warboss wrote: I'm sure the buffed stats and reduced TV they generally get doesn't hurt as well but each of those $50+ purchases is likely replacing a $22 gear model like a Kodiak or King Cobra or even a $35 strider like the Naga that the player otherwise would have bought which ends up with added $$ in the coffers. I just wish that the gear strider development (at DP9 and on Terra Nova in the fluff) wouldn't completely stifle strider and existing large gear expansion. On the one hand, it makes sense from a business perspective but only because DP9 has screwed the pooch so often so many times in a row over the years and forced themselves into a deep, dark, dead end corner.
ferrous wrote: The irony is that the King Cobra and Kodiak used to fill the same niche, but had gakky stats, I wonder how many first time players they permanently lost when the new player fielded their stupidly expensive both monetarily and in-game TV model, to have it basically do little to nothing. And that was through several iterations before they bothered to patch them into some sort of usefulness. (And again, stupid optional patch rules are all sorts of annoying and rife with problems, it certainly doesn't help anyone who buys a book and never goes to the company website for updates)
That is probably my biggest gripe about the GS models. All the time and effort put in by other folks to try and make most all of the models be at least somewhat useful in-game because there were clearly problems, and to reflect how they got written up in whatever blurbs they did get for Blitz!, is always being nullified by hasty and poorly informed decisions that inevitably do the exact opposite. No matter what reality has proven to be true.
People should be able to play with the miniatures they buy; but in effect the Pod keeps making it so that "No, this is what you will play with because it's how we want the game to work, so we can sell this or that model, even if it proves to be a poor performer. If you don't like those models, 4Q. You're either with us, or against us, no matter what you buy or have purchased. We surely can survive without you as doubtful friends. Our internal problems, caused by people who are no longer associated with DP9, must be resolved in our own way without unwarranted interference from those who don't understand our processes and haven't proven their loyalty."
Like y'all said, new players won't know any of that so they will tend to buy the biggest eye-catching centerpiece model they want whether it is viable within the ruleset or not, and whether it is disliked by many other players or not. Because if someone does show up with one of those models you can only either say you won't play with them, when there already may not be anyone else locally, or choose to play that other person, and thus end up playing exactly how the Pod wants you to play anyways rather than what you personally might want out of the setting. It's a very unfair situation to place people in, on either side of the issue, even more so if a particular model intentionally breaks the ruleset in some way.
And it's had a noticeable effect on the already quite small HG community during the past (4) years since NuCoal came out. GS are indeed probably good for one-off sales, but then under the typical point values most forces are intended to function at I have to wonder how many other multi-pack models or squad boxes aren't being bought for that same price to fill out the rest of that player's army list. It's got to be a very fine line, big sale versus steadier sales of smaller items. Then there is also the mentioned possibility that if it doesn't function to match it's sculpt for that much of an $$$ investment the Pod probably lost a player. Which I believe IceRaptor and some others said previously was the big problem with the Blitz!-era Mammoth. Impressive, and utterly useless.
Same deal with all of the Arena models that got new packaging and sculpts. It's no wonder DP9 had to come up with another game along those lines so those miniatures could continue to sell instead of sitting in bins.
The updates to fix things that don't actually get fixed and errata nonsense has just been insane though, considering they do the exact same thing with each and every product they put out until they choose to drop the matter entirely. The only exceptions to this that I can think of off-hand are Drop Bears and maybe the Field Support Guide, depending on what could be considered an error or not with some of the changes.
I think the only reason players didn't leave in droves after Paxton and North was that this time there wasn't a physical book folks might have purchased only to have it be re-released multiple times rather than doing it right once. It really makes me sad though when folks say the Pod listens to player feedback, considering most of us that I guess could be called "haters" know TPTB more than likely heard beforehand that something probably wasn't a good idea or had problems but chose to go ahead anyways.
Possibly changing their minds down the road after being so bloody stupid in the first place is not a good business practice at all. But DP9 keeps doing exactly that, over and over again.
warboss wrote: In the end, the stand is largely academic as I don't actually get many games in regardless with my first HG game since last Autumn this past weekend.
Easy E wrote: I was vaguely interested in Heavy Gear..... then I read the angst in this thread and decided against it.
Chemical Cutthroat wrote: That said, there's also folks who like the world and are doing something with it, like Warboss' modified ruleset, and Brandon's Gear-Finity write ups. The company may blow, but the models are cool, and the setting is really interesting. So there's nothing stopping those interested from doing their own thing.
Given the gak-fit(s) Robert has had over folks debating the field guides and subsequent releases related to those books I'm a little surprised quite a lot of fan-created content hasn't faced a similar pruning under the excuse of "copyright infringement" given how fast anything he doesn't like to see disappears or gets a nasty "explained from our perspective this is what really happened, which is right, even if it's wrong, especially if we caused the issue(s)" response elsewhere.
I know I keep harping on this, but it boggles the mind that the Pod honestly does not care if they alienate players at any point, as if the setting is widely enough known that the "official" community doesn't suffer each time somebody gets fed up with it, or a potential player won't try out whichever version of the game because of the bad blood about the interwebz.
One indicative thing I saw was that the numbers of folks over on the BGG site who list themselves as owning particular HG items has taken a very sharp nosedive from the 2e/3e and early Blitz! years. Apart from Kannik with the Aurora e-zine I can't tell that the Pod even has any quasi-official representation on one of the biggest gaming databases that currently exists. But it seems to be largely the same things as mentioned here or on RPG.net; "I may have heard about it once or twice but no one I knew ever wanted to play."
As a side note, when putting up my previous post I did some fact checking on the prices mentioned above and found something interesting that I never saw. The arena twin-katana Cobra is now a "rally" cobra. We were joking about the "rally" mammoth in play testing but I guess the pod decided to put large semitrucks into a game about little sports cars. LOL.
warboss wrote: As a side note, when putting up my previous post I did some fact checking on the prices mentioned above and found something interesting that I never saw. The arena twin-katana Cobra is now a "rally" cobra. We were joking about the "rally" mammoth in play testing but I guess the pod decided to put large semi-trucks into a game about little sports cars. LOL.
Looks like that got done sometime around the official Badlands Rally release, by splitting some heavier models off from the two-pack "Hired Guns" for Arena.
Some of those heavier FS models are indeed a tad jarring for that micro-setting though, and must not fit on the track very well.
But I didn't catch the change either until I was checking back in December to see what those kind of boxes physically contained so that the models used in the Field Support Guide ended up with workable loadouts.
I had forgotten how pricey some of those individual terrain pieces are though.... and they aren't very big at all in the PDF rulebook pics on page 16, given that most Gear's are usually about ~2" tall.
ferrous wrote: How do people even use rpg.net? That site is always incredibly slow for me.
It must have to do with the bandwidth or something versus the number of guests and members viewing the site, because it happens here too on occasion, as well as for Google.
I've also had where this site or RPG.net won't even load, everything just stays on the previous page or goes to a blank window/tab while the activity icon spins away.
Although sometimes loading G+ too fast or with too many pages blue screens my PC as some kind of memory allotment error even though it has the 8 gigs of RAM allowed by this version of the (x64) OS, so maybe that could be the issue.
The name or the gear type/role? If the former, no idea. If the latter, DP9 in the 1990s under the name Silver Cat, a less maneuverable but more heavily armored cheetah variant.
HudsonD wrote: Ok, I want to know, who came up with the Metal Cat ?
warboss wrote: The name or the gear type/role? If the former, no idea. If the latter, DP9 in the 1990s under the name Silver Cat, a less maneuverable but more heavily armored cheetah variant.
Apart from the HPZ [Poacher] & IRP [Magma] loadouts being rolled into a single type of [Wildfire] variant to save on option lines and reduce swap spam this model is completely unchanged [Armor 13 & DEF 0/1/2] from the source documents the test group was given, most of which dated back as far as April 2012.
Which is when Brad Bellows, Michal Onsrud, Dan Strother, and Saleem et al were the dev team - which now seems to consist entirely of Dave MacLeod.
Although I noticed there is also a mistake in that original spreadsheet, in that the Metal Cat's TV cost is correct but there is an [SLHC] cut+paste error, as the various Cheetahs are entirely [LHC] models.
The tester's don't get to name things; that is reserved for TPTB.
Although they might, rarely, accept a suggestion or two that agrees with what they had already decided, that may or may not make it into future re-releases or publications.
Usually they don't though, so it tends to be pretty pointless.
So... apparently now fragmentation cannons are not supposed to be anti-gear weapons... >_>
Automatically Appended Next Post:
warboss wrote: The name or the gear type/role? If the former, no idea. If the latter, DP9 in the 1990s under the name Silver Cat, a less maneuverable but more heavily armored cheetah variant.
Well... somewhat. The Silver Cat was an up-armored version of the Cheetah, yes, and it had lower speed and maneuver... but it also had better ECMs, ECCMs, Sat uplink, upgraded sensors and comms... it was a very different machine from the Metal Cat. Also, the Silver Cat is in the book too ^_^
Albertorius wrote: So... apparently now fragmentation cannons are not supposed to be anti-gear weapons... >_>
Automatically Appended Next Post:
warboss wrote: The name or the gear type/role? If the former, no idea. If the latter, DP9 in the 1990s under the name Silver Cat, a less maneuverable but more heavily armored cheetah variant.
Well... somewhat. The Silver Cat was an up-armored version of the Cheetah, yes, and it had lower speed and maneuver... but it also had better ECMs, ECCMs, Sat uplink, upgraded sensors and comms... it was a very different machine from the Metal Cat. Also, the Silver Cat is in the book too ^_^
Yeah, it isn't a perfect comparison but the idea for a slower, less maneuverable armored cheetah (as opposed to the equally maneuverable Strike variant) existed long ago which was my point. I'm not necessarily defending it as I see it largely as reactionary to how hard it is to actually hit a cheetah and unneeded on the tail end of blitz... but it doesn't cost any players $$ to use and they can still just upgrade to regular cheetahs as needed by playing NG so there are bigger dragons to slay IMO.
As for the frag cannon, in DP9's "defence", it never was really any good against gears in blitz outside of 6" either so being useless against them in the alpha is just a continuation of existing utility. As a +1 crappy range weapon, it was roughly the equivalent of an LAC at most ranges in terms of anti-gear effectiveness and we all know how great the LAC is... well... all of us except a certain developer of course.
Albertorius wrote: So... apparently now fragmentation cannons are not supposed to be anti-gear weapons... >_>
What are they supposed to be good against in the fluff? If I had to hazard a guess, they should be good against lighter gears, that's probably how I would try to tailor their usage.
Frags used to be equal or better than LAC against Gears. That makes them anti-gear weapons.
They were also filling upgrade spaces that would otherwise have been used for other anti-gear weapons, not anti-infantry weapons.
They were treated and used as anti-gear weapons.
Aww man. This means that when I finally get around to buying a Cheetah Paratrooper and converting it to carry a frag cannon and MRF.. it might be illegal AND crap
ferrous wrote:What are they supposed to be good against in the fluff? If I had to hazard a guess, they should be good against lighter gears, that's probably how I would try to tailor their usage.
According to the Tech Manual, "their main function is providing highly accurate, short range firepower. For that purpose, they shoot fragmentation ammunition to augment the chances of causing damage". They are also usually mounted on vehicles as main weapon against multiple opponent types (MP variants mainly) or urban/close quarters assault.
mrondeau wrote:Frags used to be equal or better than LAC against Gears. That makes them anti-gear weapons.
They were also filling upgrade spaces that would otherwise have been used for other anti-gear weapons, not anti-infantry weapons.
They were treated and used as anti-gear weapons.
Exactly. Also, it was a nice weapon in 2nd Edition: half the range of a LAC (BR1 instead of 2) and x7 instead of x8, but +1 Acc and +2 RoF if the shot hit.
Chemical Cutthroat wrote:And besides, a Gear Sized shotgun is pretty badass.
Ditto!
warboss wrote:I think at that size it is just a grapeshot napoleonic cannon with a handle to hold it by.
warboss wrote:I think at that size it is just a grapeshot napoleonic cannon with a handle to hold it by.
Only with ceramic penetrators
That explains it. When was the last time you saw someone throw a plate at an armored car and had it do anything more than scuff the paint? Now I know why I never had much luck with Frag Cannons.
warboss wrote:I think at that size it is just a grapeshot napoleonic cannon with a handle to hold it by.
Only with ceramic penetrators
That explains it. When was the last time you saw someone throw a plate at an armored car and had it do anything more than scuff the paint? Now I know why I never had much luck with Frag Cannons.
