it was released months later as optional along with the post 1940 updates... which were included automatically with no "option" in nucoal). The southern book had a lot of issues (the chief one being the inability to use your previously legal minis as we both experienced.. you moreso than me) but at least the TV were on par with Nucoal largerly (except for maybe the drake). PRDF though definitely has a "favorite son" threat value adjustment throughout. Luckily, it's only valid for the the next few days as the updated rules are significantly different.


    I haven't paid too much attention to the PRDF list, but AFAIK, it has not changed significantly from the playtest list I bailed on, back in last february.
    As for the southern armies, well... yes and no. The TVs were mostly correct, I think, or at least in the ballpark, but there were lots of problems, one of those legacy stats. Things like Gears with Detect 14, keeping the only Gears in the game with -1 Man for no reason whatsoever, weapon payloads not optimized the way the NuCoal ones were... those thing tend to mount and add to a lot. And that not talking about moving around options for the heck of it, and well meaning upgrades that didn't take into account the big picture (Caiman with +0 FC and less man penalties? Great! For an APC. But in the one hand the infantry is still dead [no big doors], and on the other... Crocodiles suddenly are beasts, for no increase in points :( ).

    So yeah, mixed bag. And it inherited the craptacular new army list creation system.

    mrondeau wrote:EDIT: It should go without saying, but all that is dependent on the current rules. New rules, new point system.

    I was going to answer, but... yeah, mostly this. The problem are mostly the rules, there. That said: yes, currently ECM 1 does basically nothing, but Detect is quite nice, or at least it has been in most of my games. And a bump from 2 to 3 is significant.

    warboss wrote:
    Anyways... back to to the recent blog post about Nublitz... I find it a bit odd that the post is dedicated to describing what a gear is instead of previewing portions of the Nublitz rules that changed. While I'm not opposed to the post, I suspect that around 99% of people that are left in HG fandom that will bother to read the blog will already be familiar enough with the universe to know what a gear is and are more interested in getting a preview of an upcoming rule. Since the rules are described as "significantly different", IMO blog posts this week would be better spent easing players into the new ruleset instead of just throwing them into the deep end on Jan 31st.

    I... have issues with how they are redefining stuff, if that is from where I think it is.

    mrondeau wrote:I'm not commenting on the blogs because there's not actually content to comment on. Kinda disappointing. Since I wanted to comment on HG, I had to resort to correcting someone on the Internet. (please imagine that's a smiling ALEPH. The choice of emoticon is rather restricted.)

    I have commented on the last one, actually ^_^. They really should man up and say they're going to redo the setting from the ground up to fit their view, and be done with it. And excise all the legacy RPG rules from the wargame.

    mrondeau wrote:Ok, yes, that unassaultish assault package turns things around completely. That should not cost 0 TV. That should very much not cost 0 TV! The drawback was the 6-12" range, which is important. This removes the drawback completely and boost up to 24".

    Well, let's not forget that PRDF have spesh mareens (powered armor infantry... which makes the gears baffling, really), super duper training and even ECCMs they can shoot people with now! On top of I don't know how many new Gear chassises and a new gearstrider for no reason whatsoever.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/28 19:15:28


    Post by: warboss


    Albertorius wrote:
    warboss wrote:[Welcome, Albertorius! (CrouchingGrizzly, HiddenCheetah here)

    Hiya, CGHC. Nice to see you

    mrondeau wrote:I'm not commenting on the blogs because there's not actually content to comment on. Kinda disappointing. Since I wanted to comment on HG, I had to resort to correcting someone on the Internet. (please imagine that's a smiling ALEPH. The choice of emoticon is rather restricted.)

    I have commented on the last one, actually ^_^. They really should man up and say they're going to redo the setting from the ground up to fit their view, and be done with it. And excise all the legacy RPG rules from the wargame.

    mrondeau wrote:Ok, yes, that unassaultish assault package turns things around completely. That should not cost 0 TV. That should very much not cost 0 TV! The drawback was the 6-12" range, which is important. This removes the drawback completely and boost up to 24".

    Well, let's not forget that PRDF have spesh mareens (powered armor infantry... which makes the gears baffling, really), super duper training and even ECCMs they can shoot people with now! On top of I don't know how many new Gear chassises and a new gearstrider for no reason whatsoever.


    Thanks! Ditto! I saw some posts of yours over on RPG.net about Ogre but I haven't been following the official forums of late. I will likely pop in once both nublitz and the north pdf come out and I see the final fruits of both HG labors.

    I'd actually be fine with them resetting the universe completely in a Battlestar Galactica fashion. I can't speak for others but the WOTA and to a lesser extent Interpolar war are my favorite settings and I'd be fine with them rebooting the universe to the years around WOTA (pre, during, and after) as an optional campaign setting. Basically, it would be North versus South versus CEF just like in the RPG 1st edition. I don't think it would be a good idea for the basic setting as they'd invalidate a ton of models (all of nucoal, most of paxton, etc) but I'd like the option to play in that time period. That said... when the core universe and rules are such a mess, an offshoot alternate campaign is a very low priority. Still.. in the imaginary alternate reality where I've won the Powerball Lottery and bought the Heavy Gear IP, an alternate campaign setting with some expanded northern/southern/CEF units (like stealth gears and upgraded hovertanks) with a Battlestar Galactica rebooted storyline would be happening. Heck, I'd even get Brandon to write some steamy intros to the various chapters!

    As for PRDF, I'm fine with them having all the stuff you said AS LONG AS THEY ACTUALLY PAY FOR IT. I can't stress that enough but it doesn't seem to matter. The whole point of the VCS is to quantify benefits and charge for them. I fully admit that the VCS has flaws (like undercharging for detect which IMO is the third most important combat stat) but if they insist on using it for some armies then other armies should use them as well. If something needs to be changed (like MAC upgrades going to 0tv cost with PRDF), then they should be changed for EVERYONE via the existing FAQ/errata system and not just added to some favored factions only. If the RFB gets melee with the Paxton upgrade, it should cost more OR be retroactively applied backwards to other armies as it is better in some and not others. The VCS may be flawed but I fear that Heavy Gear has turned into some mecha parody of animal farm where all gears are created equal (under the VCS) but some gears (Paxton) are more equal than others (free or undercosted stuff!).


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/28 19:23:38


    Post by: mrondeau


    Do not get me started on the VCS. Seriously. I have work to do, which I've been neglecting for reason of cold. I simply won't have time to go through all the problems with the VCS and do what I have to do this week! Please! Think of my schedule! My poor, innocent schedule!


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/28 19:42:53


    Post by: Albertorius


     warboss wrote:
    Thanks! Ditto! I saw some posts of yours over on RPG.net about Ogre but I haven't been following the official forums of late. I will likely pop in once both nublitz and the north pdf come out and I see the final fruits of both HG labors.

    Yeah, more or like the same ^_^. Also, Im very happy with my purchase so far, although it is immense xD (And also... HG could learn a lot from Ogre, you know... it really is a very nice game).

    I'd actually be fine with them resetting the universe completely in a Battlestar Galactica fashion. I can't speak for others but the WOTA and to a lesser extent Interpolar war are my favorite settings and I'd be fine with them rebooting the universe to the years around WOTA (pre, during, and after) as an optional campaign setting. Basically, it would be North versus South versus CEF just like in the RPG 1st edition. I don't think it would be a good idea for the basic setting as they'd invalidate a ton of models (all of nucoal, most of paxton, etc) but I'd like the option to play in that time period. That said... when the core universe and rules are such a mess, an offshoot alternate campaign is a very low priority. Still.. in the imaginary alternate reality where I've won the Powerball Lottery and bought the Heavy Gear IP, an alternate campaign setting with some expanded northern/southern/CEF units (like stealth gears and upgraded hovertanks) with a Battlestar Galactica rebooted storyline would be happening. Heck, I'd even get Brandon to write some steamy intros to the various chapters!

    Yeah, I'd be happy if they just did a "NuHG" setting aking to Galactica, actually, one not tied to the past setting, made from the ground up to support the kind of setting the game needs. We don't need to crap around a setting because it doesn't really work for that, just fix it reimagining the setting completely into something that works! Just don't try to hide it into the current one with timeline events, please?

    Also yes, a WOTA setting would be very sweet, actually. And you're not alone wanting to buy HG, you know . We should start building a trust fund and see if they tank completely (I think this new edition is probably the last round for them, if it tanks).

    As for PRDF, I'm fine with them having all the stuff you said AS LONG AS THEY ACTUALLY PAY FOR IT. I can't stress that enough but it doesn't seem to matter. The whole point of the VCS is to quantify benefits and charge for them. I fully admit that the VCS has flaws (like undercharging for detect which IMO is the third most important combat stat) but if they insist on using it for some armies then other armies should use them as well. If something needs to be changed (like MAC upgrades going to 0tv cost with PRDF), then they should be changed for EVERYONE via the existing FAQ/errata system and not just added to some favored factions only. If the RFB gets melee with the Paxton upgrade, it should cost more OR be retroactively applied backwards to other armies as it is better in some and not others. The VCS may be flawed but I fear that Heavy Gear has turned into some mecha parody of animal farm where all gears are created equal (under the VCS) but some gears (Paxton) are more equal than others (free or undercosted stuff!).

    I... don't know. Many of the new stuff sounds stupid, to me (particularly the ECCM... NO! ECCMs ARE NOT GUNS! THEY DON'T WORK THAT WAY! NOW SIT!). But as I said, nothing you cound't fix redoing the core assumptions and doing a setting custom made for the wargame, instead of the current hodge podge. As to costs... yeah.

    mrondeau wrote:
    Do not get me started on the VCS. Seriously. I have work to do, which I've been neglecting for reason of cold. I simply won't have time to go through all the problems with the VCS and do what I have to do this week! Please! Think of my schedule! My poor, innocent schedule!

    Hey, the VCS worked... for the RPG. See above. I'm also not really a fan of army special rules and the like. Heck, one of things I liked about HG on the beginning was the fact that there were no s"special rule buttlerflies", and everyone worked off from the same core, with no special snowflakes at all.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/29 05:49:30


    Post by: ferrous


    Oh man, I wasn't following the PRDF changes. ECCM as a gun? What? Okay...I guess its an attempt to get models with ECM/ECCM something to do, since they cant' be used as how they should be. Way to break something by trying to band-aid a fix.

    Also, why, why, why would you change the stats of a weapon for just one faction? It was stupid in NuCoal, and it's even stupider with the PRDF.

    Also, the snipered trait is stupid, and should die in a fire. It's the weirdest way to again patch a change to a weapon, instead of just fix the weapon. It usually manages to turn the weapon into not a sniper weapon, but something else entirely.

    I agree that PRDF should pay for Crossfire immunity, I found it fairly easy to get, enough to come up at least once a game if not more.

    ECM they should pay for, but not much, currently. It's kind of a horrible problem with PRDF. ECM on standard models is everywhere, makes them unique, but the rules on ECM have been stupid for ages. Instead of fixing ECM in any way, they just go stupid and toss an patch to allow people to remove it. But I'm rehashing.

    Hopefully the new rules will manage to fix ECM enough to make it meaningful enough to have low level ECM on GPs.



    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/29 08:39:13


    Post by: Albertorius


    ferrous wrote:
    Oh man, I wasn't following the PRDF changes. ECCM as a gun? What? Okay...I guess its an attempt to get models with ECM/ECCM something to do, since they cant' be used as how they should be. Way to break something by trying to band-aid a fix.

    I was exaggerating a bit for effect, but... yes, basically.

    They have devised the "Aggressor EW" suite for ECCMs (and why for ECCMs instead of ECMs eludes me, TBH), that you can add to a unit that already has ECCM for a "mere" +10TV. That allows you to make direct fire attacks (using the EW skill) against enemy units (that are NOT Comm events, because I say so). The shot can:

    - Give a unit Stun due to "EM overload". With a radio unjammer.
    - Force a unit to drop a speed band and not change facing because obviously you jam their hidraulics and mechanic throttle. With a radio unjammer.
    - Make the target unable to initiate or receive any comm event. Even the ones from autocomm range, that are supposed to be done with tight beam lasers and actual hand signs. With a radio unjammer.

    Also, why, why, why would you change the stats of a weapon for just one faction? It was stupid in NuCoal, and it's even stupider with the PRDF.

    Also, the snipered trait is stupid, and should die in a fire. It's the weirdest way to again patch a change to a weapon, instead of just fix the weapon. It usually manages to turn the weapon into not a sniper weapon, but something else entirely.

    Yes to both. Yes, changing the stats of a weapon makes the weapon tables moot (and then, why you have that?), and yes, the current Sniper trait is nuts.

    I agree that PRDF should pay for Crossfire immunity, I found it fairly easy to get, enough to come up at least once a game if not more.

    ECM they should pay for, but not much, currently. It's kind of a horrible problem with PRDF. ECM on standard models is everywhere, makes them unique, but the rules on ECM have been stupid for ages. Instead of fixing ECM in any way, they just go stupid and toss an patch to allow people to remove it. But I'm rehashing.

    Hopefully the new rules will manage to fix ECM enough to make it meaningful enough to have low level ECM on GPs.


    ECM as is has loads of problems, the first being it needs an action.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/29 16:46:02


    Post by: solkan


    It's a bit more fair to say that it's an electronic warfare upgrade to enable one specific subset to have something to use its ECCM stat for.

    But the ninja strike force with the EW weapon and upgraded stealth capabilities doesn't get crossfire immunity.

    And it's possible that it's a test balloon for other future changes to the ECM/ECCM rules. Or giving the ninja strike forces similar options.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/29 17:28:58


    Post by: warboss


     solkan wrote:

    But the ninja strike force with the EW weapon and upgraded stealth capabilities doesn't get crossfire immunity.


    Incorrect. All paxton units except leagueless get for free Advanced Small Unit Tactics which grants crossfire immunity. It's not as good as the PRDF one that is permanent and not removable but they do start with free crossfire immunity.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/29 18:03:14


    Post by: Balance


    I thought 'Ninja Strike Force' was probably a reference to the Black Talons, but that could just be my interpretation.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/29 18:49:50


    Post by: Killionaire


    A vehicle creation system/VCS doesn't make sense in the context of a wargame like this, especially if it only uses fixed costs. Because it takes NO account of inherent synergies in design!

    If you value +1 FCS, ATM and high detect separately, then adding them together makes a monster.
    If you have +1 FCS, a great weapon and piss poor detect, then your unit sucks.
    If you have -1 FCS, Horrible Armor/Stats, and linked MRPs, your unit is still effective, but cheap.

    This sort of thing is why all modern wargames design using a hollistic approach where you adjust points not from a slavish 'Ok this item costs this much' sense, which is plain daft, but a 'This unit's effectiveness overall tends to fall between comparable unit X and Y.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/29 19:06:39


    Post by: warboss


     Balance wrote:
    I thought 'Ninja Strike Force' was probably a reference to the Black Talons, but that could just be my interpretation.


    I'm talking about the CTF paxton faction that has stealth specialty rules like "shadow warriors" and is pretty much tailor made for "shinobi" special forces teams. That is also the faction that gets the EW "attack" rules being discussed... as well as the ability to start the game "hidden" at no additional TV or action cost.. on top of free starting immunity to crossfire. This is on top of free LD and EW CGL stat boosts. It really pays to play the army of the lead playtester.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/29 19:13:03


    Post by: Balance


     warboss wrote:
     Balance wrote:
    I thought 'Ninja Strike Force' was probably a reference to the Black Talons, but that could just be my interpretation.


    I'm talking about the CTF paxton faction that has stealth specialty rules like "shadow warriors" and is pretty much tailor made for "shinobi" special forces teams. That is also the faction that gets the EW "attack" rules being discussed... as well as the ability to start the game "hidden" at no additional TV or action cost.. on top of free starting immunity to crossfire.


    OK, I misunderstood.

    I don't get any input on game design issues (I'm contracted for web design/support) but from what I've seen the new rules look to be close to a clean slate. The VCS is dead, although it's been on life-support for a while (used as a guideline, but not the final determinator). I have some definite concerns with the most recent new rules release I've seen, and my current stance is that I want honest comments about them, even if they're negative. I see some good ideas that I think need to be reviewed and hammered into an overall design that is a good game and respectful to the setting. That's my hope, anyway.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/29 19:56:10


    Post by: solkan


     warboss wrote:
     solkan wrote:

    But the ninja strike force with the EW weapon and upgraded stealth capabilities doesn't get crossfire immunity.


    Incorrect. All paxton units except leagueless get for free Advanced Small Unit Tactics which grants crossfire immunity. It's not as good as the PRDF one that is permanent and not removable but they do start with free crossfire immunity.


    Ah, I misunderstood how the abilities were laid out, and thought the "immunity until worn down" rule had been redone as the sub-faction specific "completely immune to crossfire" rule.

    I don't know enough about the other faction specific rules to know whether PRDF should be more expensive across the board to force "To make up for their limited numbers, ..." to be accurate on the table.



    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/29 20:03:34


    Post by: HudsonD


     Killionaire wrote:

    This sort of thing is why all modern wargames design using a hollistic approach where you adjust points not from a slavish 'Ok this item costs this much' sense, which is plain daft, but a 'This unit's effectiveness overall tends to fall between comparable unit X and Y.