Maybe that means that they're supposed to penetrate ceramic? As opposed to ceramic that penetrates?
Chemical Cutthroat wrote: Maybe that means that they're supposed to penetrate ceramic? As opposed to ceramic that penetrates?
They're talking about ceramical composites. The Tech Manual states that "discovery of new fabrication processes during the first centuries of the third millenium allowed to create highly resistent ones, and are used in various applications". Apparently they are used in many armor composites, too.
EDIT: ...or in other words...
blablablabla *fluff* GIANT MOTHERFETHING SHOTGUN!!!
Looks like its a rule of cool weapon? Okay. I think it stretches things a bit. (Why don't they use the same magic fluff ceramic penetrating stuff in an AC? It would net you more range and a faster muzzle velocity, so even better penetration...) But eh, people love giant shotguns.
Also glad they are getting rid of Impact, it was an unneeded complexity.
ferrous wrote: Looks like its a rule of cool weapon? Okay. I think it stretches things a bit. (Why don't they use the same magic fluff ceramic penetrating stuff in an AC? It would net you more range and a faster muzzle velocity, so even better penetration...) But eh, people love giant shotguns.
Also glad they are getting rid of Impact, it was an unneeded complexity.
Probably they are, at least some models (the fluff part about the ceramic material from the Tech Manual is refering to a particular weapon, the SG20 from TA, used in the Water Viper). In general, the idea of the weapon is that it's good against lightly armored vehicles (that is, gears) and infantry, mostly (I guess) for the same reasons: they fill the air with munitions that are mostly deadly, and while they can't penetrate heavy armor they do fine against light one.
At least that's my take on the weapon: as effective as a LAC (less in some circunstances, better in others) in general, so appropiate for light armor hunting, and also good against infantry. What baffles me is the Pod people stating now that it's only an AI weapon... most gears carry APGLs by default, do you really need much more close range AI power?
As to Impact, must say I'm out of the loop with the Alpha. I kinda lost interest some time ago, so haven't been reading.
ferrous wrote: Looks like its a rule of cool weapon? Okay. I think it stretches things a bit. (Why don't they use the same magic fluff in (X)? It would net you more range and a faster muzzle velocity, so even better penetration...) But eh, people love giant (X).
Albertorius wrote: What baffles me is the Pod people stating now that it's only an AI weapon... most gears carry APGLs by default, do you really need much more close range AI power?.
I think this and this says it all about the kind of logic being used for all that in the Heavy Gear setting.
I think it's simply a matter of offering it up as an either/or choice prior to the game.
Either it's going to be a wicked anti-infantry unit, or it'll be a wicked anti-Gear unit.
That's how I'm running it anyway.
All in all I get where Cerb's coming from with the older Tech Manual rules showing the Damage of the weapon at x7 in comparison to the x8 damage of a LAC, but that was partially offset with Accuracy +1 to the LAC's Accuracy 0, plus its shorter range.
Then we had a plethora of frag cannons enter the scene with Locked and Loaded and Heavy Gear Blitz!, and we summarized it as a miniature snub cannon, giving the impression it was a powerful close-range shotgun.
I believe a compromise of the two would be best.
As for the technology, I'm well past determining World War II tech and looking at current technologies that I'm familiar with. It changes the game little, just adds to the fluff.
BrandonKF wrote: All in all I get where Cerb's coming from with the older Tech Manual rules showing the Damage of the weapon at x7 in comparison to the x8 damage of a LAC, but that was partially offset with Accuracy +1 to the LAC's Accuracy 0, plus its shorter range.
Well... actually, no, and you're forgetting the free +2 RoF from the frag ammo when hits.
Due to how the armor bands and Acc/Man worked, the FGC was marginally more effective against trooper Gears (the +1 Acc compensated for the range difference most of the time, and it had an effective x9 DM. Also, as engagement ranges were a lot shorter back in the day [due to wanting modifiers even more], a 1-hex shot was not really unusual... plus, that was 50 meters).
But it was a lot better when used against scout and elite gears. Both had Man bonuses, that the FGC compensated, and the effective x9 DM meant that it could do light damage to elite gears with MoS 2. So usually, it was a pretty nice improvement.
And also... you were able to change the ammo and put solid shots. That changed the weapon to x14 DM, Acc 0. Which was nice.
BrandonKF wrote: All in all I get where Cerb's coming from with the older Tech Manual rules showing the Damage of the weapon at x7 in comparison to the x8 damage of a LAC, but that was partially offset with Accuracy +1 to the LAC's Accuracy 0, plus its shorter range.
Well... actually, no, and you're forgetting the free +2 RoF from the frag ammo when hits.
Due to how the armor bands and Acc/Man worked, the FGC was marginally more effective against trooper Gears (the +1 Acc compensated for the range difference most of the time, and it had an effective x9 DM. Also, as engagement ranges were a lot shorter back in the day [due to wanting modifiers even more], a 1-hex shot was not really unusual... plus, that was 50 meters).
But it was a lot better when used against scout and elite gears. Both had Man bonuses, that the FGC compensated, and the effective x9 DM meant that it could do light damage to elite gears with MoS 2. So usually, it was a pretty nice improvement.
And also... you were able to change the ammo and put solid shots. That changed the weapon to x14 DM, Acc 0. Which was nice.
Which I was wondering about, with Brandon's Thunder Run rules, since in Infinity you can select-fire Boarding Shotguns to either do AP shots or your more typical 'shotgun' burst. I was curious if the Frag Cannons might share similar rules.
Slugs are a great way of doing lots of kinect damage after all!
But it was a lot better when used against scout and elite gears. Both had Man bonuses, that the FGC compensated, and the effective x9 DM meant that it could do light damage to elite gears with MoS 2. So usually, it was a pretty nice improvement.
And also... you were able to change the ammo and put solid shots. That changed the weapon to x14 DM, Acc 0. Which was nice.
The slug seemed nice on paper, but the +1 ACC shot was typically better - due to multiplicative effects, that x9 DAM would effectively be around x14 to begin with, and the +1 ACC meant that you were generally assured to land a better hit almost all of the time. I personally think they screwed up the damage on the +1 ACC shot myself - it should have been around x5 or x6, because at x7 you're basically saying it's shooting AC shells. And that doesn't make sense - if you can fire a cloud of shells with the same damage as an AC, why wouldn't your ACs adopt the same technology?
Mechanics aside however - the frag cannon was supposed to have two types of ammo, Impact and AI, with a fairly reasonable damage value but a low range. Impact was supposed to be the slug and could slow you down, but apparently that mechanic was cumbersome and they're removing it. That makes sense to me - Impact was good from a game perspective, but unrealistic - how much energy could a slug that size impart, after all? I believe they're changing it to an armor penetrating round which gives it an interesting niche at least.
But either way, it's a big honking shotgun. Just like the Snub Cannon - realism is nice, but sometimes rule of cool should prevail.
IceRaptor wrote: The slug seemed nice on paper, but the +1 ACC shot was typically better - due to multiplicative effects, that x9 DAM would effectively be around x14 to begin with, and the +1 ACC meant that you were generally assured to land a better hit almost all of the time. I personally think they screwed up the damage on the +1 ACC shot myself - it should have been around x5 or x6, because at x7 you're basically saying it's shooting AC shells. And that doesn't make sense - if you can fire a cloud of shells with the same damage as an AC, why wouldn't your ACs adopt the same technology?
I sort of agree, but the x14 +0 Acc gun was still good against low Man high Armor vehicles usually. It was a particular case, yes, but... it was also useful because you could add up other ammo effects to the solid shot, like AP.
Mechanics aside however - the frag cannon was supposed to have two types of ammo, Impact and AI, with a fairly reasonable damage value but a low range. Impact was supposed to be the slug and could slow you down, but apparently that mechanic was cumbersome and they're removing it. That makes sense to me - Impact was good from a game perspective, but unrealistic - how much energy could a slug that size impart, after all? I believe they're changing it to an armor penetrating round which gives it an interesting niche at least.
But either way, it's a big honking shotgun. Just like the Snub Cannon - realism is nice, but sometimes rule of cool should prevail.
It's all I've been commenting on, really. That saying that the frag cannon was "never meant to be shot against Gears" was... well, untrue.
I sort of agree, but the x14 +0 Acc gun was still good against low Man high Armor vehicles usually. It was a particular case, yes, but... it was also useful because you could add up other ammo effects to the solid shot, like AP.
Ah, okay. I assume you're talking about -2 or -3 MAN models; that would make sense then.
Albertorius wrote: It's all I've been commenting on, really. That saying that the frag cannon was "never meant to be shot against Gears" was... well, untrue.
That was the description, but I don't think either incarnation really lives up to the ideal. In Blitz and earlier the ceramic shot is more potent than shaped penetrators, which is sorta dumb. I'd be much happier if the buckshot was logically consistent and damaged AUX system, sensors, etc - but was still not a 'go to' damage against the core of the unit. The slug round - which would basically just be a heavier, slower AC shell - makes good sense to me, so I don't have any real objections there. I don't think either system has represented it well, myself.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
warboss wrote: Gerrit, I tried using the alpha no movement dice in regular blitz except for held actions and it works well. Thanks for the idea!
You're welcome, but it was hardly a novel ideal. Many people were talking about it during the L&L period,not just me. But I'm glad you're having fun with it!
Ah, okay. I assume you're talking about -2 or -3 MAN models; that would make sense then.
Yep, it got some use as strider and light tank hunting weapon back in the day. That said, we also used extensively the special ammo rules.
That was the description, but I don't think either incarnation really lives up to the ideal. In Blitz and earlier the ceramic shot is more potent than shaped penetrators, which is sorta dumb. I'd be much happier if the buckshot was logically consistent and damaged AUX system, sensors, etc - but was still not a 'go to' damage against the core of the unit. The slug round - which would basically just be a heavier, slower AC shell - makes good sense to me, so I don't have any real objections there. I don't think either system has represented it well, myself.
Agreed. Personally, I'd expand on the AUX idea: a frag ammo FGC should be good for blowing up AUX systems out of a unit (buckshot, accurate, don't need to pack much punch). It also should be good against lightly armored targets (thin-skinned vehicles, light plates... up to armored trucks I guess. And Cheetahs, Bobcats and the like. Maybe Armor 12 or whereabouts?).
But in my mind, it also should be effective against Gears. With as many articulated parts a Gear needs to move around and fight there must be unarmored/lightly armored joints just about everywhere... and while a bullet, or even a burst is not that likely to hit one, a cloud of big-ass pellets are. So they should wreck havoc in gears' joints, which could perfectly translate as Movement, Maneuver and FC hits.
Albertorius wrote: It also should be good against lightly armored targets (thin-skinned vehicles, light plates... up to armored trucks I guess. And Cheetahs, Bobcats and the like. Maybe Armor 12 or whereabouts?).
I guess it's a preference issue, but I'd say that the buckshot round would have a hard time penetrating even Bobcat armor, but the Cheetah might be a possibility. I tend to think of the buckshot round is roughly equal to a HMG round, or maybe slightly meaner, but not much so. The smaller a round and the lower the velocity, the less the penetration - and I'd tend to think you're basically shooting as many pellets as possible to make it competitive with a HMG round, just in a one-shot 'fan' instead of a burst of multiple rounds. Which is why I tend to put it on the lower end of the scale; short of using self-guiding projectiles that sort of fan burst with shaped charges would be difficult and I don't see the frag as that high tech of a weapon.
But in my mind, it also should be effective against Gears. With as many articulated parts a Gear needs to move around and fight there must be unarmored/lightly armored joints just about everywhere... and while a bullet, or even a burst is not that likely to hit one, a cloud of big-ass pellets are. So they should wreck havoc in gears' joints, which could perfectly translate as Movement, Maneuver and FC hits.
I would agree with that - it also fits with the professed Silhouette belief that it's an 'effects' based system. Make the buckshot round randomly damage Man, Move, FC, Aux instead of doing straight damage, and it plays more like the ideal I think. Allow it to also select an solid round, which I'd just give decent damage to and nothing else, and the frag cannon can work as a AI, debuffer or be dangerous at short ranges. That would give it a variety of roles, only limited by it's range - which sounds like a good flavor for the weapon.
The pod has unveiled the first peek at their new northern Gearstrider:
Whoo, let's make the factions even more distinctive... byt copying each and every thing everyone have in all armies.
Ah, well. I don't like GSs, never will I think. As to the actual design, it looks much more proportioned than the Drake, to the point that, with the scale of that Snub Cannon, I can't really say that it looks any bigger than a Kodiak.
...which is not that surprising, seeing as, from the look of it, is basically what it is: Kodiak arms and legs, Razorback torso, Hussar turret and head. Plus a stupid looking double axe and a snub cannon that shoots snub cannons.
Ah well, at leas it looks proportioned. I guess I could use it as a 28mm Gear.
IceRaptor wrote: I would agree with that - it also fits with the professed Silhouette belief that it's an 'effects' based system. Make the buckshot round randomly damage Man, Move, FC, Aux instead of doing straight damage, and it plays more like the ideal I think. Allow it to also select an solid round, which I'd just give decent damage to and nothing else, and the frag cannon can work as a AI, debuffer or be dangerous at short ranges. That would give it a variety of roles, only limited by it's range - which sounds like a good flavor for the weapon.
So, thinking about ways to implement this with the Tactical rules...
Hm, I guess I should have to create the ammo. Let's see, how about this:
Buckshot ammo Buckshot ammo fills the air with heavy pellets instead of a single larger projectile. That makes them more effective against unprotected targets and diminishes the need to aim. That also reduces penetration capabilities, but it is still effective against joints, auxiliary systems and similarly unprotected equipment on armored units.
In game terms, the attacker receives a +1 Acc bonus, halves the DM and adds the AI trait to the weapon (that makes it have the same DM against infantry as a HMG at full auto [EDIT: well, the FGC at least ^_^]).
When attacking non-infantry targets, the weapon doesn't reduce the Armor of the unit, but it will roll twice in the systems damage table, rerolling any "crew" result. Also, it can't score Heavy damage hits.
Probably a bit too wordy, but... how about it? Too much, too little?
Buckshot ammo Buckshot ammo fills the air with heavy pellets instead of a single larger projectile. That makes them more effective against unprotected targets and diminishes the need to aim. That also reduces penetration capabilities, but it is still effective against joints, auxiliary systems and similarly unprotected equipment on armored units.
In game terms, the attacker receives a +1 Acc bonus, halves the DM and adds the AI trait to the weapon (that makes it have the same DM against infantry as a HMG at full auto [EDIT: well, the FGC at least ^_^]).
When attacking non-infantry targets, the weapon doesn't reduce the Armor of the unit, but it will roll twice in the systems damage table, rerolling any "crew" result. Also, it can't score Heavy damage hits.
Probably a bit too wordy, but... how about it? Too much, too little?
I think that does a pretty good job myself. The only change I would make would be to say that 'Treat any Heavy Damage hits as Light Damage hits.' instead of saying you just don't get Heavy damage hits. Against Tanks (and other fortified targets) it's going to be hard to score enough MoS * DAM to actually generate systems damage, unless I'm recalling incorrectly? But against a Gear you can really sandpaper them down to nothing.
Albertorius wrote: The pod has unveiled the first peek at their new northern Gearstrider:
Spoiler:
Whoo, let's make the factions even more distinctive... byt copying each and every thing everyone have in all armies.
Ah, well. I don't like GSs, never will I think. As to the actual design, it looks much more proportioned than the Drake, to the point that, with the scale of that Snub Cannon, I can't really say that it looks any bigger than a Kodiak.
...which is not that surprising, seeing as, from the look of it, is basically what it is: Kodiak arms and legs, Razorback torso, Hussar turret and head. Plus a stupid looking double axe and a snub cannon that shoots snub cannons.
It's better than the drake but that is hardly a compliment nor is it hard to do. You also forgot the wedding cake inspiration for the top center torso as it only needs another weapon on top of the weapon that is on top of the other weapon to be complete. Assuming that thing is the size of previous gearstriders, isn't that snub cannon too large? I'm not really sold on the obligatory close combat weapon as I personally don't think every gearstrider needs to have a secret aspiring arena gladiator fetish. In the end, it's better than I thought it would be given the drake but still far from good.
Albertorius wrote: The pod has unveiled the first peek at their new northern Gearstrider:
Whoo, let's make the factions even more distinctive... by copying each and every thing everyone have in all armies.
Ah, well. I don't like GSs, never will I think.
Yeah, another shining example of the Pod's commitment to originality.
warboss wrote: I'm not really sold on the obligatory close combat weapon
The "Chaplain" staff on the Knights of Massada CGL model lost it's second attack during layout, so TPTB had to add it back somewhere, at least in looks.
And the generalissimo loves snubs, so it had to have that too, because it already had too much of everything else for no reason.
Scale apparently is one of those irrelevant details no one is allowed to question either. Arena gladiatorial mecha melee is the true vision of Heavy Gear, anything else is a byproduct or happenstance.
Isn't it amazing how fast a never critiqued pet idea can get pushed through when TPTB choose to do so yet the Pod's other projects can and have languished for a year or more at times, or get released so full of typos and errors as to be almost unusable.
HudsonD wrote: This new unit outperforms the Mammoth in every way, for a price increase that's negligible. Way to go...
It's only under-costed by around 20-40 TV, which TPTB apparently find no big deal.
And players may already own Mammoths, so those folks don't matter.
It is bad enough that there is gundam and final fantasy spilled all over my Heavy Gear... we don't need to (Michael) Bay it up as well with robots with facial hair! It has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that manly facial hair on giant robots is a big mistake. The pod doesn't need even more inspiration for mediocrity from the guy who is screwing up my favorite childhood toys.
Spoiler:
edit: Also, as a former tanker, could you confirm that lighting an artillery round on fire at that end would just end up exploding that 120mm cigar into the robots face in a Willy Coyote sort of way?
Automatically Appended Next Post: @Smilodon: Some people simply differ from my strong opinions about gear striders (both in looks and theory) but I don't think there is any justification for undercosting them just to sell shiny new model. That last part is completely without morales but I suspect the company needs the cash infusion (conjecture obviously) with books now simply not selling. I wouldn't mind picking up a hard copy of TPS but the news of the books being useless hasn't apparently hit the ebay resellers yet and they're still asking for way too much for an outdated book.
Chemical Cutthroat wrote: I'm going to greenstuff on a beard to one of my Chameleons just for you warboss.
Also, that Gearstrider is... wow...
That might be one of the ugliest things I have seen. The tiny head on the Dingo looks neat. But that is just...
Igor called, and he wants his hunchback.
If Igor has the time to find a phone, reattach his fingers and call you instead of doing his job, then he clearly doesn't need an assistant. I'll tell him during his next evaluation. I'll also explain to him that he's not supposed to discriminate based on disability. An assistant with a straight back is just as capable as a hunchbacked one.
It is bad enough that there is gundam and final fantasy spilled all over my Heavy Gear... we don't need to (Michael) Bay it up as well with robots with facial hair! It has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that manly facial hair on giant robots is a big mistake. The pod doesn't need even more inspiration for mediocrity from the guy who is screwing up my favorite childhood toys.
Spoiler:
edit: Also, as a former tanker, could you confirm that lighting an artillery round on fire at that end would just end up exploding that 120mm cigar into the robots face in a Willy Coyote sort of way?
Automatically Appended Next Post: @Smilodon: Some people simply differ from my strong opinions about gear striders (both in looks and theory) but I don't think there is any justification for undercosting them just to sell shiny new model. That last part is completely without morales but I suspect the company needs the cash infusion (conjecture obviously) with books now simply not selling. I wouldn't mind picking up a hard copy of TPS but the news of the books being useless hasn't apparently hit the ebay resellers yet and they're still asking for way too much for an outdated book.
For those who are completely WTFing over what it was I said, I mentioned that we should add a beard, in reference to an earlier comment about Manly Things.
And hey, know what, I'ma have fun with this, so ya'll and your discussions about what's overcosted/undercosted can keep it in PMs. :p
Serious, guys, can we not have fun???
Yes, snub cannon's oversized, I get it. We all knew it was coming anyway (though even I admit I wanted the North to go another route). That's not my business though. I'll work with it because it's there. And I'll have a crap-load of fun with it. You believe me.
As for the 120 burning up, yes. It wouldn't explode, but it would burn really fast. So I'm guessing he's got some kinda weird concoction in there to smoke it. That or he's using the tip of the sabot as a tip for some weird tobacco concoction.
Chemical Cutthroat wrote:I'm going to greenstuff on a beard to one of my Chameleons just for you warboss.
Also, that Gearstrider is... wow...
That might be one of the ugliest things I have seen. The tiny head on the Dingo looks neat. But that is just...
Igor called, and he wants his hunchback.
mrondeau wrote:
Chemical Cutthroat wrote: I'm going to greenstuff on a beard to one of my Chameleons just for you warboss.
Also, that Gearstrider is... wow...
That might be one of the ugliest things I have seen. The tiny head on the Dingo looks neat. But that is just...
Igor called, and he wants his hunchback.
If Igor has the time to find a phone, reattach his fingers and call you instead of doing his job, then he clearly doesn't need an assistant. I'll tell him during his next evaluation. I'll also explain to him that he's not supposed to discriminate based on disability. An assistant with a straight back is just as capable as a hunchbacked one.
I didn't even think of it as a Razorback. Seen more of the Chevalier in its shoulders. But figuring that it came after all the rest, doesn't surprise me that fluff-wise it would be influenced by the past ones.
For those who are completely WTFing over what it was I said, I mentioned that we should add a beard, in reference to an earlier comment about Manly Things.
And hey, know what, I'ma have fun with this, so ya'll and your discussions about what's overcosted/undercosted can keep it in PMs. :p
Serious, guys, can we not have fun???
I can't stop you from modelling your gear striders with facial hair. I can however choose to target them first if we ever play a game together to get those abominations off of the tabletop ASAP.
Yes, snub cannon's oversized, I get it. We all knew it was coming anyway (though even I admit I wanted the North to go another route). That's not my business though.
-Brandon F.
As a fan and especially now freelancer, I'd say actually that it is exactly your business in a literal sense whereas it is our "business" as fans in a figurative sense. You may not have any power in making the said (bad) decision but it is your business to keep abreast of the changes.
For those who are completely WTFing over what it was I said, I mentioned that we should add a beard, in reference to an earlier comment about Manly Things.
And hey, know what, I'ma have fun with this, so ya'll and your discussions about what's overcosted/undercosted can keep it in PMs. :p
Serious, guys, can we not have fun???
I can't stop you from modelling your gear striders with facial hair. I can however choose to target them first if we ever play a game together to get those abominations off of the tabletop ASAP.
Hey, I got it! Hunchback of Notre Dame, I can get some brown or green cloth and make a tattered robe for it too!
Yes, snub cannon's oversized, I get it. We all knew it was coming anyway (though even I admit I wanted the North to go another route). That's not my business though.
-Brandon F.
As a fan and especially now freelancer, I'd say actually that it is exactly your business in a literal sense whereas it is our "business" as fans in a figurative sense. You may not have any power in making the said (bad) decision but it is your business to keep abreast of the changes.
This I do, though whether or not I maintain my status is in the hands of Arkritre Press LLC.
I followed up on the gear strider after the news was posted here and it seems there have been some slight developments for the better. Dave clarified that the larger snub is a "new" naval snub in the alpha (eh, sounds like a made up after the fact explanation but whatever...) but the good news is that they redesigned the model a bit. The head looks a bit better and the axe is now a polearm. The full text is spoilered below after the pics. I would also point out the distinct lack of facial hair in the new version as well.
New
Old
Spoiler:
Robert's Post:
Updated Scimitar Gear Strider
We updated the head of the Scimitar adding a few more details to it and Jason did quick redesign of the staff after reading everyone's comments about the first design. The new staff look less like an axe and more like a staff, with a big armor crushing blade at one end.
The new image included with this post is the Scimitar Stock model with Snub Cannon, Anti-Gear Missiles, Medium Anti-Aircraft Cannon, Heavy Spike Guns and the new Heavy Staff shown with both front and back views. We hope you all like the redesign.
Dave's Post:
In the beta rules that stub cannon is officially a NSC (Naval Snub Cannon), officially one step bigger than a heavy snub cannon.
In terms of use the Mammoth is more heavily armored and has a wider variety of weapons though with less maneuverability. The Mammoth is a siege engine, the Scimitar is a battering ram. Both have their niche.
warboss wrote: [..] but I don't think there is any justification for undercosting them just to sell shiny new model. That last part is completely without morals but I suspect the company needs the cash infusion (conjecture obviously) with books now simply not selling.
There is that, and having had my few email or Skype discussions with el presidente it's also in large part just like Mrondeau said; if Robert thinks something will sell to at least one person it will get created, regardless of what it does to the setting.
The Lynx being yet another example, instead of being some kind of Ferret offshoot.