    That's the kind of thinking that gets quickly black-listed in DP9 playtest. I'm not kidding in any way.
    Up to FiF (I wasn't involved with BD, so I can't speak from my own experience, but everything I hear about it is that it was probably even worse than usual), the VCS was considered more reliable than playtests. In fact commenting actual TV values for units was frowned upon, since the VCS was accurate by default.
    If you ever wondered about how Mambas could upgrade to HGLCs for 0 TV, you now know why.

    warboss wrote: It really pays to play the army of the lead playtester.

    The playtest manager and main writer, actually.

     Balance wrote:
    (...) a good game and respectful to the setting. That's my hope, anyway.

    That's what the few people remaining that still care a little would like to hope, against hope.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/29 20:58:32


    Post by: solkan


    Assuming someone was willing to go through the Gear Garage data files tweaking point values for a renegade point balancing, is there any chance of finding the list of "These point values should be changed for balance" in one place? Or without having to comb through discussion threads?


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/29 21:44:02


    Post by: Killionaire


    This has been an interesting thread. A lot of veteran players, well known in the (tiny) HG community, and all the most reasonable, insightful and most importantly, rational players who have been burned for being rational by white-knight fans and a company that refuses to help itself, and would prefer to stick it's head in the sand.

    Well, I think then we can sadly say, that if DP9 don't do a paradigm shift away from FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED THOUGHT PATTERNS...

    Heavy Gear is Dead.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/29 22:25:13


    Post by: doc1234


    Ehhh i'd say "dead" in the way the GW Specialist games are. No support, but still a small player base. Honestly the only difference between the two is there's no unified fan system for HG yet other than the loose ones people have floating around that got mentioned.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/30 04:48:15


    Post by: solkan


    Who can what the future will hold, but the next bit of information about the alpha is out today.

    The modified Silhouette dice mechanism seems nice enough in Badlands Rally.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/30 07:20:25


    Post by: ferrous


    Yeah, hard to say, I haven't used them before. I understand what it's trying fix, though the check/roll system is a bit confusing at first read.

    Not sure I like some of the stat changes, but it's hard to say until I know more. I definitely would've preferred higher TVs for granularity, instead of lower. In a system where the default value is 100, instead of 6, there is more room to grow. This was one of the issues with the old system, since it only allowed for +/-5 TV increments, so chopping out useless cruft from a model would yield massive gains and put the model into the same price range as other models who started that low and were subpar in comparison.

    But... again, I don't want to jump the gun too much there.


    Most of the weapon stuff looks good and stuff we've talked about on the forums for ages, like splitting up the RoF trait from Rocket Packs and Autocannons

    Though I don't know what L/M/H Pen is, I'm a little leery of it. My big fear is that they will soften armor to the point where dedicated tank destroyer weapons won't be needed against tanks.

    Also, I'd hazard a guess they've added Light Snub Cannons to the game, judging from the tables. Not sure what to think of that yet. Just noting it =)



    So, I'm somewhere slightly below "Cautiously Optimistic", maybe, "Pessimistic, but Hoping"?


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/30 09:06:10


    Post by: Albertorius


    solkan wrote:It's a bit more fair to say that it's an electronic warfare upgrade to enable one specific subset to have something to use its ECCM stat for.

    Honestly...

    The only units that have ECCM are the Chieftain, Chieftain IV, Cataphract Lord, Greyhound, Uhland Lord. Wild Skirmishers and Wild Ferrets (I went and checked ). Of those, only the wild variants can be added for anything other than the CGL. The CGL always will have other things to do with their actions, and even if they didn't, a place where you can shoot directly an enemy unit from 2 x Autocomm is usually a place where the CLG doesn't want to be.

    Even then... +10TV to be able to spend an action trying to give a Stun to a unit, when Stun is how it is? Or reducing the speed of a unit? Or blocking his comms? Well... usually shooting him would be quite more effective, particularly if those 10TV are spent in a weapon. Or coordinating fire for the rest of the CG.

    And even then, it doesn't make sense at all xD.

    But the ninja strike force with the EW weapon and upgraded stealth capabilities doesn't get crossfire immunity.

    warboss has answered this one completely already.

    And it's possible that it's a test balloon for other future changes to the ECM/ECCM rules. Or giving the ninja strike forces similar options.

    Not sure about that, but if you want it to do other things, I'd advocate for things like degrading sensors, FC systems and the like, not this. And for ECM, not ECCM

    Killionaire wrote:A vehicle creation system/VCS doesn't make sense in the context of a wargame like this, especially if it only uses fixed costs. Because it takes NO account of inherent synergies in design!

    If you value +1 FCS, ATM and high detect separately, then adding them together makes a monster.
    If you have +1 FCS, a great weapon and piss poor detect, then your unit sucks.
    If you have -1 FCS, Horrible Armor/Stats, and linked MRPs, your unit is still effective, but cheap.

    This sort of thing is why all modern wargames design using a hollistic approach where you adjust points not from a slavish 'Ok this item costs this much' sense, which is plain daft, but a 'This unit's effectiveness overall tends to fall between comparable unit X and Y.

    Agreed, that's why I said it was fine for the RPG, not the wargame. For the wargame it just can't work as intended. Maybe (maybe) with the one from SilCORE, that added the total ACC to the calculations of weapons, but the way it is... and even then, only for weapons.

    warboss wrote:I'm talking about the CTF paxton faction that has stealth specialty rules like "shadow warriors" and is pretty much tailor made for "shinobi" special forces teams. That is also the faction that gets the EW "attack" rules being discussed... as well as the ability to start the game "hidden" at no additional TV or action cost.. on top of free starting immunity to crossfire. This is on top of free LD and EW CGL stat boosts. It really pays to play the army of the lead playtester.

    Yeah ^_^. It sounds like my nephew when he's playing pretend with my old VOTOMs.

    Killionaire wrote:This has been an interesting thread. A lot of veteran players, well known in the (tiny) HG community, and all the most reasonable, insightful and most importantly, rational players who have been burned for being rational by white-knight fans and a company that refuses to help itself, and would prefer to stick it's head in the sand.

    Yeah, it's been cool to see this kind of people over here . A nice thread.

    Well, I think then we can sadly say, that if DP9 don't do a paradigm shift away from FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED THOUGHT PATTERNS...

    Heavy Gear is Dead.

    Probably, and unfortunately. I'm still very attached to the setting.

    ferrous wrote:Yeah, hard to say, I haven't used them before. I understand what it's trying fix, though the check/roll system is a bit confusing at first read.

    It kinda is, yes. I would like to hear the reasons for it, to see what they were going for.

    Not sure I like some of the stat changes, but it's hard to say until I know more. I definitely would've preferred higher TVs for granularity, instead of lower. In a system where the default value is 100, instead of 6, there is more room to grow. This was one of the issues with the old system, since it only allowed for +/-5 TV increments, so chopping out useless cruft from a model would yield massive gains and put the model into the same price range as other models who started that low and were subpar in comparison.

    But... again, I don't want to jump the gun too much there.

    It would depend on how much the swaps change the units, I guess. Games like Warmahordes don't have problems with low point costs, but they haven't many options.

    Most of the weapon stuff looks good and stuff we've talked about on the forums for ages, like splitting up the RoF trait from Rocket Packs and Autocannons

    Though I don't know what L/M/H Pen is, I'm a little leery of it. My big fear is that they will soften armor to the point where dedicated tank destroyer weapons won't be needed against tanks.

    I'm guessing the L/M/H Pen would be either Penetration against Light/Medium/Heavy units or Penetration for Light/Medium/Heavy hits. But who knows ^_^

    Also, I'd hazard a guess they've added Light Snub Cannons to the game, judging from the tables. Not sure what to think of that yet. Just noting it =)

    Hm. Didn't notice that.

    So, I'm somewhere slightly below "Cautiously Optimistic", maybe, "Pessimistic, but Hoping"?

    The second so far, yes XD.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/30 12:52:58


    Post by: UN Test Pilot


    The L/M/H pen I think relates to the weapon strength. So instead of a different line for each weapon, all the ACs have equal range and traits, just different strength depending what your gear is carrying.

    Arrow Jaguars now have LATMs so they may be trying to streamline the weapons some or open more options, in current weapons like the GLC.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/30 13:36:19


    Post by: Albertorius


    UN Test Pilot wrote:
    The L/M/H pen I think relates to the weapon strength. So instead of a different line for each weapon, all the ACs have equal range and traits, just different strength depending what your gear is carrying.

    Arrow Jaguars now have LATMs so they may be trying to streamline the weapons some or open more options, in current weapons like the GLC.

    Ah, good point. That's quite different.

    Been reading a bit the Badlands Arena rulebook (it appears to use at the very least an early variant of the same system).

    If they are using basically the same system, that means that you always roll 2d6 +/- bonu and penalty dice, and that attacking a unit would involve 3 rolls: an attack roll, a defense roll and a third damage roll.

    According to BR, if you hit an objective you check MoS for the attack roll, and pick that many dice. Then compare Power of the attack versus the armor of the objective, and add or substract as many dice to the damage roll as the difference. You roll those dice, and every 4+ is a damage point. From the blog, we can see that a Hunter has 6 damage points (5/1) and a Jaguar has also 6 (4/2).

    So... let's check:

    If I have a Hunter shooting a Jäger at Optimum range (+0 dice) and by the rear (+2 dice) with a LAC (Pen 6, Burst 1 [in BR is +1 dice, so I'll use that]), he'd be rolling 5 dice with GUN 4+. Let's say the Jäger is fleeing at Top Speed (+1 dice), so he would be rolling 3 dice with PILOT 4+.

    Let's say the Hunter rolls 6, 6, 4, 2, 1 and the Jäger rolls 5, 4, 2. That would mean a final roll of 8 vs. 6, for a MoS of 2.

    That would mean the damage roll would start with 2d6. In the blog post, we can see a Jäger (well, Hunter) has Armor Rating 6, and if we're correct assuming a LAC has PEN 6, that would mean no additional dice.

    So shooting a Gear in the back with a LAC would, on average, mark around 1 damage point, of the 6 a regular Gear has. That's not really too impressive ^_^


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/30 13:57:54


    Post by: IceRaptor


    Albertorius wrote:

    ferrous wrote:Yeah, hard to say, I haven't used them before. I understand what it's trying fix, though the check/roll system is a bit confusing at first read.

    It kinda is, yes. I would like to hear the reasons for it, to see what they were going for.


    I don't know if you're asking 'why are there two systems', 'why use the check system' or 'why not use a dice pool system', but I happen to be able to answer all of them.

    The check system - by which I mean roll XD6, take the highest, and add +1 for any additional (secondary) dice that meet or exceed the target number - was chosen as it preserves elements the 'reliability' of the Silhouette system, but allows the dice to generate a broader spectrum of results. Under stock Silhouette, you really only get 3 results from the dice - 4, 5, 6. You then added +/- modifiers to get your final outcome. But once you have +3 points of modifiers (in either combination of directions) the dice contribution begins being less 'important' to a given outcome. Adding dice to the system means you compress the results towards the 5, 6 range (and add 7, 8 results if you're using the cinematic rules), but those still aren't that common compared to a basic result of 5, 6.

    One common thread about Heavy Gear is that the predictability of the dice mechanics is a positive thing, as it's more pronounced than most other wargames. Most other games have a truly random roll (Infinity, Mercs, 40k) to determine results, while a few use a bell curve (WM, Gruntz) and Malifaux has a quasi-deterministic randomness (since you can count cards). Rolling the dice under Sil tends to be relatively pointless; ironically you're not so much trying for a 'good' result as you're trying to avoid the fumble. If you roll a 6 and your opponent rolls a 5, the dice didn't really contribute to the outcome all that much; that only happens when you get a 5 vs 2 matchup (or similar) which is fairly rare in the grand scheme of things.

    So the core ideal behind the check mechanic is to make the dice roll more important to the final outcome, but still preserve that 'determinism'. The basic roll is 2D6, so in most cases you're going to see results from 4 to 7. Models with a good augment rating (the target number looking thing) will see the higher scores more often than those that have a bad augment rating (5+ or 6+) but those models will still tend towards a result of 4, 5 or 6. As an example, if you roll a defense check and the dice show [5, 4], that's a result of 5 for any model with a 5+ or 6+ augment, like a tank or Mammoth. It's a 6 for any model with a 4+ or better augment, like a Hunter, Jaguar or Cheetah.

    In basic Sil, good tactics rewards you with a modifier, making your success very likely. Instead the new system rewards you with dice, which interplays with your augment rating so that models with better equipment have a better chance of a superior outcome, while models with poor ratings simply tend to be pushed towards the basic 'extrema' of 6. As an example, if you flank your opponent and crossfire them, you used to get effectively a +2 to your roll. Now, you get +2D6 to your roll. A model with a 4+ attack augment has the potential to roll anywhere from a 4-9, with common results in the 5-7 range. A model with 3+ attack tends to get the 6-9 result more commonly. A model with a 6+ attack will tend to get the 6. So everybody is rewarded, but you still need the 'superior' equipment to make the absolute best of the situation.

    The reason this was chosen over a more traditional dice pool was because dice pools are highly random in their outcomes. If you 4D6 and count successes end up with anything from 0-4 results, but your outcome skew can vary wildly. You might get 2 successes, you might get 4, you might get none. Adding dice widens the outcome space, but doesn't necessarily skew your result towards a predictable mean. That was considered undesirable, due to the predictability point I raised above.

    As for the dual systems in play.... originally the concept was *only* the check, with a fixed target number like normal Sil has. Mostly because it was considered 'easier to understand' the dual system was put into play. I argued that it was probably better to have one coherent system (as either approach has warts) as that would be simpler than what is present in a dual roll system, but for various reasons (I can't discuss) the dual system was kept.

    Hopefully that answers your question Albertorious. That's about the extent of what I may answer, unfortunately. Dave will probably be putting up something that eventually addresses this question at some point, but they have to manage the rollout (not me). I'm just an quasi-innocent bystander at this point


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/30 14:29:28


    Post by: Albertorius


    I'm going to rearrange the post a bit to be able to answer first to this:

     IceRaptor wrote:

    Hopefully that answers your question Albertorious. That's about the extent of what I may answer, unfortunately. Dave will probably be putting up something that eventually addresses this question at some point, but they have to manage the rollout (not me). I'm just an quasi-innocent bystander at this point


    Thank you very much for the detailed explanations. It actually helps a lot to see what the intention of the rolling system is, and why was selected.

    I don't know if you're asking 'why are there two systems', 'why use the check system' or 'why not use a dice pool system', but I happen to be able to answer all of them.

    I was thinking more about why two systems, really, but the full explanation is very welcome too

    The check system - by which I mean roll XD6, take the highest, and add +1 for any additional (secondary) dice that meet or exceed the target number - was chosen as it preserves elements the 'reliability' of the Silhouette system, but allows the dice to generate a broader spectrum of results. Under stock Silhouette, you really only get 3 results from the dice - 4, 5, 6. You then added +/- modifiers to get your final outcome. But once you have +3 points of modifiers (in either combination of directions) the dice contribution begins being less 'important' to a given outcome. Adding dice to the system means you compress the results towards the 5, 6 range (and add 7, 8 results if you're using the cinematic rules), but those still aren't that common compared to a basic result of 5, 6.

    One common thread about Heavy Gear is that the predictability of the dice mechanics is a positive thing, as it's more pronounced than most other wargames. Most other games have a truly random roll (Infinity, Mercs, 40k) to determine results, while a few use a bell curve (WM, Gruntz) and Malifaux has a quasi-deterministic randomness (since you can count cards). Rolling the dice under Sil tends to be relatively pointless; ironically you're not so much trying for a 'good' result as you're trying to avoid the fumble. If you roll a 6 and your opponent rolls a 5, the dice didn't really contribute to the outcome all that much; that only happens when you get a 5 vs 2 matchup (or similar) which is fairly rare in the grand scheme of things.

    So the core ideal behind the check mechanic is to make the dice roll more important to the final outcome, but still preserve that 'determinism'. The basic roll is 2D6, so in most cases you're going to see results from 4 to 7. Models with a good augment rating (the target number looking thing) will see the higher scores more often than those that have a bad augment rating (5+ or 6+) but those models will still tend towards a result of 4, 5 or 6. As an example, if you roll a defense check and the dice show [5, 4], that's a result of 5 for any model with a 5+ or 6+ augment, like a tank or Mammoth. It's a 6 for any model with a 4+ or better augment, like a Hunter, Jaguar or Cheetah.

    In basic Sil, good tactics rewards you with a modifier, making your success very likely. Instead the new system rewards you with dice, which interplays with your augment rating so that models with better equipment have a better chance of a superior outcome, while models with poor ratings simply tend to be pushed towards the basic 'extrema' of 6. As an example, if you flank your opponent and crossfire them, you used to get effectively a +2 to your roll. Now, you get +2D6 to your roll. A model with a 4+ attack augment has the potential to roll anywhere from a 4-9, with common results in the 5-7 range. A model with 3+ attack tends to get the 6-9 result more commonly. A model with a 6+ attack will tend to get the 6. So everybody is rewarded, but you still need the 'superior' equipment to make the absolute best of the situation.

    The reason this was chosen over a more traditional dice pool was because dice pools are highly random in their outcomes. If you 4D6 and count successes end up with anything from 0-4 results, but your outcome skew can vary wildly. You might get 2 successes, you might get 4, you might get none. Adding dice widens the outcome space, but doesn't necessarily skew your result towards a predictable mean. That was considered undesirable, due to the predictability point I raised above.

    Interesting, and very true that the reliability of high skill characters is a plus of the system, at least in my mind. That said, if using a dice pool, wouldn't changing the target number of the dice by skill level have helped keep at least partly that same reliability?

    As for the dual systems in play.... originally the concept was *only* the check, with a fixed target number like normal Sil has. Mostly because it was considered 'easier to understand' the dual system was put into play. I argued that it was probably better to have one coherent system (as either approach has warts) as that would be simpler than what is present in a dual roll system, but for various reasons (I can't discuss) the dual system was kept.

    For what's worth, I think I agree with you. One coherent system (either one) would have helped people to "grok" the game faster, I think.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/30 14:50:19


    Post by: IceRaptor


    Albertorius wrote:

    Interesting, and very true that the reliability of high skill characters is a plus of the system, at least in my mind. That said, if using a dice pool, wouldn't changing the target number of the dice by skill level have helped keep at least partly that same reliability?


    Sorta, but the number of dice that you roll is also a factor. In 'roll, count successes' system (assuming no other feedbacks) the target number influences the total number of successes that you can get on average, but not on a particular roll. You can have a 2+ target number and in most cases you'll get at least a single success, and probably multiples. But if that goes to 4+, the result you can expect becomes far more random; you might get 1, you might all of them, you might not. Basically, the skew inherent on a given roll increases as you add more dice, which you need to do to get a larger spread of successes. Rolling 2D6 gives you 36 possible permutations of the outcome; rolling 6D6 gives you 6^6 = 46,656.

    This is a problem (in my perspective) because you don't make thousands of rolls during a wargame session; you generally make in the ballpark of 50-100. 40K spreads this problem out by making each 'roll' consist of 20 dice or more; you're likely to on any given roll to see the distribution play out. But if you keep the number of dice rolled low (which was chosen for historical reasons), its possible (and more likely) to see the skews in the distribution because you don't get as large a set for the randomness to work out.

    It's also worth nothing that with a dice pool type system, you aren't guaranteed 'success' as you add more dice, just the possibility of success. Even with 10D6 and a 4+ target, you might end up getting no successes. Whereas the 'deterministic' aspect of Sil says that 'making good decisions' rewards you with a larger percentage of success. That's another reason roll + keep wasn't adopted.

    TL;DR - the choice was made to keep 2D6 as the base roll, and 6D6 as the max. That limited the usefulness of roll + count successes.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/30 15:04:55


    Post by: Albertorius


     IceRaptor wrote:

    Sorta, but the number of dice that you roll is also a factor. In 'roll, count successes' system (assuming no other feedbacks) the target number influences the total number of successes that you can get on average, but not on a particular roll. You can have a 2+ target number and in most cases you'll get at least a single success, and probably multiples. But if that goes to 4+, the result you can expect becomes far more random; you might get 1, you might all of them, you might not. Basically, the skew inherent on a given roll increases as you add more dice, which you need to do to get a larger spread of successes. Rolling 2D6 gives you 36 possible permutations of the outcome; rolling 6D6 gives you 6^6 = 46,656.

    This is a problem (in my perspective) because you don't make thousands of rolls during a wargame session; you generally make in the ballpark of 50-100. 40K spreads this problem out by making each 'roll' consist of 20 dice or more; you're likely to on any given roll to see the distribution play out. But if you keep the number of dice rolled low (which was chosen for historical reasons), its possible (and more likely) to see the skews in the distribution because you don't get as large a set for the randomness to work out.

    It's also worth nothing that with a dice pool type system, you aren't guaranteed 'success' as you add more dice, just the possibility of success. Even with 10D6 and a 4+ target, you might end up getting no successes. Whereas the 'deterministic' aspect of Sil says that 'making good decisions' rewards you with a larger percentage of success. That's another reason roll + keep wasn't adopted.

    TL;DR - the choice was made to keep 2D6 as the base roll, and 6D6 as the max. That limited the usefulness of roll + count successes.

    It's very interesting to read this kind of thing, at least to me. Now I can see why exactly you went for that, and the reasons that led to it.

    I was commenting something to that effect about the system with someone, about how the system as I understood it helped pilots with better skill maximize the effect of positive bonuses (as in, more dice will help anyone get a higher base roll, but highly skilled pilots would benefit more of the other dice, on average), and that it felt neat. Good to see it was intended

    Didn't know that there was a hard limit on dice pool, though. That changes things too.

    EDIT: When you say roll + keep you make me think of L5R, you know


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/30 15:15:00


    Post by: IceRaptor


    Albertorius wrote:
    I was commenting something to that effect about the system with someone, about how the system as I understood it helped pilots with better skill maximize the effect of positive bonuses (as in, more dice will help anyone get a higher base roll, but highly skilled pilots would benefit more of the other dice, on average), and that it felt neat. Good to see it was intended


    Yeah. It has it's benefits, but also falls down a bit with things like cover and bigger models. Even if you add 3-4D6 to a roll (for cover), but your augment is 6+, cover only helps you get that 6. It won't help you avoid the shot completely, which can be counter-intuitive to some people. Like most things, it has pros and cons, but overall I hope it captures the feeling of Sil while fixing some of the issues of Sil.

    Albertorius wrote:
    EDIT: When you say roll + keep you make me think of L5R, you know


    As a die-hard L5R fan, I think that as well. And believe you me, roll and keel was playtested...


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/30 15:15:11


    Post by: warboss


    It's good to see IceRaptor commenting on this stuff again. Thanks for the explanations and discussion as it has been somewhat lacking on the official channels for months. Just tread carefully though as you don't want to be accused of being a hater again just for posting a a reasoned, detailed, and lengthy explanation.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    Albertorius wrote:
    Killionaire wrote:This has been an interesting thread. A lot of veteran players, well known in the (tiny) HG community, and all the most reasonable, insightful and most importantly, rational players who have been burned for being rational by white-knight fans and a company that refuses to help itself, and would prefer to stick it's head in the sand.

    Yeah, it's been cool to see this kind of people over here . A nice thread.


    As someone who chimed in on the old rpg.net thread years ago during my self imposed exile from HG, it has been interesting to see this become the minis forum offsite discussion area (as opposed to a minis thread on an rpg forum). I started it as just a place to collate some common issues (as kind of a part 3 to my first two threads on community thoughts/suggestions on the future of HG) and it's grown into the defacto HG thread. I'll still be updating the News and Rumors thread once there is something concrete to post.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/30 17:23:28


    Post by: HudsonD


     warboss wrote:
    It's good to see IceRaptor commenting on this stuff again. Thanks for the explanations and discussion as it has been somewhat lacking on the official channels for months. Just tread carefully though as you don't want to be accused of being a hater again just for posting a a reasoned, detailed, and lengthy explanation.


    Amusingly enough, this thread is also more active than the official boards, and that's before going into the noise/signal ratio.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/30 17:28:29


    Post by: wildger


    Alpha files to be released tomorrow on Jan 31. Look like there is going to be a new round of discussion.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/30 21:28:57


    Post by: ferrous


    Thanks Ice. Yeah, that's a good explanation, and looks like an evolution over changes you've proposed in the past. I too would've preferred one unified roll type, but I think even original Blitz has two rolls, contested/uncontested, so only so much complaining can be done.

    The only real complaint may be that it's more rolling and more dice, but whaddaya gonna do, I think something had to be done, as the standard SIL system tied too much into a single roll and made high damage weapons good at everything, and most band aid attempts to fix that ended up being kind of confusing and a little wonky.

    It also opens up the game to more perks/flaws affecting the damage roll, like HEAT and reactive armor (I hope they don't call it anti-HEAT or whatever) So I like that possibility.







    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/30 22:54:40


    Post by: Albertorius


     IceRaptor wrote:
    TL;DR - the choice was made to keep 2D6 as the base roll, and 6D6 as the max. That limited the usefulness of roll + count successes.


    Hm. Judging by this...
    My early alpha play testers figured out a way to get a 15D6 attack check

    (from the dev blog)

    ...it would appear that the 6d6 max limitation has been revoked.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/30 23:20:17


    Post by: warboss


    Full files are up. There is a separate link to just the rules PDF but this zip has the army building and model stat files as well.

    http://www.dp9.com/content/heavy-gear-alpha-test-army-list-files

    edit: LOL.. to go with my earlier topic of conversation... adding an MAC to a Hunter bumps it up by two points in cost but adding an MAC to a much better warrior (ecm, better EW augment, 50% more sensors, one extra damage box for some reason for only 1TV more) only increases it by 1 so the better warrior costs the same as the hunter with an MAC. Sigh.. at least Dp9 is consistent.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/30 23:23:33


    Post by: ferrous


    http://www.dp9.com/content/more-traits-and-cataphract-review-plus-what-you-need-play

    Is the link for the curious. For the most part, it's all decent stuff. I see no mention of Top Speed or Stationary yet, which makes me wonder if they have been cut from the game. Which I'm not sure if I care overly much if they're gone, it certainly streamlines things quite a bit.



    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/30 23:29:42


    Post by: Albertorius


     warboss wrote:
    Full files are up. There is a separate link to just the rules PDF but this zip has the army building and model stat files as well.

    http://www.dp9.com/content/heavy-gear-alpha-test-army-list-files

    edit: LOL.. to go with my earlier topic of conversation... adding an MAC to a Hunter bumps it up by two points in cost but adding an MAC to a much better warrior (ecm, better EW augment, one extra damage box for some reason for only 1TV more) only increases it by 1 so the better warrior costs the same as the hunter with an MAC. Sigh.. at least Dp9 is consistent.



    Well, I guess I can't expect anything else, now can I...

    At least I can actually read the whole rules now.

    EDIT: Oh, nice, I see they absolutely want to add the term "mecha" to the game, however they can.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/30 23:30:12


    Post by: IceRaptor


     warboss wrote:

    edit: LOL.. to go with my earlier topic of conversation... adding an MAC to a Hunter bumps it up by two points in cost but adding an MAC to a much better warrior (ecm, better EW augment, one extra damage box for some reason for only 1TV more) only increases it by 1 so the better warrior costs the same as the hunter with an MAC. Sigh.. at least Dp9 is consistent.




    I need a bucket of Advil.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/30 23:31:53


    Post by: Albertorius


     IceRaptor wrote:
     warboss wrote:

    edit: LOL.. to go with my earlier topic of conversation... adding an MAC to a Hunter bumps it up by two points in cost but adding an MAC to a much better warrior (ecm, better EW augment, one extra damage box for some reason for only 1TV more) only increases it by 1 so the better warrior costs the same as the hunter with an MAC. Sigh.. at least Dp9 is consistent.




    I need a bucket of Advil.

    I feel your pain >_>


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/30 23:37:18


    Post by: warboss


     IceRaptor wrote:
     warboss wrote:

    edit: LOL.. to go with my earlier topic of conversation... adding an MAC to a Hunter bumps it up by two points in cost but adding an MAC to a much better warrior (ecm, better EW augment, one extra damage box for some reason for only 1TV more) only increases it by 1 so the better warrior costs the same as the hunter with an MAC. Sigh.. at least Dp9 is consistent.




    I need a bucket of Advil.


    I edited in after your post that the Warrior also has 50% longer ranged sensors. I don't have any problem with any of that as long as (again... just like before) they charge for it. That just happens to be a particular pet peeve of mine since the paxton pdf came out and it was literally the first thing I looked at (since as a play tester I had some access to this stuff before).

    I also see that the cheetah is still no more maneuverable than any other recon or elite gear (3+ pilot, agile trait) but still has less armor. It's now much easier to kill a cheetah than pretty much any other "modern" recon gear. That one I brought up several times to no avail. :(


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/30 23:40:55


    Post by: IceRaptor


    Albertorius wrote:
    ...it would appear that the 6d6 max limitation has been revoked.


    I knew of ways to get up to 8D6 or so in really extreme cases, but I wasn't aware of a 15D6 scenario (from the point of the rules around August timeframe). At least, not on a check (rolls are another kettle of fish). The intent was that most rolls would be in the 2D6-4D6 range, with 6D6 as an outlier (shot from directly behind, from an autocannon (or other +D6 weapon), in optimal range). Higher rolls you could get from command style actions, but only +1D or +2D.

    But then, I'm behind the curve, so I don't know for sure anymore. My knowledge is know nearly 6 months old, to make of it what you will.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/30 23:43:55


    Post by: Albertorius


     IceRaptor wrote:
    Albertorius wrote:
    ...it would appear that the 6d6 max limitation has been revoked.


    I knew of ways to get up to 8D6 or so in really extreme cases, but I wasn't aware of a 15D6 scenario (from the point of the rules around August timeframe). At least, not on a check (rolls are another kettle of fish). The intent was that most rolls would be in the 2D6-4D6 range, with 6D6 as an outlier (shot from directly behind, from an autocannon (or other +D6 weapon), in optimal range). Higher rolls you could get from command style actions, but only +1D or +2D.

    But then, I'm behind the curve, so I don't know for sure anymore. My knowledge is know nearly 6 months old, to make of it what you will.


    If it's any consolation, the files are attributed as such:

    Author: David McLeod (DP9 Staff) with special thanks and recognition to IceRaptor (it spells your name, but I don't know if you want it posted anywhere, so...).

    So, its his fault!


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/30 23:46:32


    Post by: IceRaptor


     warboss wrote:
    I edited in after your post that the Warrior also has 50% longer ranged sensors. I don't have any problem with any of that as long as (again... just like before) they charge for it. That just happens to be a particular pet peeve of mine since the paxton pdf came out and it was literally the first thing I looked at (since as a play tester I had some access to this stuff before).


    I don't want to get into too many specifics here... but generally speaking, more granular point costs would tend to 'mask' many of those as a single point. You can't just say 'X is worth +1' point anymore; you have to consider the model as the total package. So a MAC might be worth +0 points, and need another upgrade mechanism to keep balanced. It's largely (IMO) a preference call, as to how granular you make things, but one major problem with HG has always been the 'VCS' thinking.

    I'll agree that in your case, there's an obvious disparity. I just think the +2 for the MAC (even at +1) is probably too high. But that depends on the other models so...

    I should probably shutup and read the rules like everybody else


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/30 23:47:49


    Post by: warboss


     IceRaptor wrote:

    But then, I'm behind the curve, so I don't know for sure anymore. My knowledge is know nearly 6 months old, to make of it what you will.


    It's ok. You didn't miss much on the official playtesting mailing lists. The number of responses since May when you handed over the reigns can be counted up on one hand (and could have been counted on a single finger if not for my rather annoying requests for updates).


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/30 23:50:14


    Post by: IceRaptor


    Albertorius wrote:

    Author: David McLeod (DP9 Staff) with special thanks and recognition to IceRaptor (it spells your name, but I don't know if you want it posted anywhere, so...).

    So, its his fault!


    I don't mind being attributed in the least. And yeah, the flaws are probably my fault.

    I just can't tell you as much as you probably want to know, without making Dave's job harder. So... I'm trying to walk a fine line and talk about something I put alot of time into (cause I enjoyed it). But Dave is the game's god, and deserves the credit for the hard work he's done for nearly a year now.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
     warboss wrote:

    I also see that the cheetah is still no more maneuverable than any other recon or elite gear (3+ pilot, agile trait) but still has less armor. It's now much easier to kill a cheetah than pretty much any other "modern" recon gear. That one I brought up several times to no avail. :(


    To be fair, it's an open alpha - so hopefully this gets addressed now that it's opened up to a larger audience. Just keep plugging on the point, because yeah - Cheetahs should have something special (+1D6 to Pilot in the open, or 2+ Pilot against reaction fire would be nice).


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/30 23:58:24


    Post by: warboss


     IceRaptor wrote:
     warboss wrote:
    I edited in after your post that the Warrior also has 50% longer ranged sensors. I don't have any problem with any of that as long as (again... just like before) they charge for it. That just happens to be a particular pet peeve of mine since the paxton pdf came out and it was literally the first thing I looked at (since as a play tester I had some access to this stuff before).


    I don't want to get into too many specifics here... but generally speaking, more granular point costs would tend to 'mask' many of those as a single point. You can't just say 'X is worth +1' point anymore; you have to consider the model as the total package. So a MAC might be worth +0 points, and need another upgrade mechanism to keep balanced. It's largely (IMO) a preference call, as to how granular you make things, but one major problem with HG has always been the 'VCS' thinking.

    I'll agree that in your case, there's an obvious disparity. I just think the +2 for the MAC (even at +1) is probably too high. But that depends on the other models so...