BrandonKF wrote: We all knew it was coming anyway (though even I admit I wanted the North to go another route).
No, it wasn't. I've mentioned this before, but if no one is listening, oh well, it doesn't mean a thing to me.
During a development stretching back to before April of 2012, then actual progress earlier last Summer 2013, until the final ~3 months or so of work last Fall and Winter there was not one single solitary mention I am aware of about a Northern GS until Robert saw that one offhand comment made May 4th on Facebook. All of the directives handed down from Robert during my tenure, or during our very few conversations, were exclusively about things like ensuring X model had more exposure or else involving the standard Northern Striders, including both the Juggernaut and Wolf as added by one of the devs.
I also posted el presidente's message about "creating" the Lion/ScimitarGS earlier in the thread:
On Mon, 5/5/14, Robert Dubois wrote wrote:[..] I'm also going to rename or remove completely the Lion gear and use the name on the New Lion Gear Strider that's being designed now, it will be an upgrade to the Strike squad and it will be in its own Gear Strider combat group, I'm making up the data card for it this afternoon and I'll send it you way once its done to get TV costs for the variants. Reason I'm doing this is the name of the ebook is Lion's Wrath and I want the Lion to be kickass, its going to have a big snub cannon with 0 Acc and snipered, we looked over the Wolf strider and it didn't really bring anything to the table that players would want to pay the high cost of a strider for.
Much of the Northern material was specifically intended to not be the same as every other faction - and then over time that idea was completely discarded before finally the material itself was rendered into a partially nonfunctional state.
Like say deleting lines to add a GS etc etc into a certain combat group, never noticing that the deleted lines make it utterly impossible for an intended faction to get one of it's specifically created variants, but that this loadout is still present in the datacards.
BrandonKF wrote: And hey, know what, I'ma have fun with this, so ya'll and your discussions about what's overcosted/undercosted can keep it in PMs.
On Sat, 5/10/14, Robert Dubois wrote wrote:Alexander what's your problem, [..] Your attitude is just terrible, if you can't bring anything positive to the table then you should just keep it to yourself.
I guess absolutely any unenthusiastic and non-positive statements should be kept out of any discussion about DP9 or it's offshoot companies, anywhere, by anyone, forever.
The problem happening is that if players don't find something that the Pod creates "fun" they are forced to accept it nevertheless.
So in effect the wishes of a few dozen, or less, people are dictating the entirety of how everyone else must experience a hobby where they may have just as much of an investment as the vocal favored.
But it's already been established in this thread that those favored few are the only folks that matter to the Pod at all, so in this instance good behavior has once again been rewarded.
/shrug
warboss wrote: I followed up on the gear strider after the news was posted here and it seems there have been some slight developments for the better. Dave clarified that the larger snub is a "new" naval snub in the alpha (eh, sounds like a made up after the fact explanation but whatever...)
Dave wrote:In the beta rules that stub cannon is officially a NSC (Naval Snub Cannon), officially one step bigger than a heavy snub cannon.
It never ceases to amaze me how inept both Dave and Robert continually prove themselves to be, even for things so simple as posting on their own web forums.
It was also very nice of the Pod to rip-off and/or reuse oneeye's idea just to cover adding something that once again doesn't fit into the current rules.
warboss wrote: I followed up on the gear strider after the news was posted here and it seems there have been some slight developments for the better. Dave clarified that the larger snub is a "new" naval snub in the alpha (eh, sounds like a made up after the fact explanation but whatever...)
I'll add to Smilodon's answer above that Dave's answer about the Mammoth and Scimitar is pure, genuine bs. The kind that'd make me doubt he even plays the game at all. Seriously.
Buckshot ammo Buckshot ammo fills the air with heavy pellets instead of a single larger projectile. That makes them more effective against unprotected targets and diminishes the need to aim. That also reduces penetration capabilities, but it is still effective against joints, auxiliary systems and similarly unprotected equipment on armored units.
In game terms, the attacker receives a +1 Acc bonus, halves the DM and adds the AI trait to the weapon (that makes it have the same DM against infantry as a HMG at full auto [EDIT: well, the FGC at least ^_^]).
When attacking non-infantry targets, the weapon doesn't reduce the Armor of the unit, but it will roll twice in the systems damage table, rerolling any "crew" result. Also, it can't score Heavy damage hits.
Probably a bit too wordy, but... how about it? Too much, too little?
I think that does a pretty good job myself. The only change I would make would be to say that 'Treat any Heavy Damage hits as Light Damage hits.' instead of saying you just don't get Heavy damage hits. Against Tanks (and other fortified targets) it's going to be hard to score enough MoS * DAM to actually generate systems damage, unless I'm recalling incorrectly? But against a Gear you can really sandpaper them down to nothing.
Yeah, I meant to say that any "heavy damage" hit should be rolled as a light one. But rereading the rules I've just made up, I think it actually wouldn't work as I intended. My idea was to, as you say, be able to "sandpaper to death" stuff and wreck havoc on their systems while doing it. But with the rule as written, the FGC would still be able to overkill a unit in one lucky shot, and not removing Armor on each hit would make it more difficult to degrade the unit bit by bit (as Tactical has no damage boxes).
Ok, second try:
Buckshot ammo Buckshot ammo fills the air with heavy pellets instead of a single larger projectile. That makes them more effective against unprotected targets and diminishes the need to aim. That also reduces penetration capabilities, but it is still effective against joints, auxiliary systems and similarly unprotected equipment on armored units.
In game terms, the attacker receives a +1 Acc bonus, halves the DM and adds the AI trait to the weapon.
When attacking non-infantry targets, the weapon will roll twice in the systems damage table, rerolling any "crew" result. The second roll will always be treated as a "light damage" result. Additionally, the weapon can't get an Overkill result: any Overkill result will be treated as a "heavy damage" hit.
This will allow the FGC to "sandpaper units to death" (removing armor on each hit will do that), it will make additional systems damage, and won't be able to kill anything in one shot, unless the weapon rolls really well on the systems damage table. What do you think?
warboss wrote:I followed up on the gear strider after the news was posted here and it seems there have been some slight developments for the better. Dave clarified that the larger snub is a "new" naval snub in the alpha (eh, sounds like a made up after the fact explanation but whatever...) but the good news is that they redesigned the model a bit. The head looks a bit better and the axe is now a polearm. The full text is spoilered below after the pics. I would also point out the distinct lack of facial hair in the new version as well.
...seriously, the term "naval snub cannon" is an oxymoron.
warboss wrote:I followed up on the gear strider after the news was posted here and it seems there have been some slight developments for the better. Dave clarified that the larger snub is a "new" naval snub in the alpha (eh, sounds like a made up after the fact explanation but whatever...) but the good news is that they redesigned the model a bit. The head looks a bit better and the axe is now a polearm. The full text is spoilered below after the pics. I would also point out the distinct lack of facial hair in the new version as well.
Noooooooooo! No facial hair? We must Murphy this up!
Smilodon_UP wrote:
BrandonKF wrote: We all knew it was coming anyway (though even I admit I wanted the North to go another route).
No, it wasn't. I've mentioned this before, but if no one is listening, oh well, it doesn't mean a thing to me.
During a development stretching back to before April of 2012, then actual progress earlier last Summer 2013, until the final ~3 months or so of work last Fall and Winter there was not one single solitary mention I am aware of about a Northern GS until Robert saw that one offhand comment made May 4th on Facebook. All of the directives handed down from Robert during my tenure, or during our very few conversations, were exclusively about things like ensuring X model had more exposure or else involving the standard Northern Striders, including both the Juggernaut and Wolf as added by one of the devs.
I also posted el presidente's message about "creating" the Lion/ScimitarGS earlier in the thread:
On Mon, 5/5/14, Robert Dubois wrote wrote:[..] I'm also going to rename or remove completely the Lion gear and use the name on the New Lion Gear Strider that's being designed now, it will be an upgrade to the Strike squad and it will be in its own Gear Strider combat group, I'm making up the data card for it this afternoon and I'll send it you way once its done to get TV costs for the variants. Reason I'm doing this is the name of the ebook is Lion's Wrath and I want the Lion to be kickass, its going to have a big snub cannon with 0 Acc and snipered, we looked over the Wolf strider and it didn't really bring anything to the table that players would want to pay the high cost of a strider for.
Much of the Northern material was specifically intended to not be the same as every other faction - and then over time that idea was completely discarded before finally the material itself was rendered into a partially nonfunctional state. Like say deleting lines to add a GS etc etc into a certain combat group, never noticing that the deleted lines make it utterly impossible for an intended faction to get one of it's specifically created variants, but that this loadout is still present in the datacards.
BrandonKF wrote: And hey, know what, I'ma have fun with this, so ya'll and your discussions about what's overcosted/undercosted can keep it in PMs.
On Sat, 5/10/14, Robert Dubois wrote wrote:Alexander what's your problem, [..] Your attitude is just terrible, if you can't bring anything positive to the table then you should just keep it to yourself.
I guess absolutely any unenthusiastic and non-positive statements should be kept out of any discussion about DP9 or it's offshoot companies, anywhere, by anyone, forever.
The problem happening is that if players don't find something that the Pod creates "fun" they are forced to accept it nevertheless.
So in effect the wishes of a few dozen, or less, people are dictating the entirety of how everyone else must experience a hobby where they may have just as much of an investment as the vocal favored.
But it's already been established in this thread that those favored few are the only folks that matter to the Pod at all, so in this instance good behavior has once again been rewarded.
/shrug
I made a suggestion, not been on 'good behavior', if that's what you're implying. I'm not with Dream Pod 9. In truth I'm not 'with' anyone. I'm a freelancer, the same as you Smilodon.
And again, I'll ask both you and HudsonD, would you please test the rules for my HG/Infinity cross-over? I would really enjoy getting your feedback, because I know you guys love the setting and I would like to have your input. And yes, even your criticisms. I would take Albertorius' and mrondeau's criticisms as well, and IceRaptor no doubt. I'll even give warboss a pass, though the whole thing about not wanting a Manly Murphy beard on Gears hurts me to my core.
You're all remarkably dedicated individuals, and I would like to hear from you. Seriously, no sarcasm, no bs, I want and I am asking for your help.
God bless, all. And Happy Independence Day to my fellow Americans.
I'll gladly test it out later this summer, Brandon, but I'm honestly just waiting for the v3 Infinity to come out. I don't want to start learning the rules only to have to change it again in a few months. I'll be picking up the rulebook to check out the system once it is updated.
warboss wrote: I'll gladly test it out later this summer, Brandon, but I'm honestly just waiting for the v3 Infinity to come out. I don't want to start learning the rules only to have to change it again in a few months. I'll be picking up the rulebook to check out the system once it is updated.
Learning the current rules won't flub you when then new ones come out. From what I've seen so far, you'll be able to adjust VERY quickly. Considering the Loss of Lieutenant rules currently are a bit of a fustercluck, the new ones will be much more fluid.
Always a good time to learn! If you're ever in the Bmore area I'll run you through some games! I'll make sure beers are in the fridge.
The problem happening is that if players don't find something that the Pod creates "fun" they are forced to accept it nevertheless.
So in effect the wishes of a few dozen, or less, people are dictating the entirety of how everyone else must experience a hobby where they may have just as much of an investment as the vocal favored.
But it's already been established in this thread that those favored few are the only folks that matter to the Pod at all, so in this instance good behavior has once again been rewarded.
/shrug
I made a suggestion, not been on 'good behavior', if that's what you're implying. I'm not with Dream Pod 9. In truth I'm not 'with' anyone. I'm a freelancer
That one wasn't wholly at you specifically, but just to indicate a symptom of the larger issue that is occurring.
It should never be acceptable for one player to ask for something and see it implemented at the expense of everyone else across the entire player-base, to include overriding months or years of work into a piss-poor release requiring multiple attempts to fix problems that didn't previously exist before whatever inclusion(s).
It should never be acceptable for a small handful of never critical players to have their desires affect how everyone else must play the game.
But unfortunately this is how Robert has chosen to try and keep the Pod in business, and that isn't going to change.
BrandonKF wrote: And again, I'll ask both you and HudsonD, would you please test the rules for my HG/Infinity cross-over? I would really enjoy getting your feedback, because I know you guys love the setting and I would like to have your input. And yes, even your criticisms.
As I guess I haven't been clear enough before this, what have I ever posted anywhere that would lead you to believe I find Infinity's mechanics something I want to use to play a ported version of Heavy Gear, even if I wouldn't have to test it out by myself.
I don't like mecha oriented gameplay.
I don't like "hero" units in games involving mechanized vehicles.