    I should probably shutup and read the rules like everybody else


    I agree (not with the last part but the earlier) and even posted that over on the official thread (first time logging in for weeks). I understand it's less granular and it wouldn't be as big of a deal if the warrior was only better marginally in one or two ways (like 0d6 ecm with a better EW augment) but the addition of multiple other benefits pushes it over the limit of reasonable for me. I fully admit though that the mary sue-ish Paxton release and my interactions with the person responsible for it has me sensitized to that particular faction getting multiple things at once gratis. 1tv seems like a fair boost for 4 separate buffs (especially with the added and expanded role EW now plays in the rules). With the range of stats decreasing and the rules NOT being compatible, it seems like the perfect time to decide whether the warrior NEEDS to be that different from the hunter/jaeger and, if it does, to charge for that. 1tv is a fair price for all those abilities IMO and it disappears as soon as you upgrade.

    For those more knowledgable with the RPG, is there anything there to justify why the warrior has more damage boxes?


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/31 00:07:19


    Post by: IceRaptor


     warboss wrote:
    1tv is a fair price for all those abilities IMO and it disappears as soon as you upgrade.


    I agree? I was saying the +2 MAC upgrade on the Hunter smells wrong. I could (almost) buy +1 for it, with the Warrior being +1 and +2 (with the MAC) over the Hunter.

     warboss wrote:
    For those more knowledgable with the RPG, is there anything there to justify why the warrior has more damage boxes?


    No.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/31 00:10:49


    Post by: warboss


    Yeah, I know.. I just had to get that off my chest. I'll be good for a few hours now.

    Another thing to note for readers is the army selection as it is VASTLY different now. Models are broadly classified as a squad type(s) and you can mix/match whatever you want with that type to form a squad with a few limits. There basically, for instance, is no reason for you to ever field the stock Warrior as you can field every one with an MAC as long as you have the 1tv each (but that exacerbates TV issues like the one above). Albert, that should help significantly though with your FIF issues.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/31 00:14:00


    Post by: Albertorius


     IceRaptor wrote:

    I just can't tell you as much as you probably want to know, without making Dave's job harder. So... I'm trying to walk a fine line and talk about something I put alot of time into (cause I enjoyed it). But Dave is the game's god, and deserves the credit for the hard work he's done for nearly a year now.

    Oh, I understand completely, don't worry . You're already sharing more than enough.


     warboss wrote:

    I also see that the cheetah is still no more maneuverable than any other recon or elite gear (3+ pilot, agile trait) but still has less armor. It's now much easier to kill a cheetah than pretty much any other "modern" recon gear. That one I brought up several times to no avail. :(


    To be fair, it's an open alpha - so hopefully this gets addressed now that it's opened up to a larger audience. Just keep plugging on the point, because yeah - Cheetahs should have something special (+1D6 to Pilot in the open, or 2+ Pilot against reaction fire would be nice).

    According to the files, the Cheetah is Acrobatic (reroll attacks and defenses in melee) and Agile (+1D6 to defend against attacks if not in Cover). So there's that, I guess.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/31 00:18:41


    Post by: warboss


    Albertorius wrote:

    According to the files, the Cheetah is Acrobatic (reroll attacks and defenses in melee) and Agile (+1D6 to defend against attacks if not in Cover). So there's that, I guess.


    Yup.. most every recon and elite gear is agile and half are acrobatic. Acrobatic only helps though in close combat and agile is only out of cover. In any case, a leagueless cheetah standing next to a leagueless iggy in the same squad being hit by lets say an area effect MAC spray will *ALWAYS* take more damage and not avoid the shot any more than the iggy or Jaguar. They kept the paper thin armor and low damage boxes compared with all other gears but got rid of the boost to avoiding the shots. Don't get me wrong.. it's still agile but it's no more agile than half the other stuff out there which is a fundamental change to everything about the cheetah since the 1st edition RPG release. Pilot ratings go from 2 to 6 but no gear (at least earlier in the playtest.. haven't had the chance to check every file this time) has a 2+. If there ever was a gear that should, it would be the cheetah. I'm aware of the old L&L and original blitz issues of unhittable cheetahs but the idea of a cheetah (which is still as fragile as a wet tissue) being no more maneuverable in ranged combat as a jaguar strikes me as odd when there is an unused mechanic that fits the fluff perfectly. To my knowledge, it was never attempted (as opposed to attempted and then abandoned due to issues).


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/31 00:20:37


    Post by: Albertorius


     warboss wrote:

    For those more knowledgable with the RPG, is there anything there to justify why the warrior has more damage boxes?

    None whatsoever. In the RPG, the only things that made the Warrior slightly different were 50 km more of range, marginally better range (not quality) on the sensors and comms suite, and ECM 1. Well, and a price tag substantially higher due to being in limited production instead of mass production.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
     warboss wrote:
    Albertorius wrote:

    According to the files, the Cheetah is Acrobatic (reroll attacks and defenses in melee) and Agile (+1D6 to defend against attacks if not in Cover). So there's that, I guess.


    Yup.. most every recon and elite gear is agile and half are acrobatic. Acrobatic only helps though in close combat and agile is only out of cover. In any case, a leagueless cheetah standing next to a leagueless iggy in the same squad being hit by lets say an area effect MAC spray will *ALWAYS* take more damage and not avoid the shot any more than the iggy or Jaguar. They kept the paper thin armor and low damage boxes compared with all other gears but got rid of the boost to avoiding the shots. Don't get me wrong.. it's still agile but it's no more agile than half the other stuff out there which is a fundamental change to everything about the cheetah since the 1st edition RPG release.


    Ah, yeah. Cheetahs should be the most unhittable unit in the game. That said, Maybe the problem is that +1 Man units shouldn't be Agile. I mean, if an Iggy is Agile, why aren't agiles the Jaguar and BM too?

    EDIT: oh, wait, they are too. Gah.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/31 00:24:26


    Post by: IceRaptor


     warboss wrote:
    Acrobatic only helps though in close combat and agile is only out of cover.


    Agile was only supposed to apply to the Cheetah & Raven, I thought? The Iggy's 3+ DEF was already enough of a benefit, with the better armor. C'est la vie.

     warboss wrote:
    In any case, a leagueless cheetah standing next to a leagueless iggy in the same squad being hit by lets say an area effect MAC spray will *ALWAYS* take more damage and not avoid the shot any more than the iggy or Jaguar.


    MAC spray? I feel like I need the Gandalf meme right now. WTF is a MAC spray? We got rid of sprays... right?


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/31 00:30:14


    Post by: warboss


     IceRaptor wrote:
     warboss wrote:
    Acrobatic only helps though in close combat and agile is only out of cover.


    Agile was only supposed to apply to the Cheetah & Raven, I thought? The Iggy's 3+ DEF was already enough of a benefit, with the better armor. C'est la vie.

     warboss wrote:
    In any case, a leagueless cheetah standing next to a leagueless iggy in the same squad being hit by lets say an area effect MAC spray will *ALWAYS* take more damage and not avoid the shot any more than the iggy or Jaguar.


    MAC spray? I feel like I need the Gandalf meme right now. WTF is a MAC spray? We got rid of sprays... right?


    From a quick look, the mamba, jaguar, gila, and iguana and their variants (except MP) are all agile. The Warrior IV is apparently of the pre-elite upgrade variety as it is not and the Fer de Lance missed out (that should make AL13N happy). I didn't check nucoal yet.

    You know what I mean by spray! Burst.

    edit: Just took a peek at the grog forum since I haven't logged in for a few weeks. It's practically a ghost town with the last post on Jan 6. Wow... Also, I was hoping that there would be news somewhere about the Northern PDF release but no such luck. I had thought DP9 would have put that out first to make some money.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/31 00:56:17


    Post by: ferrous


    http://dp9.com.s3.amazonaws.com/downloads/HGBv5-AlphaRulesUpdatedJan31_final.pdf

    Heh, lots of typos, also a DP9 staple. Still reading, some stuff I'm sad to see go, like scattered AE attacks. I would've preferred just simplifying them greatly (via a template or scatter die), but oh well.


    No more Some Cover (for the best), detection is greatly simplified, as is trying to get an Active Lock. There is a lot of good so far, though obviously by playing some weaknesses may be revealed. The "Some stuff gets to not spend an action to go top speed under varying sets of circumstances but still has the Top Speed penalty" rule should just get cut, it doesn't seem worth the complexity. Ramming looks like it could be nutty at first glance, but I didn't look that deeply.

    Thank the lords, melee range has been reduced!

    Sweet, they took the Fast turret / Turret changes I posted about. Though that could've just been convergent thinking (AKA great minds think alike).

    Not sure I like the new Crossfire rule, just seems to compound a flanking attack, as opposed to rewarding the player for positioning their units for a crossfire.

    Offboard support is clunky and unnecessary, and should be axed IMHO.

    I'm glad to see the JetPack rule, but why, why make it so complicated, just do what GW does. X movement, up to X height. So much easier.


    Ugh, Recovery Vehicle trait does not belong in the game. gak should not be getting repaired mid battle. (oh nm, its for persistent effects like haywire, and fire, slightly better)


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/31 01:41:12


    Post by: warboss


    I'm glad they added intentional ramming as it was something that was missing and I commented on earlier. Just note though that the mislabeled Fragile/Exposed Movement System trait on hovertanks combined with the lack of anything like the ram plate and no melee weapons makes them particularly vulnerable to ramming.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/31 02:16:28


    Post by: ferrous


    And onto the army lists. First CEF.

    Yay, it looks like F6-16s might be useful, though possibly too expensive? Though it's weird that they have been given Pulse Lasers, that was always traditionally a Terra Novan weapon. I am happy, however to see them with an LPA as an option.

    Also, it looks like no GREL skill/perk/trait differentiation? So GREL pilots are basically indistinguishable, which is a shame. On the other hand FLAIL ANN is now decent. The BF2-21 Support option is armed wtih a PL-7, whatever that is. That supposed to be a LPL?


    As an aside, I really hate the formatting style of (Pen-5), a colon would look better IMHO (Pen:5), as it's not a modifier.

    I couldn't find a definition for Exposed Movement anywhere? EDIT: In the FAQ, it' Fragile, I guess they didn't do a find/replace =)


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    Or Precise, what the heck does that mean? -- EDIT: Found it.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    And on to the South.

    I dislike that the Hetaroi gets the same armor as a HT72. The Het, to me, was always supposed to be a hybrid of a LHT and a HT, a MHT basically.

    (And on a side note, no improved rear defense trait? That's gonna hurt the HT-7X series...)


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/31 02:43:31


    Post by: Killionaire


    Interesting. This is a substantial departure, and will require quite a bit of study before a judgement is made. A few things certainly make sense when just glancing over what a profile looks like now. Won't make any judgements quite yet.

    One thing to note regarding 'Mecha'. It probably is there now to also classify TN Gears as the same class as stuff like Frames and Armigers.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/31 02:58:45


    Post by: warboss


    ferrous wrote:


    I dislike that the Hetaroi gets the same armor as a HT72. The Het, to me, was always supposed to be a hybrid of a LHT and a HT, a MHT basically.

    (And on a side note, no improved rear defense trait? That's gonna hurt the HT-7X series...)


    In a way, they actually have it. The earlier tanks have flank 2d6 when the "standard" is 1d6, making flanking more dangerous. The fact that the more advanced earth tanks lack that disadvantage makes them less vulnerable (or at least not extra vulnerable like most non-gears).


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/31 03:19:10


    Post by: ferrous




    Good Point.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/31 03:32:44


    Post by: Ronin_eX


    Well, first things first, I'm glad the system has moved all the way to being a low-sum point system. It is far easier to playtest and tweak when you aren't arguing whether something feels better at 31, 32 or 33 points (but definitely not 34, way too high damn it!). It makes weird imbalances like the Vanguard Warrior vs. the Hunter/Jäger Gunner stand out a lot and also gets you to take a good look at the upgrade itself.

    My gut is that the base Warrior looks mostly fine but should become 5/1 or 4/2 (the latter justifiable by all that fancy tech in it). The improved EW, better sensors and ECM would be fine for the +1 point above the Hunter/Jäger.

    The LAC->MAC upgradge itself feels almost right. Part of me is thinking that it works well as a point filler and a Pen7 Burst 1 weapon is fairly nice to have for a trooper. But I'm not sure if that change alone is worth it.

    But at the very least a 7 point Warrior without the weird survivability bump and 7 point Gunner variants for the Hunter/Jäger make sense.

    I'm liking the CEF changes. A lot of useless point sinks have disappeared and made them easier to build for. You can make F6-16 squads again without spending points on any BF-series Frames. Mission packs are also gone, so no automatic points bumps just for taking frames in the first place. And looking at the F6-16 for 8 points, you get something that it a competent sniper for a reasonable price. Its combination of long-range main gun and Fast should allow it to play the range game quite nicely. The introduction of light guided weapons meshes better with our force's style than the omni-present rocket packs we used to carry.

    That said, unless I am misreading it, it appears Hover Tanks are back to being a minimum unit of 2 (still need to read deeper but our minimum ACT total for a squad is 4 and they only have 3 each). This will definitely make them hard to fit in smaller games again if true (again, not sure if their is an exception that I'm missing).

    But overall, a lot of CEF's "cheap" units got more affordable by not having to pay various taxes. So low-point games should be quite do-able for us. And a quick glance at Frames has me thinking they aren't too bad. Definitely a force that relies on mutual support and range control, but the amount of long range and guided weaponry in there should help things out.

    Still need to play it, but I am cautiously positive that they are headed in the right direction there.

    Edit - Oh, and it looks like Haywire actually does something now! Particle Accelerators may not be pariah-weapons anymore. A decent hit from an HPA will cause something telling at the very least. Most lighter units will probably be shut down by even an MOS1 attack. And testing against EW means that a lot of units have a weaker defense against it than normal. It actually plays in to the mutual support angle as well. Pop a shot of at a unit and pin it in place for a round and let the rest of your forces pick it apart. Interesting, and a lot better than being a low-damage weapon with a small chance of causing very little extra.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/31 04:06:59


    Post by: Killionaire


    First Impressions on a skim:
    Movement is surprisingly refreshing. Much simpler. I like having full speed be just 'two movement actions'. Terrain is MUCH more sensible, same with cover.

    Thank god also for the 'standard LoS model'. It makes the game so much more playable for weird shaped models or dynamically posed ones.

    Active Detection and the concealment/stealth model are WAY better. I particularly like that 'Going Active' merely extends your normal sight, but also makes you very visible

    Edit: Interesting that they changed some names and designations to reduce confusion. For example, a Northern 'Destroyer' Gear is one with a bazooka. So now the old 'Strike Jaguar' is a 'Destroyer Jaguar', since that configuration is equipped with a bazooka.
    Likewise, the Terran Heavy Hovertanks (HT-68 and HT-72) are now designated (MHT-68 and MHT-72), to differentiate them from the HHT-90. Incidentally, the words 'Naval Destroyer Landship' appear in a passage regarding large units.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/31 04:20:37


    Post by: Ronin_eX


    Oh wait, I think solo MHT's are available via Regimental Support. I probably shouldn't be reading all of this out of order.

    Nice way off balancing that out actually. Solo hovertanks were a great way of getting an extra activation. We can still grab 'em, but now they are attached to another unit.

    Not a bad trade off. I'll have to make a few ultra-low point lists now to see if I like the variety. A 50 point list with a bit of unit variety should be quite do-able without having to bend over backwards (well outside of likely being Frame-heavy). Man, it will be a brand new experience not needing 5 books to make a CEF list.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/31 04:33:25


    Post by: ferrous


    Yeah, overall, its mostly good, especially for CEF, Caprice also looks playable now. Someone pointed out on the forum that they moved Blazing Mambas to SnakeEyes. Which is a weird choice.

    It's funny that they have yet again mucked up the point costs, and stock Sidewinders now cost the same as a Jager with a MAC upgrade. Oops =) I think they could get away with just having the MAC upgrade cost 1 for troopers to fix it. (Though I'm hazarding a guess that it might've started at that and gotten bumped in a recent revision)






    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/31 04:48:28


    Post by: warboss


    Eh, just take a warrior with an MAC instead for the same price. You get added survivability and some free EW to boot!


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/31 04:53:59


    Post by: Ronin_eX


    Yeah, point costs will need fiddling, but given the point framework they are using that is actually fairly easy once you get down to it.

    And I will give these rules one thing. It used to take me 5-10 minutes to wind through the byzantine options and create a single squad with some diversity to it. I've been building a few 50 point test lists and they have all gone together incredibly fast. Just plug in the units I want, take the variants and at the end, any left-overs can be tweaked with generic options.

    It felt really fast and clean but still felt like it was giving me interesting choices. And hurray for being able to have small games again. This just drove the start up cost waaaaaaaaaay down. No more futzing about with priority and minimum limits on slots, etc. And removing the mandatory TV tax on Commanding Officers has helped a lot (how many CEF players spent hours juggling points only to reach the end and realize they didn't save enough for the damn CO...).

    Now you can actually just grab a squad box and use it in a game without having to hack the army creation rules.

    This is, so far, probably the best change they could have made. Now, just need to make sure 50TV games actually result in some fun and we're cooking with jet fuel.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/31 04:57:45


    Post by: ferrous


    Oh and I still hate the PRDF power armor. Why do they have equal stats compared to FLAIL infantry? And at like 3 points less, and they come with better weapons by default. (Oh the FLAILs get one more action, so there is that)


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/31 05:08:57


    Post by: warboss


    The army building is indeed much simpler and improved but it's also very prone to abuse when you have such (at least from my preliminary scan) differences between same value units that are so one sided (as opposed to comparing a FS gear to a light tank which are quite different).