I don't like using meters high and multi-ton combat vehicles as powered armor troopers.
I don't like mecha melee, or even the assumption that it is a viable tactic beyond desperation.
While it may have some points in it's favor, Infinity is set-up to allow those things.
I do not find the idea at all "fun," but you keep expecting me to regardless of my own mindset.
IME fan created Heavy Gear rulesets are never going to work for most folks, because unless the creator(s) have the objectivity to include everything they personally hate about a setting no one would ever look at it, let alone use it.
But at the same time, if the revamp into another ruleset does include things players loath and find silly, they won't be using it either.
The rules for Thunder Run aren't set up for 'hero' units. There isn't a named character in the bunch. Unless you're meaning a heavy unit 'rambo-ing' into the fray... which though it does happen, is usually met with the likely results.
Though there are rules for Melee, because it happens, but no units are set up to run up and punch things. Even in Infinity, just because you have an explosive CCW or something crazy on you giant deathrobot doesn't mean you want to use it instead of an HMG or something.
The chap was just asking for a hand and/or your thoughts. I think a simple 'No thanks not interested' would have sufficed.
If you don't like meter high multi-ton combat vehicles as exactly what they are built for then why do you even like Heavy Gear? The whole appeal of the units is that they can mimic human movements on a larger scale. Kneeling, running, maneuvering, climbing, etc. They're still big heavy war machines, and 'more nimble' doesn't mean they're suddenly all ninjas.
Can you elaborate further on that part given the game genre we're talking about? Is this part of/related to your dislike in the alpha for the new use of the term mecha instead of gear?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Chemical Cutthroat wrote: Learning the current rules won't flub you when then new ones come out. From what I've seen so far, you'll be able to adjust VERY quickly. Considering the Loss of Lieutenant rules currently are a bit of a fustercluck, the new ones will be much more fluid.
Always a good time to learn! If you're ever in the Bmore area I'll run you through some games! I'll make sure beers are in the fridge.
Thanks for the offer and the recap. The devil though is in the details and if the new rules are seemingly coming out only in a few months, I'd rather just learn the future-proof (at least for 3-5 years) rules as a foundation for my understanding.
Smilodon_UP wrote: While it may have some points in it's favor, Infinity is set-up to allow those things.
The rules for Thunder Run aren't set up for 'hero' units. There isn't a named character in the bunch.
Skirmish scale gaming is specifically for often dissimilar individual models conducting small unit actions versus a comparable force, each model using whatever systems the controlling player desires them to have instead of being a largely homogeneous unit.
Duelists, Black Talons et al, or Airborne models that drop onto the table are likewise heroic, and they aren't ever going to be removed from HG.
Especially not at that scale.
I've read enough of Brandon's posts, threads, and fiction to know what he likes, and because of that I know the things he likes will be included as part of a HG ruleset based on his vision. That is reality.
Chemical Cutthroat wrote: The chap was just asking for a hand and/or your thoughts. I think a simple 'No thanks not interested' would have sufficed.
I have carefully never commented in his "update" thread, never commented on that very same idea in this thread beyond a single post, nor commented on his ruleset port anywhere else such as on DP9 or Google+, so it could not be construed that I had any interest.
What more could I not do.
Chemical Cutthroat wrote: If you don't like meter high multi-ton combat vehicles as exactly what they are built for then why do you even like Heavy Gear?
.... what perception then am I allowed to have, or supposed to have .... But yeah, you're right. No worries.
IceRaptor wrote: I think the point is that Heavy Gear - as a setting - sees the Gears as effective combat vehicles only in specific niches. However, walkers are increasing having their effectiveness exaggerated beyond those niches due to the rule of cool. Brandon's rules covers vehicles to some extent, but primarily focuses on Gears because that's what most players find compelling. Ergo, what (I think) he dislikes is the spotlight on mecha, not necessarily the presence of mecha per se.
Pretty much. I see Gears as a legged equivalent of this or this, not a suit of mary-sue armor.
[i]Buckshot ammo fills the air with heavy pellets instead of a single larger projectile. That makes them more effective against unprotected targets and diminishes the need to aim. That also reduces penetration capabilities, but it is still effective against joints, auxiliary systems and similarly unprotected equipment on armored units.
I love the description. I think you've nailed it in one on the description - but after going back to reading my tactical rules, I think the rules you've posted don't quite capture that effectively. In particular, allowing the buckshot to damage armor contradicts the 'reduces penetration capabilities' statement you made, without making it more likely to destroy AUX systems or the like. My personal stance is that I think buckshot should degrade your systems severely, but not necessarily damage your armor in the process - it's cracking the weak points on weapons, joints, etc. To that end, and after looking back through the rules a bit, I think you'd have to create your own damage table to accomplish the effects I think reconciles the weapon against the description you posted above.
What do you think about this?
In game terms, the attacker receives a +1 Acc bonus, halves the DM and adds the AI trait to the weapon. When attacking non-infantry targets, instead of the normal damage effects roll against the following systems damage table. Any system with a penalty of -6 is destroyed; re-roll any results against destroyed systems.
It's a rough draft, but I tend to think that would represent the buckshot damaging the more 'fragile' elements of a unit better than sandpapering armor. A single good shot can yield a mobility kill or
significantly reduce a unit's ability to respond to the attack. Thoughts?
If you don't like meter high multi-ton combat vehicles as exactly what they are built for then why do you even like Heavy Gear? The whole appeal of the units is that they can mimic human movements on a larger scale. Kneeling, running, maneuvering, climbing, etc. They're still big heavy war machines, and 'more nimble' doesn't mean they're suddenly all ninjas.
I think the point is that Heavy Gear - as a setting - sees the Gears as effective combat vehicles only in specific niches. Specifically, rough terrain where conventional vehicles lack the mobility to traverse easily - broken badlands, swamps, urban settings, mountain ranges, etc. The rest of the time, conventional vehicles rule the day, and combat walkers are at a decided disadvantage. However, walkers are increasing having their effectiveness exaggerated beyond those niches due to the rule of cool. I think all that Smilodon is saying is that he prefer the combined arms approach, where infantry, vehicles and walker IFVs all have their place - but walkers aren't pushed to the front to appeal to a particular playerbase. Brandon's rules covers vehicles to some extent, but primarily focuses on Gears because that's what most players find compelling. Ergo, what (I think) he dislikes is the spotlight on mecha, not necessarily the presence of mecha per se.
I think the point is that Heavy Gear - as a setting - sees the Gears as effective combat vehicles only in specific niches. Specifically, rough terrain where conventional vehicles lack the mobility to traverse easily - broken badlands, swamps, urban settings, mountain ranges, etc. The rest of the time, conventional vehicles rule the day, and combat walkers are at a decided disadvantage. However, walkers are increasing having their effectiveness exaggerated beyond those niches due to the rule of cool. I think all that Smilodon is saying is that he prefer the combined arms approach, where infantry, vehicles and walker IFVs all have their place - but walkers aren't pushed to the front to appeal to a particular playerbase. Brandon's rules covers vehicles to some extent, but primarily focuses on Gears because that's what most players find compelling. Ergo, what (I think) he dislikes is the spotlight on mecha, not necessarily the presence of mecha per se.
But then, I could be mistaken.
Well, if you are mistaken, so am I.
One of the biggest appeal of the HG setting is that the "mecha" aspects give it added flavor, but aren't critical to it. Could you have the setting working without the gears ? Easily.
Smilodon_UP wrote: While it may have some points in it's favor, Infinity is set-up to allow those things.
The rules for Thunder Run aren't set up for 'hero' units. There isn't a named character in the bunch.
Skirmish scale gaming is specifically for often dissimilar individual models conducting small unit actions versus a comparable force, each model using whatever systems the controlling player desires them to have instead of being a largely homogeneous unit.
Duelists, Black Talons et al, or Airborne models that drop onto the table are likewise heroic, and they aren't ever going to be removed from HG. Especially not at that scale.
I've read enough of Brandon's posts, threads, and fiction to know what he likes, and because of that I know the things he likes will be included as part of a HG ruleset based on his vision. That is reality.
Chemical Cutthroat wrote: The chap was just asking for a hand and/or your thoughts. I think a simple 'No thanks not interested' would have sufficed.
I have carefully never commented in his "update" thread, never commented on that very same idea in this thread beyond a single post, nor commented on his ruleset port anywhere else such as on DP9 or Google+, so it could not be construed that I had any interest.
What more could I not do.
Chemical Cutthroat wrote: If you don't like meter high multi-ton combat vehicles as exactly what they are built for then why do you even like Heavy Gear?
.... what perception then am I allowed to have, or supposed to have .... But yeah, you're right. No worries.
IceRaptor wrote: I think the point is that Heavy Gear - as a setting - sees the Gears as effective combat vehicles only in specific niches. However, walkers are increasing having their effectiveness exaggerated beyond those niches due to the rule of cool. Brandon's rules covers vehicles to some extent, but primarily focuses on Gears because that's what most players find compelling. Ergo, what (I think) he dislikes is the spotlight on mecha, not necessarily the presence of mecha per se.
Pretty much. I see Gears as a legged equivalent of this or this, not a suit of mary-sue armor.
_
_
HudsonD wrote:Well, if you are mistaken, so am I.
One of the biggest appeal of the HG setting is that the "mecha" aspects give it added flavor, but aren't critical to it. Could you have the setting working without the gears ? Easily.
You've all highlighted things very well.
Allow me to clear the air somewhat. In no way, shape or form was I attempting to cause a riff between anyone.
However, I do not deny my perceptions and my personal likes would color the Thunder Run rules. Hence why I made the request in the first place of you, Smilodon. And mrondeau, and HudsonD, and IceRaptor, and Albertorius, and pretty much anyone.
Because I'm not just interested in creating a ruleset that I think is cool. I want to create a truly fan-made rules sub-set that the majority of players would enjoy. I would like for Heavy Gears to remain in their niche, and to allow infantry and armored vehicles to remain very viable forces on the battlefield. Of course, my perception is also colored by my history.
With the recent additions I have been making to infantry and to vehicles, I would like for you to test them out and see how they play. To make them viable on their own.
I would also point out that skirmish scale rules, as you have described them, Smilodon, are not what I am looking for. I am looking to create a large skirmish/minor battle-sized game setting with these rules. Between 20-30 miniatures, if you go with pure Heavy Gear force. If you go with something else, this might fluctuate between 8-12 larger armored vehicles or many different cavalry vehicles and infantry.
My goals are as follows:
1. Allow everyone the weapon loadouts to make their old Heavy Gears lethal, even the Hunter and Jager.
2. Grant armored vehicles like tanks and striders the firepower, the armor, and the durability to remain in a fight and become a force to be reckoned with.
3. Grant infantry a niche as small, squishy, but nevertheless lethally-armed units.
4. Giving support assets a good focus.
5. Keeping play fluid, while allowing the players the ability to maneuver entire squadrons/cadres/platoons in a manner more conducive to armored warfare.
6. Make each league distinct in flavor by fluctuating the points costs and SWC costs of various specialized units within their force, and maintaining the feel of the leagues as they were originally presented in Tactical 2nd Edition Heavy Gear.
7. "Hero" mecha (ala MWO) are not to be found.
These rules can, of course, be tweaked to a more skirmish/roleplaying setting very easily, and that is certainly not any problem of mine. I welcome it, and have even begun thinking on certain possibilities for narrative campaigns and experience that would improve Gears, tanks and infantry the longer they survived the campaign. But I feel that slightly larger battles would grant more opportunities for tactics to be employed, and make it so that each unit would find its niche.
@Smilodon: While I (now) understand what you mean, I think you ascribe way too much meaning to a simple description using two words. I suspect most people who read "mecha oriented" will simply think focused on large robots which is exactly what HG always has been and IMO always should be. I'm not sure I have much in the way of suggestions for gritty, non-heroic combined arms scifi tabletop game rules as I haven't been to gencon in a while and haven't been trying the newer niche rulesets.
@Brandon: Again, I'm working with limited Infinity experience (read: none)... but that is a very ambitious set of goals. One of the things that makes infinity work it seems from reading various posts and blogs is that its level of detail is crunchy enough for the scale and model count of the game it is built for. I'm not sure it will scale well to games of double to triple the usual 10 model count. Usually when infinity has a higher model count from various reports I've seen, it is due to model spam of simple units via link teams and even they barely ever reach 15-20 from video reports I've seen. I'm not sure gears with their inherent complexity might work as well at 20-30 without major abstraction/simplification of the ruleset. If you want to look at an example of a ruleset that started with a small model count and grew too big for its own britches, you don't have to look any further than HG Blitz.
warboss wrote: I'm not sure I have much in the way of suggestions for gritty, non-heroic combined arms scifi tabletop game rules as I haven't been to gencon in a while and haven't been trying the newer niche rulesets.