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/31 05:28:28


    Post by: ferrous


     warboss wrote:
    The army building is indeed much simpler and improved but it's also very prone to abuse when you have such (at least from my preliminary scan) differences between same value units that are so one sided (as opposed to comparing a FS gear to a light tank which are quite different).


    Yeah, it's a double edged sword. Because it's so loosey goosey, one can pile on the unbalanced units. On the other hand, it's so loose and low points that it's pretty easy to see where things are not balanced. Hopefully that means that the playtesters will all find things like the Jager with a MAC costing the same as a Sidewinder.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/31 05:31:13


    Post by: Ronin_eX


    Oh, definitely, point values need cleaning up. But HGB has previously been just as unbalanced despite having the most headache inducing army creation system ever. So as I see it, they've improved ease of actually getting in to the game. Point values can and will (hopefully) change a lot over the course of testing. But getting such a streamlined structure down for list creation means that getting a test game in wont make me want to cause harm to myself.

    It also has the added bonus of not obfuscating a unit's actual cost behind a wall stepped upgrades. So there will be less instances of people not noticing a daft cost because it had a serpentine upgrade path.

    Streamlined structure makes for streamlined testing makes for better testing. I think the army creation system and general presentation just makes actually playing the game to test it so much easier. This is the kind of system the game has been looking for for a while. The traps and point inconsistencies existed before, but now they are incredibly easy to spot once you get dozens of pairs of eyes on 'em (and even harder to dispute due to the point values being used - I doubt anyone would defend the Hunter/Jäger Gunner cost when comparing it to other 8-pointers).

    If this playtest actually takes internal and external feedback seriously, there is no reason we can't get a good enough balance going now. It definitely isn't there yet and will need way more testing before it is ready to even stamp Beta on its name, but if the designers are willing to listen to the community this time around, I think we have the right structure in place to make fixes and changes as painless as possible. At the very least, 2015 is still a while off and I think this is a pretty good showing for an early draft. Now they just need to keep at it and keep fixing things that don't work and using the things that do as examples for the rest.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/31 05:32:04


    Post by: Killionaire


    One could also implement some sort of rarity system, to prevent some insane spams. Just a simple limit on number of models per force, which can be adjusted by sub-factions (IE, NorLight forces can get many more cheetahs, reduced number of something else, like Arrow Jaguars)
    So, like for every some-number of TV, you can only have up to X Mambas, Y Iguanas, Z Cobras...

    The values can be fairly high. If you have 10 gears, you likely don't need 8 of them to be a very specific model of Cobra.

    It also does grant some degree of value to 'utterly redundant' units like say, the Dingo. Instead of just being worse than a Koala for the same cost, it now replaces Koala #4 and 5, if you are only allowed 3x Koalas.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/31 05:39:43


    Post by: Ronin_eX


    I believe the rules even talk about availability limits being a thing. My guess is that they just aren't in this early draft yet (well it might be, haven't looked at every list yet).


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/31 06:06:19


    Post by: ferrous


    Well, looking at the dp9 public alpha test forums, Blazing Mambas were an accidental omission. While I'm disheartened that they somehow forgot one of the more popular Mambas (Do they have no South playtesters?), I am however, happy to see Dave engaging and reacting.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/31 06:10:51


    Post by: warboss


    In their defence (which is rare coming from me), the playtesting to date (when it was being done prior to LAST gencon after which the official mailing list was largely abandoned by dp9) was mainly about getting the basic mechanics to work and not unit vs unit or model testing.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/31 06:13:15


    Post by: Killionaire


    Yeah, with a ruleset in this current state, unit v unit is not the point quite yet.

    Just worry about the core mechanics, their flow, and fundamental game balance in terms of overall mechanics. (Ie, is 'Stealth' good or bad or OP,)


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/31 07:34:25


    Post by: HudsonD


    I haven't yet finished the files, but if any of you were wondering if DP9 is going to value balancing more, here's the answer :

    Yes, not all upgrades are equal between factions. This is a reality that will be emphasized by the play test. You might notice that Peace river has cheap upgrades and some really bonkers guns. Might have something to do with who they are as a faction.

    http://dp9forum.com/index.php?showtopic=15888&p=279713

    So, the rules might have improved, and we know who to thank for that, but the DP9 attitude remains...


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/31 07:50:41


    Post by: ferrous


     HudsonD wrote:
    I haven't yet finished the files, but if any of you were wondering if DP9 is going to value balancing more, here's the answer :

    Yes, not all upgrades are equal between factions. This is a reality that will be emphasized by the play test. You might notice that Peace river has cheap upgrades and some really bonkers guns. Might have something to do with who they are as a faction.

    http://dp9forum.com/index.php?showtopic=15888&p=279713

    So, the rules might have improved, and we know who to thank for that, but the DP9 attitude remains...


    I'd be okay with that if for example, PRDF base models were more expensive or they had some other form of disadvantage that made up for the fact that they can get weapon upgrades for cheaper. But, looking at the list, it currently doesn't appear that way. Granted, so far, the main problem that stands out glaringly is that 2TV MAC upgrade for Polar trooper gears.

    EDIT: Also, PRDF is getting a crap ton of new models, and dammit all, why is it every damned new faction is getting a walker with Hover?


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/31 09:16:40


    Post by: Albertorius


    ferrous wrote:
     HudsonD wrote:
    I haven't yet finished the files, but if any of you were wondering if DP9 is going to value balancing more, here's the answer :

    Yes, not all upgrades are equal between factions. This is a reality that will be emphasized by the play test. You might notice that Peace river has cheap upgrades and some really bonkers guns. Might have something to do with who they are as a faction.

    http://dp9forum.com/index.php?showtopic=15888&p=279713

    So, the rules might have improved, and we know who to thank for that, but the DP9 attitude remains...


    I'd be okay with that if for example, PRDF base models were more expensive or they had some other form of disadvantage that made up for the fact that they can get weapon upgrades for cheaper. But, looking at the list, it currently doesn't appear that way. Granted, so far, the main problem that stands out glaringly is that 2TV MAC upgrade for Polar trooper gears.

    Agreed. If they are exactly the same, they should not cost differently because you say so.

    EDIT: Also, PRDF is getting a crap ton of new models, and dammit all, why is it every damned new faction is getting a walker with Hover?

    To that question, and to a lot of others, like:

    Why the "special" costs to PRDF?
    Why all the 0TV upgrades?
    Why Gearstriders?
    Why "MECHA"?

    the answer seems to be along the lines of "because **ck you, that's why", so... <shrug>

    EDIT: The good thing, though, is that I don't really care about the army lists at all. If they work, great, but if they don't... meh, with a workable enough core, I'll redo them myself. It's not like I'm ever going to play an official tournament, so I really could not care less.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/31 14:24:47


    Post by: warboss


    Albertorius wrote:
    ferrous wrote:
     HudsonD wrote:
    I haven't yet finished the files, but if any of you were wondering if DP9 is going to value balancing more, here's the answer :

    Yes, not all upgrades are equal between factions. This is a reality that will be emphasized by the play test. You might notice that Peace river has cheap upgrades and some really bonkers guns. Might have something to do with who they are as a faction.

    http://dp9forum.com/index.php?showtopic=15888&p=279713

    So, the rules might have improved, and we know who to thank for that, but the DP9 attitude remains...


    I'd be okay with that if for example, PRDF base models were more expensive or they had some other form of disadvantage that made up for the fact that they can get weapon upgrades for cheaper. But, looking at the list, it currently doesn't appear that way. Granted, so far, the main problem that stands out glaringly is that 2TV MAC upgrade for Polar trooper gears.

    Agreed. If they are exactly the same, they should not cost differently because you say so.

    EDIT: Also, PRDF is getting a crap ton of new models, and dammit all, why is it every damned new faction is getting a walker with Hover?

    To that question, and to a lot of others, like:

    Why the "special" costs to PRDF?
    Why all the 0TV upgrades?
    Why Gearstriders?
    Why "MECHA"?

    the answer seems to be along the lines of "because **ck you, that's why", so... <shrug>

    EDIT: The good thing, though, is that I don't really care about the army lists at all. If they work, great, but if they don't... meh, with a workable enough core, I'll redo them myself. It's not like I'm ever going to play an official tournament, so I really could not care less.


    So far I didn't see an answer to my follow up question of "If they get upgrades cheaper and gonzo choices as a faction strength, what are their faction weaknesses?". When I asked something similar after the release of the Paxton PDF in relation to the relative crapping on the South got, the offical playtesting channel answer I got was variety and choice. Yes, why paxton only gets free skill boosts, common gear stat boosts, lower cost weapon upgrades, and multiple free special rules... it's ok because the South's special ability is the option for you to buy more models that may have different options. Ughh... If and when the north PDF comes out, I'll be able to elaborate on the discussion on fairness between factions a bit more. Out of curiosity, does anyone know what faction Robert Dubois plays or used to play/favor?

    I only cherry picked a few examples (the warrior is my pet peeve from the recent paxton release and a prime example of favoritism for certain factions whereas the cheetah is a glaring change that I brought up unsuccessfully on the playtesting lists amongst other things) but I'll go over them a bit more in the coming week as the focus previously was not on the models/factions but core rules.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/31 14:42:13


    Post by: HudsonD


     warboss wrote:

    So far I didn't see an answer to my follow up question of "If they get upgrades cheaper and gonzo choices as a faction strength, what are their faction weaknesses?". When I asked something similar after the release of the Paxton PDF in relation to the relative crapping on the South got, the offical playtesting channel answer I got was variety and choice. Yes, why paxton only gets free skill boosts, common gear stat boosts, lower cost weapon upgrades, and multiple free special rules... it's ok because the South's special ability is the option for you to buy more models that may have different options. Ughh...

    If and when the north PDF comes out, I'll be able to elaborate on the discussion on fairness between factions a bit more.
    Don't jinx it !
     warboss wrote:

    Out of curiosity, does anyone know what faction Robert Dubois plays or used to play/favor?
    As far as I know, none.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/31 15:03:04


    Post by: Balance


     warboss wrote:
    Out of curiosity, does anyone know what faction Robert Dubois plays or used to play/favor?


    Last time I saw him play a game at Gen Con ti was a Southern tank/strider-heavy army, I believe. That was probably 3-4 years ago, though.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/31 16:45:35


    Post by: warboss


    Thanks. I was curious if there was more than one source of Paxton favoritism over at DP9.

    In any case, the more I look at the gears (especially the aforementioned cheetah and warrior), the more disappointed I am that history will repeat itself just with an incompatible ruleset invalidating all bought books. Since I was a playtester, most of the mechanics aren't new to me but I'll be giving the files a better look over this weekend. The core rules do have alot of promise as do the more open army building rules but that openness just exacerbates inequities between model builds.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/31 18:33:30


    Post by: Albertorius


     warboss wrote:
    Thanks. I was curious if there was more than one source of Paxton favoritism over at DP9.

    In any case, the more I look at the gears (especially the aforementioned cheetah and warrior), the more disappointed I am that history will repeat itself just with an incompatible ruleset invalidating all bought books. Since I was a playtester, most of the mechanics aren't new to me but I'll be giving the files a better look over this weekend. The core rules do have alot of promise as do the more open army building rules but that openness just exacerbates inequities between model builds.

    That's actually a good thing, as I can certainly do some lists to show it. And hammer it down as many times as it's needed.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/31 19:08:28


    Post by: Balance


    Just as a quick note, thanks for people like Albertorious (and others) who went back to the dp9forums to give their views on the HGBAlpha.

    I have no special input into development, but I will do my best to not block, delete comment, or otherwise impede reasoned discussion on the dp9 forums.

    (Check out my posts... I have a number of issues as well, albeit more with presentation and canon at this point.)


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/31 19:23:14


    Post by: warboss


    I appreciate it. I've never had an issue with the moderation on the forums.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/31 19:37:44


    Post by: UN Test Pilot


    So far I didn't see an answer to my follow up question of "If they get upgrades cheaper and gonzo choices as a faction strength, what are their faction weaknesses?". When I asked something similar after the release of the Paxton PDF in relation to the relative crapping on the South got, the offical playtesting channel answer I got was variety and choice. Yes, why paxton only gets free skill boosts, common gear stat boosts, lower cost weapon upgrades, and multiple free special rules... it's ok because the South's special ability is the option for you to buy more models that may have different options. Ughh... If and when the north PDF comes out, I'll be able to elaborate on the discussion on fairness between factions a bit more. Out of curiosity, does anyone know what faction Robert Dubois plays or used to play/favor?

    I only cherry picked a few examples (the warrior is my pet peeve from the recent paxton release and a prime example of favoritism for certain factions whereas the cheetah is a glaring change that I brought up unsuccessfully on the playtesting lists amongst other things) but I'll go over them a bit more in the coming week as the focus previously was not on the models/factions but core rules.


    Don't forget you were also told the Leadership upgrade was because all the Southern factions have generally poor leadership, while it's a big part of the PRDF.

    I am still trying to get a good answer on the Black Box Iggy, his answer that the Blazing Mamba got omitted was weird, then the stats posted for it had it equipped with a MRP. I know issues about the Blazing Mamba's cost have always been off, but stating the Water Dragon is not a support strider is also weird.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/31 21:56:39


    Post by: Albertorius


    Balance wrote:Just as a quick note, thanks for people like Albertorious (and others) who went back to the dp9forums to give their views on the HGBAlpha.

    I have no special input into development, but I will do my best to not block, delete comment, or otherwise impede reasoned discussion on the dp9 forums.

    (Check out my posts... I have a number of issues as well, albeit more with presentation and canon at this point.)

    Thank you, Balance. I've seen your issues, and in general seem quite sensible to me.

    warboss wrote:I appreciate it. I've never had an issue with the moderation on the forums.

    I've had issues once. And a conversation with Balance promptly solved them.

    UN Test Pilot wrote:Don't forget you were also told the Leadership upgrade was because all the Southern factions have generally poor leadership, while it's a big part of the PRDF.

    I am still trying to get a good answer on the Black Box Iggy, his answer that the Blazing Mamba got omitted was weird, then the stats posted for it had it equipped with a MRP. I know issues about the Blazing Mamba's cost have always been off, but stating the Water Dragon is not a support strider is also weird.

    I'm hoping (maybe [possibly]) against hope that they'll listen to the people's issues instead of forging on with their own true vision regardless of the player's opinions, common sense or sanity.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/31 22:54:16


    Post by: Balance


    Albertorius wrote:
    I'm hoping (maybe [possibly]) against hope that they'll listen to the people's issues instead of forging on with their own true vision regardless of the player's opinions, common sense or sanity.


    As do I. I considered posting something about the need to be willing to take criticism and, when necessary, throw elements of the game under the metaphorical bus. Dave has done this some, but I think there's still lost opportunities, at the moment, to improve things. One simple suggestion I haven't seen a response on is to throw out the PRDF power armor that was just added, doesn't have a model, and doesn't really fit into the setting.

    My primary concern, to be honest, is the army building. I've proposed an alternate method to encourage a workflow similar to what FoW uses, but with a more formal 'structure' and some expectations. Initial release would probably be somewhat boring and bland 'generic' lists, but with immediate (and monthly) plans to do web-released focused lists based of the canon units and such. Adopt a formal structure (so it's easy to say if a write-up of a specific unit is early beta, late beta, 'Official', etc. for tournament-style play) and (importantly) keep producing and revising stuff. I might even be willing to say "Army lists? Go online for the basic ones. No printing them in the book so you're not paying for soon-to-be-obsolete paper" with the idea that the current lists should be weighted towards 'uninspiring' to encourage adoption of the more fun lists that need to start being developed now and release monthly (in beta form) as soon as the rules are done. I don't think this plan is going to be adopted, not in any meaningful way, but i hold out hope.

    I'm in a weird position. Dave is the 3rd 'big cheese' as far as game development for DP9 I've seen in my time doing stuff for the company. He's a good guy, but I worry he's repeating a few mistakes of his predecessors as well as making a few new ones. I try to make suggestions (that are more back-end than the current discussion) and have reached the point where I've had to step away for a week or two here and there.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/01/31 23:12:05


    Post by: ncshooter426


     HudsonD wrote:


    Miniature cost is very much a part of the problem. A single Drake costs 50 $US, which is more than a GW SM dreadnought, for only a fraction of the size. A vanilla GP squad costs the same price as a tactical squad, for half the minis. A single Visigoth costs 30$, 3/4 of a Razorback, despite the fact it would look more at home in Epic than 40K. The army books are 60$, which is the price for a full hardcover 400 pages book in most other lines. I could go on and on, you get the point. DP9's prices are very high, on par with GWs. If you can't see how this is a problem, I guess it's a lost cause.


    I'd like to throw my .02 in here. I don't feel it's a fair comparison.. you are trying to equate size to dollars. That isn't really fair, given that they're inherently different scales and the model counts between the games is drastically different. That vanilla GP squad of metal mini's is the same price as a squad of *plastic* marines. If I'm going to start comparing the absurdity that mini wargaming companies charge - then suddenly my 18$ Kodiak looks rather cheap compared to the 17$ single battle sister w/ heavy bolter. It's all very expensive no matter how you slice it, and through just sheer troop count, I think all my 40K stuff ends up being more than my HG stuff. The printed books are pricy, and the ebooks are very nice but still a tad overpriced for electronics (of course...after recently having to buy the SoB e-codex, suddenly it looks normal).

    Getting cheaper mini's isn't going to happen for us unfortunately (I'd love for it to happen...but not crossing fingers). And if I'm honest, I can forgive a smaller company charging a bit more to stay alive vs. a massive IP hungry entity who's infrastructure allowed the churning of plastics for pennies on the dollar.

    I like both games, and the fluff behind them. I've really enjoyed painting up my gears (pinning them? not so much...) so if nothing else, they've provided the timesink from that aspect.

    o7


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/02/01 14:43:37


    Post by: HudsonD


    Meh.
    I like what I've read, it's unfinished, but it's got potential.

    If it wasn't DP9, I'd be actually hopeful. Unfortunately, they have a rare talent to turn gold into lead, so... Yeah.
    Maybe I'll be surprised. Probably not, says my mind.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/02/01 18:01:50


    Post by: warboss


    What do you guys think of the expanded EW rules? I rather like them (despite the typical ability of paxton to abuse/spam them for no cost). A squad of 5 vanguard warriors can now have one model generate cover for the whole squad with his ECM via SI (pg 64) for the low, low price of nothing. Geez, the more I read the rules, the more I find Paxton to be broken yet again. Sorry, I know I'm harping but the expanded roll of EW really makes a EW augment boost AND ECM trait (even at 0d6) on TOP of 50% greater sensors IN ADDITION to extra damage boxes just plain ridiculous for 0 TV. There is a good case for the warrior (haven't looked at the other more advanced models like Warrior IV yet) to start at 8tv with the huge versatility you get with EW. To stay at 7tv base, the EW augment needs to stay at 6 like the hunter/jaeger and the 50% greater sensor range needs to go if the extra damage box stays. Or, just simply drop it to a normal hunter/jaeger and add 0d6 ECM with NO other differences and charge the same cost. It'll still be better but not ridiculously so.

    A squad of Warriors will out detect you (50% greater sensor range), can BLOCK you from seeing them even if you get within your own range, can generate cover for themselves out in the open, and take more incoming fire even if you somehow manage to get shots off despite all the above.

    Pg. 65

    "Forward Observation and Comm boosting are the only EW actions that any model with at least an EW rating of 6+ can participate in. This is intentional to emphasize that it is recon and command models that use there actions regularly, not rank and file Gears!"

    Dave needs to add "Except for Paxton because they get to break the rules for 0TV."


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/02/01 20:26:06


    Post by: ferrous


    Yeah, my biggest complaint in general with the new rules is the PRDF.

    I'm actually happy to see that low ECM is handy to have on the Warrior, as opposed to being patched out of previous versions of Blitz because they couldn't figure out how to make it useful.

    But the point costs and new toys that PRDF is getting is over the top. I'm not sure how much if it is, "New Designer plays PRDF only, so is totally biased", or just because they got a new update last in the old system, so are the current overpowered kids on the block. (Like Nucoal and the South were before them)


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/02/01 21:12:00


    Post by: Ronin_eX


    Yeah EW being relevant is awesome. Paxton getting tons of it for little apparent cost is silly.

    The more I read, the more the Warrior needs to get bumped down in capability. Way to versatile at +1TV for the base model, and WAY to cheap when Vanguard models are compared to Gunners.

    Dumping it down to 6TV with only +0d6 ECM and a 4/2 DC profile seems better. Not as sturdy as a Hunter/Jäger due to the extra EW gear, but has a bit more overall utility. And Gunner/Vanguard should be +1TV with the possibility of packaging a bit more with it since +1TV may still be too much for just a MAC.

    But the Warrior almost certainly gets too much for the cost and shouldn't be too much more than a Hunter with an ECM package added.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/02/01 21:47:52


    Post by: wildger


     Balance wrote:

    My primary concern, to be honest, is the army building.


    You are not the only one. I do not like the way it is set up in FiF and the new PDRF at all.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/02/01 22:39:11


    Post by: Balance


    wildger wrote:
     Balance wrote:

    My primary concern, to be honest, is the army building.


    You are not the only one. I do not like the way it is set up in FiF and the new PDRF at all.


    I'm talking about the new Alpha rules, not FiF or the PRDF rules. Althoguh those do have issues, too, which I think this is an opportunity to fix without losing the 'good parts' which the current system does.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    (Good parts being purely in my opinion, of course.)


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/02/01 23:35:10


    Post by: warboss


     Ronin_eX wrote:
    Yeah EW being relevant is awesome. Paxton getting tons of it for little apparent cost is silly.

    The more I read, the more the Warrior needs to get bumped down in capability. Way to versatile at +1TV for the base model, and WAY to cheap when Vanguard models are compared to Gunners.

    Dumping it down to 6TV with only +0d6 ECM and a 4/2 DC profile seems better. Not as sturdy as a Hunter/Jäger due to the extra EW gear, but has a bit more overall utility. And Gunner/Vanguard should be +1TV with the possibility of packaging a bit more with it since +1TV may still be too much for just a MAC.

    But the Warrior almost certainly gets too much for the cost and shouldn't be too much more than a Hunter with an ECM package added.


    I really like that suggestion. The ecm0d6 is balanced by the added crippled box instead of armor due to the extra EW gear. As long as the sensors stay at 12" like Hunters, I think that is a very fair trade off... which means it likely won't get any traction with anyone in charge who happens to play Paxton. I'm undecided on the EW augment but I don't think it's unreasonable to either stay at 6 or get better at 5 for the same cost as a hunter.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/02/01 23:58:30


    Post by: IceRaptor


     Ronin_eX wrote:
    Yeah EW being relevant is awesome.


    My work here is done


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/02/02 00:04:17


    Post by: ferrous


     Balance wrote:
    wildger wrote:
     Balance wrote:

    My primary concern, to be honest, is the army building.


    You are not the only one. I do not like the way it is set up in FiF and the new PDRF at all.


    I'm talking about the new Alpha rules, not FiF or the PRDF rules. Althoguh those do have issues, too, which I think this is an opportunity to fix without losing the 'good parts' which the current system does.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    (Good parts being purely in my opinion, of course.)


    Yeah, I like that they streamlined, but it seems like once the 'best' models for the TV are found, the other models will never see play. That said, if the game is well designed, then there will be no 'best' models. Its one of those things where if the point costs are out of whack, they will be ripe for abuse and we'll see mono or two model lists. (for example, in the current kibitzing over MAC upgrades on Jager/Hunters, that upgrade will never be taken, totally pointless for the south, as a Sidewinder is the same cost but better in every way)


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/02/02 04:00:47


    Post by: Ronin_eX


    ferrous wrote:
     Balance wrote:
    wildger wrote:
     Balance wrote:

    My primary concern, to be honest, is the army building.


    You are not the only one. I do not like the way it is set up in FiF and the new PDRF at all.


    I'm talking about the new Alpha rules, not FiF or the PRDF rules. Althoguh those do have issues, too, which I think this is an opportunity to fix without losing the 'good parts' which the current system does.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    (Good parts being purely in my opinion, of course.)


    Yeah, I like that they streamlined, but it seems like once the 'best' models for the TV are found, the other models will never see play. That said, if the game is well designed, then there will be no 'best' models. Its one of those things where if the point costs are out of whack, they will be ripe for abuse and we'll see mono or two model lists. (for example, in the current kibitzing over MAC upgrades on Jager/Hunters, that upgrade will never be taken, totally pointless for the south, as a Sidewinder is the same cost but better in every way)


    Yeah, the system will definitely need to limit availability in places down the road. A good mix of limiting things who have a lot of synergy potential the more you take and making sure the points are close will make an open system fairly robust. Internal balance may never be exact, but if it can be close and army vs. army balance is good all around then it will all work out fine. Even Infinity and Warmachine have models that rarely see the field and are considered fairly balanced despite it. If that can be achieved, the it is all good.

    And at the very least, initial criticisms on some of the more obvious things have been tweaked. Gunner variants are going down to 7 points (along with some other Hunter/Jäger variants) and the Warrior is losing improved sensors (though staying at 7TV). That is, at least, an improvement. Though the warrior still feels like a difference for the sake of difference.

    But at least point values changing is something positive. I really want that to be a good sign, but I will hold off for now until things start getting in to the less obvious changes.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/02/02 04:07:13


    Post by: warboss


    ferrous wrote:
    Yeah, I like that they streamlined, but it seems like once the 'best' models for the TV are found, the other models will never see play. That said, if the game is well designed, then there will be no 'best' models. Its one of those things where if the point costs are out of whack, they will be ripe for abuse and we'll see mono or two model lists. (for example, in the current kibitzing over MAC upgrades on Jager/Hunters, that upgrade will never be taken, totally pointless for the south, as a Sidewinder is the same cost but better in every way)


    You can't stop people from mathhammering units but you can get rid of the "no brainer" choices both within a faction and between factions by proper costing as well as tweaking availability. I put up a suggestion thread about using stock models in squads over on DP9 (basically half rounded down are stock unless the squad is veteran). That way, only half of available models in a combat group could be a spammed broken model that slipped through the cracks. It does, as someone pointed out there, disadvantage current "super elite" PL4 style armies where every single swap opportunity is taken.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/02/02 04:31:40


    Post by: ferrous


     warboss wrote:
    ferrous wrote:
    Yeah, I like that they streamlined, but it seems like once the 'best' models for the TV are found, the other models will never see play. That said, if the game is well designed, then there will be no 'best' models. Its one of those things where if the point costs are out of whack, they will be ripe for abuse and we'll see mono or two model lists. (for example, in the current kibitzing over MAC upgrades on Jager/Hunters, that upgrade will never be taken, totally pointless for the south, as a Sidewinder is the same cost but better in every way)


    You can't stop people from mathhammering units but you can get rid of the "no brainer" choices both within a faction and between factions by proper costing as well as tweaking availability. I put up a suggestion thread about using stock models in squads over on DP9 (basically half rounded down are stock unless the squad is veteran). That way, only half of available models in a combat group could be a spammed broken model that slipped through the cracks. It does, as someone pointed out there, disadvantage current "super elite" PL4 style armies where every single swap opportunity is taken.


    Works, sort of, since some stock models are badass. =)


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/02/02 08:42:48


    Post by: Albertorius


     IceRaptor wrote:
     Ronin_eX wrote:
    Yeah EW being relevant is awesome.


    My work here is done

    Applause for the gentleman!
    [slowclap]


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/02/02 13:27:10


    Post by: IceRaptor


    Albertorius wrote:
    Applause for the gentleman!


    Thanks. It's an interesting ride, watching how the thing I spent alot of time creating is mutating in my absence. I hope it ends up being a positive step forward in the end, but I feel like I need to just sit back and enjoy the show for a bit. Heh.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/02/03 16:08:02


    Post by: warboss


    And maybe even get in a live or vassal game in at some later point?


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/02/04 02:26:16


    Post by: IceRaptor


     warboss wrote:
    And maybe even get in a live or vassal game in at some later point?


    Yup. Though that has to wait til May... I have two classes to finish my bachelors, and then I'm free. Free!


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/02/04 05:03:58


    Post by: plastictrees


    So, if I was to play HG right now, what rule set should I be using?
    Bought about $400 worth of NuCoal a while ago, played two, slightly bewildering games with the only other friend I have with an army and then left it alone. Getting through a game was just a lot of work, let alone putting an army together, even using gear box or whatever it's called.

    Anyway, just looking for a way to play the game without investing myself in a ruleset that will be obsolete shortly.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/02/04 10:03:00


    Post by: Daba


    Do the new alpha rules look cohesive in that you can just grab them all and play, with existing models?


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/02/04 11:57:32


    Post by: riker2800


    Yes, the new Alpha rules are really complete, you can have lot of games with them right now...


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/02/04 14:08:36


    Post by: warboss


    The official ruleset till Jan 2015 will be the Field Manual rules along with the appropriate army book. They're currently in open alpha starting this past week till roughly the summer when it'll go to a more locked down beta. If you wanted to get in a game right now, you can use the current Field Manual rules (with the knowledge that they're going away within a year) or the Alpha rules which are a free download (but are obviously subject to tweaking/change). I hope that helps.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
     IceRaptor wrote:
     warboss wrote:
    And maybe even get in a live or vassal game in at some later point?


    Yup. Though that has to wait til May... I have two classes to finish my bachelors, and then I'm free. Free!


    Congrats!


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/02/06 23:18:32


    Post by: mrondeau


    I like a lot of what I'm seeing in the alpha rules. They are clearly still alpha, but they could be good with some (ok, a lot) of polish, and with good balanced army lists. That's the good news. The bad news is that the open playtest's procedure is the same as the previous playtests, and the team's procedures and attitude appear to be the same that always ended in disaster. I don't know why they keep doing the same things over and over when it's obviously not working, but they do.
    Then again, to quote the first dev blog: "Here at the Pod we know something about collaboration with our players." The first step to solve a problem is to acknowledge it. The first step to perpetuate a problem is to deny it.

    I'm still not seeing any vision or organization. The current playtest procedure has been used previously to generate large amount of text that can then be cherry-picked by the designers to support their assumptions, preconceptions, gut feelings and opinions. Such procedures do nothing to help determine whether or not the rules are good, working correctly and balanced. For that, you would need organised feedback, the very opposite of what's currently going on. I'm also seeing a continuation of the trend of calling critical posters "rude". Testers should never have to worry about their tone. Getting the message across is more important. In fact, complaining about the tone is the best way to ignore problems that one does not want to see. If a designer is happy after getting feedback, the testers are not doing their job!

    I do not know how the game is supposed to play, and what is supposed to do what. I can deduce it somewhat when reading the rules, but how could I confirm that the rules are working as intended when I don't know what was intended in the first place?
    Playtesters' brains are one of the most useful resources available to a designer; they can figure out if something is working as intended. The current procedure cannot exploit that resource, instead leaving the designer to pick and choose the comments that fit his opinions, easily without even realizing he's doing it!

    Which brings me to the last point: you do not start by testing everything!
    You first start by testing the core rules, movement and ranged attack, before going on to test the rest. At this point in the development, including the army lists is not just premature and distracting, it's actively harmful since it adds complexity to the process and complicates the testers' and designer's jobs. Having a temporary set of army lists is fine. Having an initial and temporary list of models is also fine. However it should be clear to everyone, especially the designer, that the lists are temporary and will have to be redone.

    To generate useful feedback, the questions asked to the playtesters have to be more narrow. The current ones are basically "do you have any comments?", which, as explained above, will generate noise and very little signal.
    A more judicious way to do this would be to present the current documents as a preview of the whole system while also presenting a smaller guide with some basic models and the core rules (movement, direct shooting, concealment and such, and probably a subset of command rules).
    In addition to the above, the designer's intents must be explicitly specified for each rule item. This includes:
  • a description of what each basic model is supposed to be able to do;
  • a description of what each basic model is not supposed to be able to do;
  • an overview of how the game should play.
  • The last one should include:
  • the level of danger presented by being in the open or in cover;
  • the level of effort required to damage and kill something;
  • the general level of movement and positioning that should be used.
  • Without such specifications, the playtesters will remain in the dark, unable to generate accurate feedback, invalidating the whole procedure.

    To get useful feedback, you ask about:
  • the terrain used (photos!);
  • the clarity of the rules found in the smaller guide;
  • the clarity and consistency of the terminology;
  • whether or not the rules are working as intended.
  • The game is highly dependent on terrain, so knowing what is actually being used is essential. It might even be necessary to be more... strict... when describing the recommended terrain layout. The text should be improved while testing, since more polished text is always good. Finally, knowing whether or not the rules are working as they should is obviously useful.

    Once this is done, you update the basic guide with the changes, and publish in a separate document the reasons for those changes. You keep doing that until the core rules are solid. Then you add more rules.
    This process also helps you organize the rulebook as you go. It will present the information when it is required without overwhelming new players. With some care, you will also have your standard demo/tutorial ready without any extra effort.
    (Source control tools, such as "hg", applied to text or latex files, work wonders to keep track of changes and of the reason of those changes. I use those for everything except emails and forum posts. Although I used it for this post. Because I can.)

    The current playtest procedure is pointless. The testers are trying to pull in all directions at the same time, each one focusing on what's important to them and neglecting the rest. Since they are not answering clear questions, their feedback will be strongly influenced by their own biases, both in term of topic and content.
    This does not matter that much since the resulting pile of text can be interpreted however the designer want to, so the designer's bias will dominate, and he will be able to do whatever he wanted to do all along, thinking that it's proven correct by the testers. That's not testing, that's trying to be "right". Testing's about trying to be wrong.

    End results: DP9 continues their trend of publishing things without really testing them.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/02/07 00:28:21


    Post by: BrandonKF


    Willing to put that into the testing forums, mrondeau?

    -Brandon F.

    Edit: Here's one link for you from Killionaire: http://dp9forum.com/index.php?showtopic=15974#entry280598

    Second edit: I'll just open up some polls for folks to put in their votes and get some feedback.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/02/07 00:42:14


    Post by: mrondeau


    BrandonKF wrote:
    Willing to put that into the testing forums, mrondeau?