People want stompy robots that do "mecha" things, and anything that doesn't cater to that in multiple ways isn't ever going to sell enough to be viable, meaning anyone not looking for that in a game simply doesn't matter when it comes to marketing.
Such is life; very little is ever truly new or all that differentiated because folks want what they want, and purchase what attracts their interest.
Quite often without realizing it's the same thing they might already own albeit in new packaging.
As illustration, I recently finished a project idea I had started back in late 2011.
It got very little response then, and absolutely zero this time. It's just not what people want out of their setting.
I had posted the new version up online without a write-up because I was not completely satisfied with some of the tactical mapping symbols.
But given the lack of anything I dropped that idea and put back in the closet what few HG books I had out while working on the Northern PDF.
It happens when you're on the outside of a player-base, and as CC pointed out you have to question why you are still interested.
After being banned from the Pod forums, my discussion or griping about things HG pretty much only happens here, in a limited fashion as time goes by.
I agree that super detailed military insignia probably isn't what most people want out of their settings, especially from an unofficial source. It is just a fact of fan fiction that it won't in the majority of cases get accepted. I haven't gotten word of anyone trying out my blog house rules in any games where I wasn't an active participant no matter how much people complain about the existing blitz rules. Eh, so is life. I didn't comment on your insignias as it isn't a particular interest of mine and I don't paint squad markings on my heavy gear stuff. Heck, I don't even do it in 40k and the official game fluff has markings galore for space marines and has for decades.
I think the point is that Heavy Gear - as a setting - sees the Gears as effective combat vehicles only in specific niches. Specifically, rough terrain where conventional vehicles lack the mobility to traverse easily - broken badlands, swamps, urban settings, mountain ranges, etc. The rest of the time, conventional vehicles rule the day, and combat walkers are at a decided disadvantage. However, walkers are increasing having their effectiveness exaggerated beyond those niches due to the rule of cool. I think all that Smilodon is saying is that he prefer the combined arms approach, where infantry, vehicles and walker IFVs all have their place - but walkers aren't pushed to the front to appeal to a particular playerbase. Brandon's rules covers vehicles to some extent, but primarily focuses on Gears because that's what most players find compelling. Ergo, what (I think) he dislikes is the spotlight on mecha, not necessarily the presence of mecha per se.
But then, I could be mistaken.
Well, if you are mistaken, so am I.
One of the biggest appeal of the HG setting is that the "mecha" aspects give it added flavor, but aren't critical to it. Could you have the setting working without the gears ? Easily.
While the combined arms appeal gets alot of vocal support, I don't think that it is very widespread and it's more a vocal minority than anything else. The appeal is for the majority of fans is in all likelihood the gears and striders. While I want tanks, artillery, infantry, etc in the game, there are much better rulesets for playing with them that you could just bolt on anthropomorphic robots into if that were really the focus. Maybe it is just my own bias as someone who got into Heavy Gear because of the gears but the focus for the first few years was almost entirely on gears and striders (see the old RAFM minis and the proportion of SKUs that are bipedal robots versus the ones that aren't to see what the priority was for Terra Novan factions). It was only in the late tactical era that non-robots got some limelight first with the CEF and then TN factions... which was expanded upon with more minis in the blitz era. I want players who like combined arms to at least have the option but I think that the moment Heavy GEAR moves the focus permanently away from GEARS is the moment we see the final nail in the coffin and we're not far away from that. It's already bad enough that the HG "flavor" of mecha combat is already being watered down with a shift in focus (both in the fluff and in production schedule) by Gundams EVERYWHERE for EVERYONE! that happened to also always have ridiculously oversized Final Fantasy JRPG weapons. I suspect in order to cater to even more people who couldn't ever care about the game world they built for 20 years, they'll likely incorporate cheesecake butt poses for Morgana grels and cutsie animal mascot upgrades for gears striders that provide even more bonuses.
warboss wrote:@Smilodon: While I (now) understand what you mean, I think you ascribe way too much meaning to a simple description using two words. I suspect most people who read "mecha oriented" will simply think focused on large robots which is exactly what HG always has been and IMO always should be. I'm not sure I have much in the way of suggestions for gritty, non-heroic combined arms scifi tabletop game rules as I haven't been to gencon in a while and haven't been trying the newer niche rulesets.
@Brandon: Again, I'm working with limited Infinity experience (read: none)... but that is a very ambitious set of goals. One of the things that makes infinity work it seems from reading various posts and blogs is that its level of detail is crunchy enough for the scale and model count of the game it is built for. I'm not sure it will scale well to games of double to triple the usual 10 model count. Usually when infinity has a higher model count from various reports I've seen, it is due to model spam of simple units via link teams and even they barely ever reach 15-20 from video reports I've seen. I'm not sure gears with their inherent complexity might work as well at 20-30 without major abstraction/simplification of the ruleset. If you want to look at an example of a ruleset that started with a small model count and grew too big for its own britches, you don't have to look any further than HG Blitz.
You are correct.
It is ambitious. But I believe it is doable.
One of the recent additions that I have made to certain command models and communications models is the capability to maneuver entire squadrons and cadres as if they were Link Teams. Smaller command models like the Headhunter and Jager can do this on a limited level for their individual squadrons and cadres, while those outfitted with heavy-duty communications systems (like the Weasel) are given the ability to assist in coordinating two separate squadrons and combining their Order pools.
As such, an entire squadron of 5 Hunters could take 2 Actions each to maneuver on a targeted Model with the Order pool.
Or, you could keep more than that number of Models in the rear and maneuver two or three models separately in a flanking maneuver on an entrenched opponent.
Using Dense terrain, I wanted to make it so players can split up the battlefield such that Heavy Gears are given their proper utility; they can maneuver through said Dense terrain in Walker mode without penalty. However, they cannot do so in Ground mode.
Likewise, Hover vehicles and regular tanks cannot pass through Dense terrain, they must either go around it, or jump over it. The only exceptions are Off-Road Beasts, but these again are special... see the Mammoth, Aller, Visigoth and Fire Dragon.
I have not touched the Hoppers, in particular because they are a recent addition. I wanted to focus on making air strikes (bombers and fighter-bombers) relatively lethal one-time uses that can have a very powerful impact on the battlefield, but not so overpowering that they completely destroy any opportunity for an opponent to make a come-back.
Smilodon_UP wrote:
warboss wrote: I'm not sure I have much in the way of suggestions for gritty, non-heroic combined arms scifi tabletop game rules as I haven't been to gencon in a while and haven't been trying the newer niche rulesets.
People want stompy robots that do "mecha" things, and anything that doesn't cater to that in multiple ways isn't ever going to sell enough to be viable, meaning anyone not looking for that in a game simply doesn't matter when it comes to marketing.
I think that the term 'mecha' should be replaced more often with 'Gundaaaaaaam', since that's really what many people think of. And of course, with Gundam you see a lot more of 'angst' than in other settings. This is in my experience, of course.
I am trying to avoid that with these rules, and also trying to make it so that while the newer Gearstriders are powerful, they are only as powerful as a light tank respectively.
warboss wrote: While the combined arms appeal gets alot of vocal support, I don't think that it is very widespread and it's more a vocal minority than anything else. The appeal is for the majority of fans is in all likelihood the gears and striders. While I want tanks, artillery, infantry, etc in the game, there are much better rulesets for playing with them that you could just bolt on anthropomorphic robots into if that were really the focus.
...
I want players who like combined arms to at least have the option but I think that the moment Heavy GEAR moves the focus permanently away from GEARS is the moment we see the final nail in the coffin and we're not far away from that.
Right on the first try, in my opinion. I've preached for a while that people buy into the game because of the giant robots. The combined arms is really nice - and should be preserved! - but it's not the focus of the game, or the production. Which is where Smilodon's frustration comes from, he's intensely creative but has an interest in the combined arm aspect more than the Gear aspect. So, there is a mismatch between what's profitable and what is interesting.
Thanks. I'd probably say what is interesting IS profitable when you don't put clunky rules mechanics and piss poor regard for players as evidenced by biennial edition changes that invalidate books. I don't think HG was ever going to knock out warhammer from the top spot but if they didn't go out of their way to repeatedly screw over stores, distributors, and players for 20 years then they could have been the Warmachine of today. YMMV.
Out of curiosity, is LCM related to Robert of DP9 or is the last name just a coincidence?
Chemical Cutthroat wrote: The whole appeal of the units is that they can mimic human movements on a larger scale. Kneeling, running, maneuvering, climbing, etc. They're still big heavy war machines, and 'more nimble' doesn't mean they're suddenly all ninjas.
I agree with the necessity of the former, because otherwise they wouldn't be viable in the field as a combat vehicle intended for close terrain, and would likewise make zero sense given the kind of technology the setting is supposed to utilize on an everyday basis.
Unfortunately, the latter is exactly the kind of thing that the majority of players want from their stompy robot gaming, and they're quite often the folks that drive how sales get structured.
I can suspend a lot of disbelief when it comes to gaming a setting that interests me, but I find the thought that a bipedal vehicle massing five to twenty-five metric tons can somehow muffle every sound it generates internally or externally while it also compacts anything but hardened terrain with every step it takes due to simple ground pressure considerations patently absurd. Oh, and it's apparently also utterly invisible to every conceivable type of sensor system to boot.
And when the setting caters to that, you either like it too or you're SOL.
Because in my experience trying to talk over anything being discussed here with the ninja folks inevitably ends up in a "love it or leave it" impasse, which also seems to be not too uncommon with any wargaming ruleset over time really.
warboss wrote: It's already bad enough that the HG "flavor" of mecha combat is already being watered down with a shift in focus (both in the fluff and in production schedule) by Gundams EVERYWHERE for EVERYONE! that happened to also always have ridiculously oversized Final Fantasy JRPG weapons. I suspect in order to cater to even more people who couldn't ever care about the game world they built for 20 years, they'll likely incorporate cheesecake butt poses for Morgana grels and cutsie animal mascot upgrades for gears striders that provide even more bonuses.
heh, Didn't they already do that in Arena and the Gear-Up articles for same?
IceRaptor wrote: I've preached for a while that people buy into the game because of the giant robots. The combined arms is really nice - and should be preserved! - but it's not the focus of the game, or the production.
I do agree with you on this point, but I don't think it'd be asking too much of the Pod to have gotten a batch of new (not just resculpted) conventional vehicles for the non-hover factions instead of the GS and hopper models, or the other silly BS that didn't all get dropped from the field guides, like the Ontos (dropped) and Mameluke (included) light AFVs.
Except of course for the subsequent fact that almost no one would be able to afford to use those vehicle models even as a one-off centerpiece in a force anyways.
Factions are also having to share far too expensive ATV/ORV models, yet somehow the setting keeps getting different but no less costly sculpts of beast riding cavalry.
Plus, given that the Alpha/Beta doesn't seem to have settled on how infantry are to be based, I can't imagine a whole lot of players who own full platoons or more of infantry are all that happy with the situation.
You mean like resculpts of the small and large southern tanks and their variants? The southern gear transport getting a model? Additions to the camels to make that ABM truck just this week? The verder getting a new sculpt? Paxton getting a new apc? While those aren't completely new vehicles, I think it is a bit inaccurate to say that they've ignored conventional vehicles for nonhover factions. I give credit where credit is due and they've done IMO a good job of updating the conventional vehicles with each release since the FM came out. Heck, they're even adding "chopper" style on table air support via the hoppers. I may not like the designs but my dislike stems from not liking the original RPG versions either. What conventional vehicles would you like to see, Smilodon?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Redeemer31 wrote: Can someone explain what the heck is a Gearstrider? Is it just a bigger Gear with heavier weapons? Isn't that what normal Striders are for?
And better armor and better tech. It was originally supposed to be a 1-up on the "large" gears like Kodiaks and King Cobras for forces that don't have the manpower to spare for multiple crew. They're in essence human shaped (two arms, two legs) striders with a single crew member and advanced tech that grants them the extra actions they normally get. In the old RPG, the number of actions a vehicle got was linked directly to the number of crew (2 crew = 2 actions in general). They're basically gundams in a scifi universe that said they shouldn't exist and already had unique alternatives to fill those niches. IIRC the explanation and introduction of gear striders was in the original Blitz PRDF "Shields of Freedom" book as it debuted the first gear strider both inside and on the cover.
warboss wrote: What conventional vehicles would you like to see, Smilodon?