    -Brandon F.

    Edit: Here's one link for you from Killionaire: http://dp9forum.com/index.php?showtopic=15974#entry280598


    What make you think I did not start by sending it to Dave ?

    EDIT: As for posting on dp9forum, post there that DP9 considers embarrassing tend to disappear.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/02/07 00:48:19


    Post by: BrandonKF


    Then I'll open up some polls and get feedback.

    -Brandon F.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/02/07 08:16:20


    Post by: Albertorius


    mrondeau wrote:
    I like a lot of what I'm seeing in the alpha rules. They are clearly still alpha, but they could be good with some (ok, a lot) of polish, and with good balanced army lists. That's the good news. The bad news is that the open playtest's procedure is the same as the previous playtests, and the team's procedures and attitude appear to be the same that always ended in disaster. I don't know why they keep doing the same things over and over when it's obviously not working, but they do.
    Then again, to quote the first dev blog: "Here at the Pod we know something about collaboration with our players." The first step to solve a problem is to acknowledge it. The first step to perpetuate a problem is to deny it.

    I'm still not seeing any vision or organization. The current playtest procedure has been used previously to generate large amount of text that can then be cherry-picked by the designers to support their assumptions, preconceptions, gut feelings and opinions. Such procedures do nothing to help determine whether or not the rules are good, working correctly and balanced. For that, you would need organised feedback, the very opposite of what's currently going on. I'm also seeing a continuation of the trend of calling critical posters "rude". Testers should never have to worry about their tone. Getting the message across is more important. In fact, complaining about the tone is the best way to ignore problems that one does not want to see. If a designer is happy after getting feedback, the testers are not doing their job!

    I do not know how the game is supposed to play, and what is supposed to do what. I can deduce it somewhat when reading the rules, but how could I confirm that the rules are working as intended when I don't know what was intended in the first place?
    Playtesters' brains are one of the most useful resources available to a designer; they can figure out if something is working as intended. The current procedure cannot exploit that resource, instead leaving the designer to pick and choose the comments that fit his opinions, easily without even realizing he's doing it!

    Which brings me to the last point: you do not start by testing everything!
    You first start by testing the core rules, movement and ranged attack, before going on to test the rest. At this point in the development, including the army lists is not just premature and distracting, it's actively harmful since it adds complexity to the process and complicates the testers' and designer's jobs. Having a temporary set of army lists is fine. Having an initial and temporary list of models is also fine. However it should be clear to everyone, especially the designer, that the lists are temporary and will have to be redone.

    To generate useful feedback, the questions asked to the playtesters have to be more narrow. The current ones are basically "do you have any comments?", which, as explained above, will generate noise and very little signal.
    A more judicious way to do this would be to present the current documents as a preview of the whole system while also presenting a smaller guide with some basic models and the core rules (movement, direct shooting, concealment and such, and probably a subset of command rules).
    In addition to the above, the designer's intents must be explicitly specified for each rule item. This includes:
  • a description of what each basic model is supposed to be able to do;
  • a description of what each basic model is not supposed to be able to do;
  • an overview of how the game should play.
  • The last one should include:
  • the level of danger presented by being in the open or in cover;
  • the level of effort required to damage and kill something;
  • the general level of movement and positioning that should be used.
  • Without such specifications, the playtesters will remain in the dark, unable to generate accurate feedback, invalidating the whole procedure.

    To get useful feedback, you ask about:
  • the terrain used (photos!);
  • the clarity of the rules found in the smaller guide;
  • the clarity and consistency of the terminology;
  • whether or not the rules are working as intended.
  • The game is highly dependent on terrain, so knowing what is actually being used is essential. It might even be necessary to be more... strict... when describing the recommended terrain layout. The text should be improved while testing, since more polished text is always good. Finally, knowing whether or not the rules are working as they should is obviously useful.

    Once this is done, you update the basic guide with the changes, and publish in a separate document the reasons for those changes. You keep doing that until the core rules are solid. Then you add more rules.
    This process also helps you organize the rulebook as you go. It will present the information when it is required without overwhelming new players. With some care, you will also have your standard demo/tutorial ready without any extra effort.
    (Source control tools, such as "hg", applied to text or latex files, work wonders to keep track of changes and of the reason of those changes. I use those for everything except emails and forum posts. Although I used it for this post. Because I can.)

    The current playtest procedure is pointless. The testers are trying to pull in all directions at the same time, each one focusing on what's important to them and neglecting the rest. Since they are not answering clear questions, their feedback will be strongly influenced by their own biases, both in term of topic and content.
    This does not matter that much since the resulting pile of text can be interpreted however the designer want to, so the designer's bias will dominate, and he will be able to do whatever he wanted to do all along, thinking that it's proven correct by the testers. That's not testing, that's trying to be "right". Testing's about trying to be wrong.

    End results: DP9 continues their trend of publishing things without really testing them.


    All of this bears repeating. Very well said, sir.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/02/07 16:16:09


    Post by: wildger


    My gut feeling is that there are too many changes all at once. Generally, I expect that the rules and general mechanics of the game be revised first, followed by changing the weapons' effective, subsequently the force organization and finally the TV cost. The new proposed alpha rules seem to invalidate everything that is published before and that simply does not make a lot of sense to me. Overall, I don't have a good feeling about this although I still have hope.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/02/07 20:19:47


    Post by: Balance


    I've said a few things in various places about this, which is indeed a 'clearing the deck' kind of change.

    First, consider what could've been with 40k if they were willing to take that step: Trying to maintain compatibility means it's tough to add/remove stats, or make any serious, meaningful redefinition of the stats. Blitz has had something similar to this, as the army lists had some serious design paradigms changed a few times along the path.

    'Clearing the decks' opens up a lot of opportunities, even if it does add some additional complications. I think some comments here and elsewhere talk about lingering RPG elements and this is somewhat true, if perhaps exaggerated... The Alpha rules are an option to fix things by not treating a set stat or armor value that dates to the late 90s as a sacrosanct number that cannot be challenged.

    I know I argued for release of the PRDF (and North, soon) Army Lists because it leaves HGBCurrent in a relatively 'finished' state. It's playable (even if the new rules are hopefulyl more fun) and an option, albeit an admittedly 'frozen' one as far as official support.

    I made a list of things I'd change with a 'Revised (again) Field Manual' and it was pretty massive. Lots of things that don't work, or are just too complex.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/02/08 13:18:27


    Post by: Vertrucio


    Sorry guys, but the point of this revision is to change a lot at once.

    Heavy Gear has needed this for a long, long time. They've been holding on to vestiges of a system that back in its heyday had problems.

    And yeah, the lingering RPG elements has always been a problem. In fact, it was one of the reasons why I stayed away from heavy gear originally. Well, that and lack of faction variety.

    Big changes sometimes just need big playtests, and you're a fool to think they're not seeking more specific info from internal and external groups.

    Way too much talk about how to run the beta, instead of going into the same detail for the specific feedback they're complaining for.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/02/08 13:28:30


    Post by: HudsonD


     Vertrucio wrote:
    and you're a fool to think they're not seeking more specific info from internal and external groups.


    ... Did you just call people with actual insider experience fools ?


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/02/08 13:36:55


    Post by: Vertrucio


    Depends on whether they were saying that DP9 wouldn't seek specific feedback from private internal and external testing groups at some point during the many months long development of this new rulebook.

    Sure, DP9 is a bit odd for announcing this while releasing books that are going to be invalidated. But no one makes a game without being able to get specific feedback.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/02/08 13:42:18


    Post by: HudsonD


     Vertrucio wrote:
    But no one makes a game without being able to get specific feedback.


    You'd be very surprised.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/02/08 13:46:20


    Post by: Albertorius


     Vertrucio wrote:
    Sure, DP9 is a bit odd for announcing this while releasing books that are going to be invalidated. But no one makes a game without being able to get specific feedback.

    Why not? They have up until now, you know.

    That being a good idea, on the other hand...


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/02/08 14:17:07


    Post by: mrondeau


    Only a fool would think that DP9 seeks specific feedback. They should. They don't. They never did.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/02/08 20:00:37


    Post by: Vertrucio


    Well then, I stand corrected.

    But in designing my game, I'm trying to get as much specific feedback on the smallest of systems and the way they interconnect, much to the annoyance of friends.

    I just cannot fathom a published company putting out anything of this scale without at least a lot of precise internal testing. It just boggles my mind if things are as you say.

    But I also stand by my statements that generalized testing and feedback is also very useful.

    I don't know what's going on with DP9, but I guess it would be why I could never really get into the game all these years despite being interested. I even have a bit more than a North and South starter.

    If any of you guys ever want to do focused testing for a game, let me know.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/02/08 20:32:01


    Post by: plastictrees


    Would anyone be interested in producing some generic 'taste of the faction' armies for each force?
    I'd like to get some Alpha games in but find the army list selection process completely paralyzing.
    I play NuCoal and have pretty much all their gears (No Espions, Lanciers or Hussar) a couple of Fusiliers, APCs and infantry.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/02/09 00:33:31


    Post by: warboss


     Albertorius wrote:
     Vertrucio wrote:
    Sure, DP9 is a bit odd for announcing this while releasing books that are going to be invalidated. But no one makes a game without being able to get specific feedback.

    Why not? They have up until now, you know.

    That being a good idea, on the other hand...


    As long as they tell customers about the new edition prior to selling the soon to be outdated file, I think it is a good idea.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/02/09 16:26:19


    Post by: riker2800


     plastictrees wrote:
    Would anyone be interested in producing some generic 'taste of the faction' armies for each force?
    I'd like to get some Alpha games in but find the army list selection process completely paralyzing.
    I play NuCoal and have pretty much all their gears (No Espions, Lanciers or Hussar) a couple of Fusiliers, APCs and infantry.


    Really? I found it very straight forward...

    Here is a simple exemple: says you got 2 stock Chasseurs, 1 Grenadier Chasseur and 1 Chasseur MK2.

    All the above are part of the GP Unit Availability, and each model have one action each. So, this give you a Primary unit of 4 models, the minimum allowed, since you need to have 4 to 6 actions total to get one unit/squad, whatever you want.

    Then, let say you have only 2 Chevaliers available, you could attach both of them to your GP squad, thus becoming the Regimental Support Choice for this unit, you can't have more than half the action of your primary Unit. After this, you choose who gonna be the Combat group leader, only model from the primary unit can be a CGL. You could also add generic upgrade to this group.
    So this is your first combat group.

    And start again for next combat group until you spent all your TV total.



    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/02/09 20:09:15


    Post by: plastictrees


    Thanks!

    It's not the mechanics of it, more the endless second guessing. I'm guilty of it in most games that I don't get to play very often, the list building side of things gets wildly exagerrated to the point of never letting me be satisified.

    Ultimately I'm more concerned about building and painting a bunch of Xs with Y weapon and then realising that I should have given them all Z weapon.

    I should start a catalogue of gaming disorders.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/02/10 13:33:41


    Post by: Albertorius


     warboss wrote:
     Albertorius wrote:
     Vertrucio wrote:
    Sure, DP9 is a bit odd for announcing this while releasing books that are going to be invalidated. But no one makes a game without being able to get specific feedback.

    Why not? They have up until now, you know.

    That being a good idea, on the other hand...


    As long as they tell customers about the new edition prior to selling the soon to be outdated file, I think it is a good idea.

    Ah, no. Releasing the files is a good idea. I was talking about the specific feedback there.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/02/11 18:51:48


    Post by: BrandonKF


    So, any newbloods going to give us some comments on the Alpha? Nemo... Bueller.... crickets?

    -Brandon F.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/02/11 21:37:28


    Post by: Balance


    I think a lot of people may be waiting for the next revision, as the current Alpha is scattered over the main documents and one or more errata/FAQ sources.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/02/11 21:44:06


    Post by: warboss


    Indeed. I've been holding off on making more comments in general after going through most of the documents for typos and a few glaring discrepancies. I'm waiting for the new version as well as hopefully being able to get in a test game sometime soon.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/02/12 08:18:03


    Post by: Albertorius


    This is not really a comment about the Alpha per se, as the unit stats are right now the least important, but... I think I am a bit taken aback with the current stats of the Visigoth MBT.

    Not with how it performs, actually (haven't tested it yet), but with how its role has changed so drastically, for no reason apparent. Back in the day, it was a typical southern war machine: which is to mean, multirole, and it was designed as a MBT and close fire support unit.

    Now, it has lost each and every IF capabilities whatsoever, it also has lost its secondary role completely due to that, and is now effectively exactly the same as the Aller (yes, different loadout. Doesn't matter: they play the same).

    Funnily enough, the only MBT with IF capabilities left is the Voltigeur.

    Now that I take a look, the Hun is also in the same position... and both are saddled with the really, really underperforming current LLCs (and none of those LLCs have AA, which is funny, taking into account that those lasers are specifically mounted for air defense purposes xD).


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/02/12 13:16:45


    Post by: riker2800


     Albertorius wrote:


    Now, it has lost each and every IF capabilities whatsoever, it also has lost its secondary role completely due to that, and is now effectively exactly the same as the Aller (yes, different loadout. Doesn't matter: they play the same).

    Funnily enough, the only MBT with IF capabilities left is the Voltigeur.

    Now that I take a look, the Hun is also in the same position... and both are saddled with the really, really underperforming current LLCs (and none of those LLCs have AA, which is funny, taking into account that those lasers are specifically mounted for air defense purposes xD).


    I really like this change, tank should be more direct assault platform than IF one. Also, something that always bugged me in Blitz is how Field Gun are the best indirect fire weapon (no ACC penalty for firing indirectly), it is even a better choice to shoot them indirectly (target defending at -1 from indirect fire) in front of a target than fire directly, which feel very absurd. I even had a situation in a game were a top speed going Volitgeur shooted its twin field gun indirectly at a MHT-72 that was standing in front of him ( you hope to roll a 6, since you keep the unmodified roll, while the target defend at -1) So, tank should move forward and fire at target in sight. For real indirect support, use Ostrogoth, Water Dragon, Spitting Cobra (Arty, Support, base one).

    About laser, I like them now, firing laser was also the second best weapon o a tank to shoot at Gear, why instead you should be using your coaxial autocannon, laser will be effective at shooting aircraft when will get there.

    For the Hun, look closely, its MRP got the IF trait, so it can be used as an indirect fire platform.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/02/12 14:13:31


    Post by: Albertorius


    riker2800 wrote:
    I really like this change, tank should be more direct assault platform than IF one.

    Even when the fluff of the unit has been the other way around like, forever? Even when the change make the southern and northern tanks basically interchangeable when before each one played very differently at the table? Even when, for some reason, the Voltigeur still has IF capabilities?

    Also, something that always bugged me in Blitz is how Field Gun are the best indirect fire weapon (no ACC penalty for firing indirectly), it is even a better choice to shoot them indirectly (target defending at -1 from indirect fire) in front of a target than fire directly, which feel very absurd. I even had a situation in a game were a top speed going Volitgeur shooted its twin field gun indirectly at a MHT-72 that was standing in front of him ( you hope to roll a 6, since you keep the unmodified roll, while the target defend at -1)

    That's an artifact of Blitz, I'm afraid. Nothing to do with the unit or the weapon. Back in the day the HFG was a not-that-good IF weapon because it lacked area.

    So, tank should move forward and fire at target in sight. For real indirect support, use Ostrogoth, Water Dragon, Spitting Cobra (Arty, Support, base one).


    That's your position, and as such is an opinion, not a statement of fact. Having weapons that behaved differently made for very different playstyles, which helped to see the factions as, well, different. That is dead and killed now.

    As for the others... the Ostrogoth is a long-range, batallion level support unit, the Water Dragon is a water terrain support unti for gear regiments, and the Spits are regular close-range support for Gear regiments. The Visigoths had their own close-range support up until now, which made them play differently.

    ...in short: you think that way, I disagree.

    About laser, I like them now, firing laser was also the second best weapon o a tank to shoot at Gear, why instead you should be using your coaxial autocannon, laser will be effective at shooting aircraft when will get there.


    Any weapon potent and precise enough to shoot down fighter crafts at range, and capable of traverse enough to shoot at ground targets, will be potent enough to destroy IFVs. That is a fact. And as before, you're prortraying your likes and dislikes as proven facts, without taking into account many things, like the fact that a tank with 3 actions can actually fire the three weapons effectively, or the fact that the LLC has always been depicted as "area and anti-aircraft defense"

    For the Hun, look closely, its MRP got the IF trait, so it can be used as an indirect fire platform.

    True, didn't see that.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/02/12 15:21:36


    Post by: riker2800


     Albertorius wrote:
    riker2800 wrote:
    I really like this change, tank should be more direct assault platform than IF one.

    Even when the fluff of the unit has been the other way around like, forever? Even when the change make the southern and northern tanks basically interchangeable when before each one played very differently at the table? Even when, for some reason, the Voltigeur still has IF capabilities?


    Visigoth get something very interesting now: Blast 3 on its main gun, while the Aller is only able to one shot single target, so here is your difference, one having the possibility of area destruction, while the other getting precise one shot overkill.

    And I see no problem the Voltigeur getting IF capability? NuCoal is not very well served in the IF department when compared to the main Polar factions...