Something new that fits the setting and is viable in game without being just updated bits for existing models or a $$$ grab "rule of cool" sale... But no worries man, it's a moot point.
It's probably a surprise, but I do like the looks of the 2e Caprician "Bug" mounts and the Raccoon prototype from NVC 1, as they seem both reasonably workable and distinctive from a mechanical standpoint.
Redeemer31 wrote: Can someone explain what the heck is a Gearstrider? Is it just a bigger Gear with heavier weapons? Isn't that what normal Striders are for?
And better armor and better tech. They're basically gundams in a scifi universe that said they shouldn't exist and already had unique alternatives to fill those niches.
HG then (95/97): "Developing the mechanical designs for the game was one of the first tasks we tackled, especially with regard to Gears (for obvious reasons). They had to look good, but they also had to make sense. Rather than just start dropping ideas on paper, we established a set of guidelines and requirements to help frame our efforts. The machines had to carry one crewman; it had to be roughly humanoid; it had to be as small as possible, to avoid presenting a large battlefield silhouette; and, most of all, it had to use believable (and, for many systems, existing) technologies."
"The Armored Hunter was one attempt at a more powerful Gear design. One look at the design, however, immediately told us that it would be way too slow with all that heavy plating, so we made it an ineffective Gear in the story."
"This manual is a must-have reference for all Heavy Gear readers and players, and will please all fans of serious, well-developed science fiction." - The Making of a Universe, Heavy Gear Design Works
HG now (05-14): "In the beta rules that stub cannon is officially a NSC (Naval Snub Cannon), officially one step bigger than a heavy snub cannon." - Dave, DP9 Game Designer
"I'm also going to rename or remove completely the Lion gear and use the name on the New Lion Gear Strider that's being designed now, Reason I'm doing this is the name of the ebook is Lion's Wrath and I want the Lion to be kickass,"
"The big idea for this is to have a close assault Gear Strider with a SC that has 0 Acc instead of -1 and is Snipered and that gear strider will have a turret on the top with AMS, MAAC, APGL, and then a plate with either AGM, ATM or twin linked HGLCs, for different variants, it will also have climbing equipment on each arm, the will look like claw grappling hooks, launching tube and cable winches they are the HSKGs on the datacard, lastly they will have a Heavy Staff (HST) with a +2" to Melee range reach."
"The new staff looks less like an axe and more like a staff, with a big armor crushing blade at one end." - Robert Dubois, el presidente, DP9
warboss wrote: What conventional vehicles would you like to see, Smilodon?
Something new that fits the setting and is viable in game without being just updated bits for existing models or a $$$ grab "rule of cool" sale... But no worries man, it's a moot point.
It's probably a surprise, but I do like the looks of the 2e Caprician "Bug" mounts and the Raccoon prototype from NVC 1, as they seem both reasonably workable and distinctive.
Redeemer31 wrote: Can someone explain what the heck is a Gearstrider? Is it just a bigger Gear with heavier weapons? Isn't that what normal Striders are for?
And better armor and better tech. They're basically gundams in a scifi universe that said they shouldn't exist and already had unique alternatives to fill those niches.
HG then (95/97): "The Armored Hunter was one attempt at a more powerful Gear design. One look at the design, however, immediately told us that it would be way too slow with all that heavy plating, so we made it an ineffective Gear in the story."
"This manual is a must-have reference for all Heavy Gear readers and players, and will please all fans of serious, well-developed science fiction." - The Making of a Universe, Heavy Gear Design Works
The raccoon might have been nice as a limited one off resin piece but I can't see a use for it in numbers in a wargame (even a scifi one). If DP9 had instead come out with a prepainted collectible version of HG (models and game), I could definitely see a use for it as a rare. I figured you were talking about some other unmodelled tanks, refueling vehicles, transport, etc that might be practical in an army (albeit a scifi one) but not very appealing as a model to a player. I'm actually good with how their updating the vehicles to a more "blitz" look as opposed to the decidedly "tactical" style they used to have with one noticeable exception (the ridiculous verder and it's "i'm not overcompensating for anything" gun that would make a WW1 german paris gun jealous of its girth).
As a side note, the armored hunter was one of my favorite RAFM models back in the day. I always thought they looked really cool with that extra bolted on armor!
[i]Buckshot ammo fills the air with heavy pellets instead of a single larger projectile. That makes them more effective against unprotected targets and diminishes the need to aim. That also reduces penetration capabilities, but it is still effective against joints, auxiliary systems and similarly unprotected equipment on armored units.
I love the description. I think you've nailed it in one on the description - but after going back to reading my tactical rules, I think the rules you've posted don't quite capture that effectively. In particular, allowing the buckshot to damage armor contradicts the 'reduces penetration capabilities' statement you made, without making it more likely to destroy AUX systems or the like. My personal stance is that I think buckshot should degrade your systems severely, but not necessarily damage your armor in the process - it's cracking the weak points on weapons, joints, etc. To that end, and after looking back through the rules a bit, I think you'd have to create your own damage table to accomplish the effects I think reconciles the weapon against the description you posted above.
What do you think about this?
In game terms, the attacker receives a +1 Acc bonus, halves the DM and adds the AI trait to the weapon. When attacking non-infantry targets, instead of the normal damage effects roll against the following systems damage table. Any system with a penalty of -6 is destroyed; re-roll any results against destroyed systems.
It's a rough draft, but I tend to think that would represent the buckshot damaging the more 'fragile' elements of a unit better than sandpapering armor. A single good shot can yield a mobility kill or
significantly reduce a unit's ability to respond to the attack. Thoughts?
Creating a new damage table just for it was the one thing I wanted to avoid, TBH. I understand that it would better help me to depict the particular type of damage, but... quite honestly, it would be going down a complicated path. What makes buckshot different enough from a frag area to warrant that? (also, there's no need to state that systems with -6 are destroyed: the regular rules already state that they get destroyed at -5).
I mean, obviously that would map better the exact damage, but... it will also divert a bit too much from the general rules, I think. There is the fact that the buckshot will still be able to kill normally trucks, jeeps and the like, which use the regular vehicle rules in Tac, and that table would preclude that.
I'm not too married with the armor reduction (same as in the case of AP ammo, the actual effect on armor would be nelligible, I agree), but I think that the weapon should be able to overkill, or at least destroy a unit through other means than mobility kills: if area effects can, the buckshot should too (even with less capacity, due to the higher DM of areas).
I'm thinking more along the lines of considering "crew" hits as "aux" hits, right now...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
warboss wrote: As a side note, the armored hunter was one of my favorite RAFM models back in the day. I always thought they looked really cool with that extra bolted on armor!
The Armored Hunter is actually a really cool unit, partly due to it being so bad. It also gave us the Bearhunter, which is a great idea ("Hey, let's put this Bear's engine in the Armored Hunter: at the very least it will give it more horsepower!").
The "bad" units are usually the most characterful ones, all told. Then again, most armies should really use more standarized designs than the current army lists...
warboss wrote: The raccoon might have been nice as a limited one off resin piece but I can't see a use for it in numbers in a wargame (even a scifi one).
I don't think the point was to reproduce the Raccoon or Snake directly, and make them models available to their respective factions. I think the point instead was that models that shared aesthetics with the Raccoon, Snake or Caprican mounts would be a nice way to introduce 'variety' without straying too far from the hard sci-fi roots. But I could be mistaken.
warboss wrote: What conventional vehicles would you like to see, Smilodon?
Something new that fits the setting and is viable in game without being just updated bits for existing models or a $$$ grab "rule of cool" sale... But no worries man, it's a moot point.
I'm actually good with how their updating the vehicles to a more "blitz" look as opposed to the decidedly "tactical" style they used to have with one noticeable exception (the ridiculous verder and it's "i'm not overcompensating for anything" gun that would make a WW1 german paris gun jealous of its girth).
I can live with the resculpts, but it's more the lack of variety for the primary factions that hasn't changed since the setting's inception.
Because when compared with NuCoal it seems to really make players and potential players question why things are that way:
"This faction can create this, this, and this along with Gear-Striders and/or Tank-Striders, yet can't manage to create a viable conventional OTV, combat scout, or smaller battle tank...." [/shatter disbelief] Oh, really?.
And then for some inscrutable reason the Pod throws questionable decisions like [Defective Fire Control] onto the Artemis Visigoth after going through all the trouble to test it, add it to the book, and sculpt the bits.
In effect basically ensuring pretty much no one would every actually use it in game when it's already a variant of the only heavy tank model available to an original faction. Yet all the while TPTB kept claiming they were adding "variety" to that faction.
Except, every time I proposed adding a new vehicle or two to South, North, or Paxton to add in that lacking variety over two years of testing and then editing the idea either fell into a black hole or was outright rejected, even while the last developer fully intended to keep his Ontos reboot ( 18 [2-0-0-3] [G; 10/19; -2/0/1] [1/0/-1] [12/36; 1; 5; LHC] [(2x) 2x HMG (F, Reloads, Link, Sniper), RAM] [Weak Facing (Top)] ) in the Northern ebook through release.
Most anything said about the changes to existing conventional vehicles was likewise ignored, which is nothing new really for the Pod just from reading through this thread.
warboss wrote: As a side note, the armored hunter was one of my favorite RAFM models back in the day.
The Armored Hunter is actually a really cool unit, partly due to it being so bad. It also gave us the Bearhunter, which is a great idea ("Hey, let's put this Bear's engine in the Armored Hunter: at the very least it will give it more horsepower!").
The "bad" units are usually the most characterful ones, all told. Then again, most armies should really use more standarized designs than the current army lists...
It's like that kind of flavor isn't allowed anymore, in anything to do with Heavy Gear. I tried to make a case for updating the Bearhunter, Zerstorer, and Spearhead to be usable in HGB! during the early part of 2013 since they could basically just use new bits on the existing Hunter sculpt where most players weren't using it as the basic model in their lists anyways when purchased as part of a squad box.
But it became clear pretty quickly that the Northern book was going to be all about the Hunter XMG and Juggernaut, both designed by Saleem in concert with AL13N, plus a heavy Paxton vibe alongside copycatting of FiF, so I lost interest until the Fall.
That some factions having the ability to totally replace the standard Hunter in it's own GP combat group would end up being a bad thing was just me conversing with the black.
Regarding standardized, everything in the revamp seems specifically intended to allow even more of a hodge-podge than L&L-era play, and the few vocal folks driving the new ruleset along with Dave are perfectly fine with that situation.
A variety of (2-3) loadouts per combat group is probably reasonable, with some kind of attachments onto (1-2) types of main models. Every model using a different loadout, or being another model altogether, is obviously not.
Actually, IME it's a good example of skirmish scale gaming, where everything is allowed to be completely different from one another to boost sales from current players while trying to attract a larger number of customers.
But then again the setting itself clearly doesn't matter at all to the people making the rules nowadays for the company. It's what happened with Fasa & Battletech, or [insert setting here], all over again.
warboss wrote: The raccoon might have been nice as a limited one off resin piece but I can't see a use for it in numbers in a wargame (even a scifi one).
I think the point instead was that models that shared aesthetics with the Raccoon, Snake or Caprican mounts would be a nice way to introduce 'variety' without straying too far from the hard sci-fi roots.
Yeah. I did an edit to make that more clear.
The Raccoon always bought to mind those never created Strider designs always being mentioned here and there for the Humanist Alliance.
I think the 2e Caprician mounts would probably have been a good starting point for the Utopian Armigers instead of whatever the hell did serve as a guide.
Smilodon_UP wrote: It's like that kind of flavor isn't allowed anymore, in anything to do with Heavy Gear. I tried to make a case for updating the Bearhunter, Zerstorer, and Spearhead to be usable in HGB! during the early part of 2013 since they could basically just use new bits on the existing Hunter sculpt where most players weren't using it as the basic model in their lists anyways when purchased as part of a squad box.
But it became clear pretty quickly that the Northern book was going to be all about the Hunter XMG and Juggernaut, both designed by Saleem in concert with AL13N, plus a heavy Paxton vibe alongside copycatting of FiF, so I lost interest until the Fall.
That some factions having the ability to totally replace the standard Hunter in it's own GP combat group would end up being a bad thing was just me conversing with the black.
Well, actually my last comment was more about the fact that, to me, the proliferation of Gear chassis that the current army lists have tend to break a lot my suspension of disbelief. I mean, armies are very big in standarization, and having scores of different Gear designs in the field usually feel a lot like the "Battletech sindrome" to me (and also a logistical nightmare, of course).