    Any weapon potent and precise enough to shoot down fighter crafts at range, and capable of traverse enough to shoot at ground targets, will be potent enough to destroy IFVs. That is a fact. And as before, you're prortraying your likes and dislikes as proven facts, without taking into account many things, like the fact that a tank with 3 actions can actually fire the three weapons effectively, or the fact that the LLC has always been depicted as "area and anti-aircraft defense"


    Laser were more than "Potent" at killing Gear, they were a better tactical choice than firing heavy autocannon, better range, more damage and ACC bonus... They should be your last weapon when firing on a Gear.

    As for the others... the Ostrogoth is a long-range, batallion level support unit, the Water Dragon is a water terrain support unti for gear regiments, and the Spits are regular close-range support for Gear regiments. The Visigoths had their own close-range support up until now, which made them play differently.


    What this have to do with game play? Who care an Ostrogoth should be used only for battalion support? If you need indirect support unit, you put them in your army, that's it.




    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/02/12 15:56:17


    Post by: Albertorius


    riker2800 wrote:
    Visigoth get something very interesting now: Blast 3 on its main gun, while the Aller is only able to one shot single target, so here is your difference, one having the possibility of area destruction, while the other getting precise one shot overkill.

    Ah, yes. It loses the AT trait and gets HE... yay. So you get a weapon that's so-so against tanks (where the Blast does jack gak), but one-shots overkills clusters of regular gears at MoS 0... yay. I foresee lots of them against gears, none against tanks.

    And I see no problem the Voltigeur getting IF capability? NuCoal is not very well served in the IF department when compared to the main Polar factions...

    The NuCoal has more than enough options: Chevalier, Chevalier Hammer, Chevalier Hellfire, Chevalier Javelin, Boa, Firestorm Boa, Lancier Dart, Espion Grenadier, Hussar Spear, Hussar Skyhammer, Fusilier Anvil, Voltigeur, Voltigeur Hammer... yeah, not well served.

    ...but you see problems with IF for the Visigoths? Please, choose one stance, and stay there.

    Laser were more than "Potent" at killing Gear, they were a better tactical choice than firing heavy autocannon, better range, more damage and ACC bonus... They should be your last weapon when firing on a Gear.

    Why? Because you say so? Well, that's certainly an opinion, but taking into account that LLCs are a weapon that gets used as an anti gear sniper, I'd prefer it to be good at killing gears, thank you very much.

    What this have to do with game play? Who care an Ostrogoth should be used only for battalion support? If you need indirect support unit, you put them in your army, that's it.

    What does it have to do that you don't want lasers to kill gears? Who care that you don't like it? If you need to kill gears, you use it, that's it.

    Some people may want to play with armies that follow the fluff of the game. Those people should also be served.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/02/12 16:16:27


    Post by: warboss


    riker2800 wrote:
    Laser were more than "Potent" at killing Gear, they were a better tactical choice than firing heavy autocannon, better range, more damage and ACC bonus... They should be your last weapon when firing on a Gear.


    I'm not sure where you're getting that. So you think they a focused beam of light that lasts only a second should be better used versus infantry scattered about an area as a squad... swinging the beam around like at a dance club to hit the squad members? None of the beam weapons are AI so that would severely limit them in that capacity. So you think that lasers should be used against the heaviest vehicles in the entire game then like heavy tanks? Without buffing the stats majorly and adding some armor pen traits they fail miserably at that as well. That leaves us with Gears which is where traditionally they rocked in Blitz but now also are mediocre at because of the 1/2 pen rule. I don't know about you but a whole class of weapons should be good at something and frankly keeping them good at killing gears is the best choice IMO.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/02/12 16:18:43


    Post by: Albertorius


     warboss wrote:
    riker2800 wrote:
    Laser were more than "Potent" at killing Gear, they were a better tactical choice than firing heavy autocannon, better range, more damage and ACC bonus... They should be your last weapon when firing on a Gear.


    I'm not sure where you're getting that. So you think they a focused beam of light that lasts only a second should be better used versus infantry scattered about an area as a squad... swinging the beam around like at a dance club to hit the squad members? None of the beam weapons are AI so that would severely limit them in that capacity. So you think that lasers should be used against the heaviest vehicles in the entire game then like heavy tanks? Without buffing the stats majorly and adding some armor pen traits they fail miserably at that as well. That leaves us with Gears which is where traditionally they rocked in Blitz but now also are mediocre at because of the 1/2 pen rule. I don't know about you but a whole class of weapons should be good at something and frankly keeping them good at killing gears is the best choice IMO.


    It doesn't even has AA, so... what's it for, then?


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/02/12 16:37:00


    Post by: warboss


     Albertorius wrote:

    It doesn't even has AA, so... what's it for, then?


    True... didn't even think of that. I guess they didn't get much thought since Paxton doesn't use beam weapons much. ZING!


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/02/12 18:03:28


    Post by: Albertorius


    Another thing that I've realized when cross checking this:

    If one of every two weapons in the current lists have different damage, range or special qualities than the ones in the weapons tables... why in sweet hell are you guys still using weapons tables? Those don't help, only confuse.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/02/12 18:25:45


    Post by: Balance


     Albertorius wrote:
    Another thing that I've realized when cross checking this:

    If one of every two weapons in the current lists have different damage, range or special qualities than the ones in the weapons tables... why in sweet hell are you guys still using weapons tables? Those don't help, only confuse.


    I completely agree. One way, or the other. (Tables or weapons w/attributes.) Not both.

    On the other hand, I'm completely cool with a solution somewhat like Flames of War where a specific list might get (at a cost, of course) a special rule like "This faction's special weapons get a minor bonus." as long as said rule is documented and easy to parse


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/02/12 18:39:09


    Post by: Albertorius


     Balance wrote:
    I completely agree. One way, or the other. (Tables or weapons w/attributes.) Not both.

    On the other hand, I'm completely cool with a solution somewhat like Flames of War where a specific list might get (at a cost, of course) a special rule like "This faction's special weapons get a minor bonus." as long as said rule is documented and easy to parse

    I would have no problem with that approach, or with a weapons list for every army, ala 40k. Something, anything, easy to parse, please. Or if every weapon is to be different, just name it differently (Riley M221, TA Model T, whatever) instead, and add it to each unit. Having weapons with the same name and different stats is very confusing.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/02/12 19:24:02


    Post by: warboss


    Don't forget that the tweaks that armies get should be roughly equal in efficacy and not complete crap for some factions and ridiculously useful for another.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/02/12 21:33:47


    Post by: riker2800


     Albertorius wrote:

    Ah, yes. It loses the AT trait and gets HE... yay. So you get a weapon that's so-so against tanks (where the Blast does jack gak), but one-shots overkills clusters of regular gears at MoS 0... yay. I foresee lots of them against gears, none against tanks.


    That part might not be very clear in the rules, a weapon always keep its inherent trait, here being AT, HE is an additional Ammo type, so you choose to fire either the AT or the HE, depending on your target.

    ...but you see problems with IF for the Visigoths? Please, choose one stance, and stay there.


    I had problem mostly with how Field gun worked in IF. I'm not against the Visigoth getting a field gun but I prefer it stay as a direct fire monster. This is how I like tank!

    Why? Because you say so? Well, that's certainly an opinion, but taking into account that LLCs are a weapon that gets used as an anti gear sniper, I'd prefer it to be good at killing gears, thank you very much.
    What does it have to do that you don't want lasers to kill gears? Who care that you don't like it? If you need to kill gears, you use it, that's it.


    Sorry, but a small turreted area defense laser shouldn't pack more fire power than a coaxial heavy auto cannon. However, the LLC PEN need to be increased to 6. So, can still plink Gear to death with it. Sniper Anti-Gear Laser Rifle are another thing, those are build for killing Gear.

    Some people may want to play with armies that follow the fluff of the game. Those people should also be served.


    Those are not the majority...


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
     Albertorius wrote:
     warboss wrote:
    riker2800 wrote:
    Laser were more than "Potent" at killing Gear, they were a better tactical choice than firing heavy autocannon, better range, more damage and ACC bonus... They should be your last weapon when firing on a Gear.


    I'm not sure where you're getting that. So you think they a focused beam of light that lasts only a second should be better used versus infantry scattered about an area as a squad... swinging the beam around like at a dance club to hit the squad members? None of the beam weapons are AI so that would severely limit them in that capacity. So you think that lasers should be used against the heaviest vehicles in the entire game then like heavy tanks? Without buffing the stats majorly and adding some armor pen traits they fail miserably at that as well. That leaves us with Gears which is where traditionally they rocked in Blitz but now also are mediocre at because of the 1/2 pen rule. I don't know about you but a whole class of weapons should be good at something and frankly keeping them good at killing gears is the best choice IMO.


    It doesn't even has AA, so... what's it for, then?


    This one seem more of an oversight, they should get AA.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/02/12 21:55:25


    Post by: Albertorius


    riker2800 wrote:
    That part might not be very clear in the rules, a weapon always keep its inherent trait, here being AT, HE is an additional Ammo type, so you choose to fire either the AT or the HE, depending on your target.

    That would be better... still very problematic, if you want less things to keep track of. And with HE... VERY problematic. It doesn't really need to do much to overkill whole blocks of gears (as in, MoS 0=Hunter Dead). Better disperse!

    I had problem mostly with how Field gun worked in IF. I'm not against the Visigoth getting a field gun but I prefer it stay as a direct fire monster. This is how I like tank!

    I see... I don't agree, honestly. It kills part of the southern doctrine, losing the secondary roll of the unit.

    Sorry, but a small turreted area defense laser shouldn't pack more fire power than a coaxial heavy auto cannon. However, the LLC PEN need to be increased to 6. So, can still plink Gear to death with it. Sniper Anti-Gear Laser Rifle are another thing, those are build for killing Gear.

    Sorry, but I don't agree. That "small turreted area defense laser" is as big or bigger than most gear mounted weapons (specifically, a 15 , up to VHAC. A bigger barrel in a laser only reflect some kind of trauma.

    And plinking gears to death is not what you should be doing with a gun mounted in a tank, nor with a LLC, seeing as is an anti-gear sniping weapon... that currently does not work. Those are, again, your preferences. I'd rather not see only your preferences imposed over me.

    Those are not the majority...

    So you say.

    This one seem more of an oversight, they should get AA.

    That would be nice. Won't amount to anything anyway, as when using it agains aerial units it will probably be shooting at suboptimal, and hence at half PEN, but...


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/02/12 22:10:12


    Post by: ferrous


    Yeah, I'm in agreement with Albertorious. Losing AA seems like simple oversight? Stupid not to have it, considering that's the point of it, and it's not a giant gamechanger having it anyway. I can understand dropping the LLC to an equivalent SLC for the Hun, they did that in FiF, as the Hun was just too good for it's cost, and the HRF was rarely ever used. The Visigoth should get to keep it, or get its points adjusted.

    It is odd to lose IF on the HFG, and keep it on the Voltigeur, though I'm not entirely opposed. The m1abrams can fire indirectly, so it would seem to reason that the HFG should be able to fire as such as well. Though at least with the current changes, the tank should be less likely to explode if shot at in the open by everything, so it could do direct fire more easily.


    And finally, I totally agree with the charts, they need either stick to the L/M/H from the table, or just drop the L/M/H entirely and just append the Pen number to the weapon. In posts by Dave, it sounds like they used to do the latter and the LMH stuff is there to try to appease dissenters.

    *EDIT: Or add VL and VH back to the table and stick to those 5, though honestly I'm fine with just doing things like AC5, LPL6 etc.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/02/12 22:32:01


    Post by: riker2800


     Albertorius wrote:

    That would be better... still very problematic, if you want less things to keep track of. And with HE... VERY problematic. It doesn't really need to do much to overkill whole blocks of gears (as in, MoS 0=Hunter Dead). Better disperse!


    Tracking what? You only declare which Ammo you use before firing, there is no even Ammo shots to keep track of?? As for dead Hunter on MOS 0, only the primary target will be, others Gears in an area of 3" will take half damage, which gonna be 3 hits. You are lucky if you hit more than 2 Gears...

    Sorry, but I don't agree. That "small turreted area defense laser" is as big or bigger than most gear mounted weapons (specifically, a 15 , up to VHAC. A bigger barrel in a laser only reflect some kind of trauma. And plinking gears to death is not what you should be doing with a gun mounted in a tank, nor with a LLC, seeing as is an anti-gear sniping weapon... that currently does not work. Those are, again, your preferences. I'd rather not see only your preferences imposed over me.


    Yes, LLC need s small PEN boost, PEN 7 could be a sweet spot. Not higher than that.

    That would be nice. Won't amount to anything anyway, as when using it agains aerial units it will probably be shooting at suboptimal, and hence at half PEN, but...


    Why you think they will be shooting at suboptimal?


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/02/13 03:32:00


    Post by: cincydooley


    So I've got a sizable NuCoal army I want to get rid of, complete with Battlefoam Bag.

    I don't know exactly what I have, but would be willing to take some photos if anyone is interested.

    I know for certain I have:

    2 Samson hover apcs
    2 hussar walkers
    6 armadillo beasts
    6 barnaby and sandriders

    And then a bunch of various gears, somewhere in the neighborhood of 30-40.

    Again, willing to take some photos if anyone is genuinely interested. Lemme know!


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/02/13 07:18:48


    Post by: Albertorius


    riker2800 wrote:
    Tracking what? You only declare which Ammo you use before firing, there is no even Ammo shots to keep track of?? As for dead Hunter on MOS 0, only the primary target will be, others Gears in an area of 3" will take half damage, which gonna be 3 hits. You are lucky if you hit more than 2 Gears...

    Ah, you're right, although with 3'' of radius I don't see it as that difficult.
    ...and with the current Blast rules, there can be a lot of cover shenanigans.

    Yes, LLC need s small PEN boost, PEN 7 could be a sweet spot. Not higher than that.

    PEN 7 won't really do all that much, TBH, what with it being 7 only in the optimal range bracket and only if there's no cover whatsoever.

    Also, taking into account the sizes involved, basically every LLC currently stated should be MLCs, not LLCs. There were basically no weapon like the current LLC before, but because of shared terminology, a lot of units have been stuck with one.

    Why you think they will be shooting at suboptimal?

    The description of aircrafts in page 15 seems to imply so. It would stand to reason, too, if optimal is only between 12 and 36''.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/02/13 14:37:24


    Post by: riker2800


     Albertorius wrote:
    riker2800 wrote:
    Tracking what? You only declare which Ammo you use before firing, there is no even Ammo shots to keep track of?? As for dead Hunter on MOS 0, only the primary target will be, others Gears in an area of 3" will take half damage, which gonna be 3 hits. You are lucky if you hit more than 2 Gears...

    Ah, you're right, although with 3'' of radius I don't see it as that difficult.
    ...and with the current Blast rules, there can be a lot of cover shenanigans.


    Getting two targets inside the blast will not be that hard to pull off, but getting more than that will be fairly rare, unless you play against someone dumb.

    PEN 7 won't really do all that much, TBH, what with it being 7 only in the optimal range bracket and only if there's no cover whatsoever.
    Also, taking into account the sizes involved, basically every LLC currently stated should be MLCs, not LLCs. There were basically no weapon like the current LLC before, but because of shared terminology, a lot of units have been stuck with one.


    A PEN 7 laser is quite potent, you still roll a base 4D6, you should be doing easily between 2 to 3 hits against trooper Gear, we don't want point defense turret to be death ray cannon!

    The description of aircrafts in page 15 seems to imply so. It would stand to reason, too, if optimal is only between 12 and 36''.


    They shouldn't, since you won't calculate altitude, see section 17.0 how the general framework for the rules will work. Aircraft will simply cross the battle board at some point where you can shoot at them, so with range of 12-36, you will fire at them easily in the optimal range bracket.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/02/13 14:52:30


    Post by: warboss


    riker2800 wrote:
    A PEN 7 laser is quite potent, you still roll a base 4D6, you should be doing easily between 2 to 3 hits against trooper Gear, we don't want point defense turret to be death ray cannon!


    Just to be clear, average rolls between a 4+ GUN attacker with a beam and 4+ PIL defender results in 1 MOS without any further modifiers, not 2-3 which is a better guage than just naked hits.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/02/13 15:07:09


    Post by: riker2800


    MoS 1 + PEN 7 - AR 6 = 2 hits which should be an easy average. However, tank can easily brace themselves without to much fear, adding another dice to the attack roll!



    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/02/13 15:10:46


    Post by: warboss


    Only if you assume there is no cover or other modifiers which tend to predominately favor the defender and more commonly don't require an action compared with attacker modifiers.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/02/13 15:13:51


    Post by: riker2800


    This is why you should use your tank gun then!

    Also, laser will be mostly used when Gears are swarming you in the open, also, since it got the Fast Turret, its a weapon that can be used for reaction fire.


    [Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread @ 2014/02/13 16:19:57


    Post by: jedi76


    All tanks should get a choice of firing AT or HE shells with the main gun really.


    Also I'm not sure I like infantry on 40mm bases. I kind of feel they should be able to conform their bases to the terrain.
    Using the three hex bases will let them fit better in a tight spot between terrain by lining them up. Every nook and cranny should be available to them.