There's also the fact that a lot of the designs (Bear, Anolis, Bobcat, Mad Dog... you name them) are, plain and simple, obsolete designs that frankly shouldn't be in most regular armies and rather relegated to militias, reserve units and the like.
Personally, right now I believe that most of the armies' gear lists, were we shooting for "realism", should be made up of the "main 4" chassis of each faction (Hunter/Jaguar/Cheetah/Grizzly, Jäger/Black Mamba/Iguana/Spitting Cobra) and their variants (around 80%, probably), plus a limited number of "special purpose" designs, like the Razorback or Black Adder, and some ability to swap some of those "regular" gears with other contemporary ones (Ferret Mk II and the like).
The rest of the designs (along with healthy doses of Hunters/Jägers, IMHO, because those have been there forever) should probably be relegated to reserve/militia units, and probably disgraced MILITIA units and underfunded WFPA regiments. Well, and rovers, mercs, badlands marshals, KADA duellists... you know, the fun stuff.
Heh, there is the issue that it's a miniature game, and so needs to sell minis. So they end up needing to add new stuff to survive and make profit. Sure, they could do it in a 'realistic' way, by forcing more changes to make entire armies to be homogenous. Ie, if a squad takes a bassie in a swap, then all the models are swapped to bassies, or something of that sort.
I do agree that allowing every model in a squad to have it's own custom weapons loadout is also a bit much. I think it's a holdover from trying to compete with battletech, where everyone used to make their own custom mechs.
I would add though that allowing every model in a squad to have its own custom weapons loadout is only a bit much in a platoon sized game like they're trying to force feed us despite the pricing and the rules that don't go with it. If they had just kept to skirmish level gaming as the intent with combat groups of 1-3 instead of 3-5 to start with, upgrading each one is just fine. Unfortunately, they're doubling down on that with the alpha. The rules might ostensibly try to make that easier (don't know.. didn't try the last two versions and they've gotten more complicated since I did) but it doesn't make the $$ cost any better.
Yeah... though I would amend that 1 combat group games are a bit terrible. I think to really get things to shine, you need at least 2 combat groups apiece.
And yeah, they're simplifying, but then adding some fairly complex and slow stuff on, so, in the end, I think the game will end up playing best, yet again, at about 3 combat groups.
ferrous wrote: Yeah... though I would amend that 1 combat group games are a bit terrible. I think to really get things to shine, you need at least 2 combat groups apiece.
And yeah, they're simplifying, but then adding some fairly complex and slow stuff on, so, in the end, I think the game will end up playing best, yet again, at about 3 combat groups.
I agree. With smaller combat groups as the standard, you end up with two combat groups for the "price" both in dollars and in TV. One of the first things I did with my blog house rules is post those variant combat groups up. A strike squad is split up into two fireteam combat groups. The first one is the mandatory one and consists of the CGL plus any two models of your choice. If you want to take more strike squad models, you have to "finish" off the blitz squad by taking a second fireteam of the remaining two models before you can start another squad. With the smaller model count combat groups, you pretty much end up with the CGL and two upgraded weapon models as gear squads but it's not like most people were using "stock" models anyways so I don't feel like you're losing much. You can fit skirmish style gaming in with the existing blitz rules without much fuss to get a higher number of combat groups. At the risk of armchair QBing again, blitz I feel works fine if sold, marketed, and catered to as a skirmish game without needing to completely abandon the existing mechanics. The last demo I did a few weeks back consisted of 9 models in 3 combat groups on each side and felt like a full game and (more importantly) reached a natural conclusion in slightly less than two hours while completely explaining the rules to a new player slowing things down.
I won't speculate on the alpha rules till the beta ones are out but since those will be semipermanent likely for a year or so then I'll peek at them. I doubt though that I'll ever get in a test game of it though as my local opponent has pretty much given up on HG with the alpha and being fed up with LCM for keeping his minis going on a year and a half... and my vassal opponents were mainly IceRaptor and Smilodon who both are disenchanted with minis gaming overall and HG specifically at the moment.
Yeah, if they really want more models on the table, they'd almost need to move to the w40k model, where you have a squad, but it only performs maybe 1 or 2 actions for the whole squad, and moves as a clump, sort of like infantry in Blitz.
Granted, that would seem like a fairly naked cash grab at this point. Though it would allow for the homogenous model nature that others crave, as you could simply go make a Squad 1 CGL + 3 normals + 1 weapons specialist, like 40k marine squads.
lol, I really have to try and stop talking to y'all after flipping through The Making of a Universe, because ideas start bubbling up again as I can't take that booklet out without reading through it again each time.
Albertorius wrote: Well, actually my last comment was more about the fact that, to me, the proliferation of Gear chassis that the current army lists have tend to break a lot my suspension of disbelief. I mean, armies are very big in standardization, and having scores of different Gear designs in the field usually feel a lot like the "Battletech syndrome" to me (and also a logistical nightmare, of course).
There's also the fact that a lot of the designs [..] frankly shouldn't be in most regular armies and rather relegated to militias, reserve units and the like.
Personally, right now I believe that most of the armies' gear lists, were we shooting for "realism", should be made up of the "main 4" chassis of each faction (Hunter/Jaguar/Cheetah/Grizzly, Jäger/Black Mamba/Iguana/Spitting Cobra) and their variants (around 80%, probably), plus a limited number of "special purpose" designs, like the Razorback or Black Adder, and some ability to swap some of those "regular" gears with other contemporary ones (Ferret Mk II and the like).
The rest of the designs should probably be relegated to reserve/militia units, and [..]
I could see three "tiers" of units [Frontline - Reserve - Territorial / Militia(s)] for each sub-faction using models along those lines being better than [Choose this CG type, choose a sub-type, swap faction models, choose options, etc etc].
And that the major restriction of using that new kind of construction is 2/3 of a force, by combat group total, must be from the tier the player intends to use as the base.
So a smaller force isn't going to be allowed to have the add-ons of another tier compared with a larger army list.
Another thing I think would be crucial is fewer equipment swap "variants" that at the same time are more coherent across the sub-factions of each primary faction, and actually share one name per each type of package.
Because the mass of names (variants/loadouts) now is just that, a mass of mess, and is just plain stupid when some swap for the same damn equipment or systems.
I like the setting fluff, but carrying on a possible error made by a previous writer need not be something set in stone where clarity is desired.
ferrous wrote: Heh, there is the issue that it's a miniature game, and so needs to sell minis. So they end up needing to add new stuff to survive and make profit.
Yeah, the "curse" of stompy robot or fantasy wargaming compared with historical rulesets having it somewhat easier in that respect.
Warning - real-world and/or RPG oriented material follows:
Spoiler:
warboss wrote: If they had just kept to skirmish level gaming as the intent with combat groups of 1-3 instead of 3-5 to start with, upgrading each one is just fine.
ferrous wrote: Yeah... though I would amend that 1 combat group games are a bit terrible. I think to really get things to shine, you need at least 2 combat groups apiece. I think the game will end up playing best, yet again, at about 3 combat groups.
warboss wrote: One of the first things I did with my blog house rules is post those variant combat groups up.
A similar idea along those lines during a discussion with Ice Raptor ended up becoming this org chart some of you have already seen, which however I haven't ever updated to incorporate any new concepts I've since had for it.
Because maneuver combat, and thus wargaming same, boils down to a unit trying to do three main things that often overlap:
* Attack (Assault)
* Pursue (Exploitation)
* Overwatch (Fix / Reaction Fires)
Experience has shown that "triangular" formations organized along flexible threes tend to better be able to perform or shift between those missions than "square" formations organized along more rigid fours.
If I were to redo that org chart, only the CO & XO plus the three (3) Core Details would be "fixed" as the minimum, creating an (11) model Heavy Gear section. The leadership is a bit shallow but I think that would allow the unit to be used in a more concentrated manner where they may not need extra bodies slowing the tempo of operations.
Each core detail would use the same models and equipment. Hunting vehicles, add missiles or snubs. Hunting Gears, add heavier cannons or rockets. Hunting scouts, add rifles or DEWs. And so on and so forth.
Obviously some models perform some roles better, which is why they wouldn't all have access to the same equipment swaps in the first place to be most reasonable within the setting.
To expand a section, I think the command detail "leadership" model would be required to add a specialist detail attachment to the combat group. This attachment need not be only Gear models. As a realistic unit, six models allows operating as two (2) trios or a trio (3) of pairs as best fits the current attack, pursuit, or overwatch tasking.
Role-wise, I could see something like this list for determining which models should get access to which equipment or systems:
Combat Area Denial (capable vs Air & Ground targets: Artillery)
Close Fire (Artillery)
Direct Fire
Over the Horizon (OTH: Artillery)
Support Command
Engineering (Survivability)
Escort
EWAR (may be combined with STAR)
Pioneering (Maneuver)
Reconnaissance (without the fancy electronics, capable of offensive combat)
Security
STAR (Surveillance, Target Acquisition, and Reconnaissance - meaning, fancy electronics)
Sustainment (not for skirmish gaming) CASEVAC
Medical
Salvage
Transportation (Mobility & Supply)
ferrous wrote: Yeah, if they really want more models on the table, they'd almost need to move to the w40k model, where you have a squad, but it only performs maybe 1 or 2 actions for the whole squad, and moves as a clump, sort of like infantry in Blitz.
Granted, that would seem like a fairly naked cash grab at this point. Though it would allow for the homogenous model nature that others crave, as you could simply go make a Squad 1 CGL + 3 normals + 1 weapons specialist, like 40k marine squads.
I think (?) I posted on Google that one old idea I had for a "combat command" level game was for up to three models to represent the details of a single combat group, differentiated by RoF and damage absorption for the number of vehicles each "counts as."
I have no idea how workable that would be for Heavy Gear, but one benefit I hoped might happen is that an existing collection could be spread out and mixed as desired to create various forces without requiring any new purchases.
But yeah, the clump idea seems more likely to be how the Pod would implement something like that using another ruleset change.
I don't think the current table sizes could support it though, as even with three combat groups per side there already isn't much any room to maneuver very well if at all.
Plus, IME $$$ grab is exactly what DP9 did by setting the v5 primary combat groups to be a minimum of (4) actions when it comes to non-Gear models instead of (3) actions, while likewise ensuring any squad boxes wouldn't go very far towards creating a multiple combat group force.
ferrous wrote:Heh, there is the issue that it's a miniature game, and so needs to sell minis. So they end up needing to add new stuff to survive and make profit. Sure, they could do it in a 'realistic' way, by forcing more changes to make entire armies to be homogenous. Ie, if a squad takes a bassie in a swap, then all the models are swapped to bassies, or something of that sort.
Yeah, I do understand that they are a minis manufacturer and that they need minis to survive. But there's also the facct that the Pod is actively discontinuing minis anyway, so...
I do agree that allowing every model in a squad to have it's own custom weapons loadout is also a bit much. I think it's a holdover from trying to compete with battletech, where everyone used to make their own custom mechs.
As has been said afterwards, custom loadouts is only too much in the kind of game the Pod is trying to convert HG into. At skirmish level, it works.
ferrous wrote:Yeah... though I would amend that 1 combat group games are a bit terrible. I think to really get things to shine, you need at least 2 combat groups apiece.
That's because the current rules don't really allow for it. But it wasn't the case with 2nd edition. The added detail made skirmishes quite engaging.
And yeah, they're simplifying, but then adding some fairly complex and slow stuff on, so, in the end, I think the game will end up playing best, yet again, at about 3 combat groups.
There's that, too... the development is being quite... un-homogeneous, all told, and I feel that the end result will proably not be any faster than the current game.
Smilodon_UP wrote:lol, I really have to try and stop talking to y'all after flipping through The Making of a Universe, because ideas start bubbling up again as I can't take that booklet out without reading through it again each time.
It is a really great little book, yes
I could see three "tiers" of units [Frontline - Reserve - Territorial / Militia(s)] for each sub-faction using models along those lines being better than [Choose this CG type, choose a sub-type, swap faction models, choose options, etc etc]. And that the major restriction of using that new kind of construction is 2/3 of a force, by combat group total, must be from the tier the player intends to use as the base. So a smaller force isn't going to be allowed to have the add-ons of another tier compared with a larger army list.
I think I would like something along those lines, TBH.
Another thing I think would be crucial is fewer equipment swap "variants" that at the same time are more coherent across the sub-factions of each primary faction, and actually share one name per each type of package.
Because the mass of names (variants/loadouts) now is just that, a mass of mess, and is just plain stupid when some swap for the same damn equipment or systems.
Coherent loadout names would be great, yes. It's a gripe I've been having since TPS. To me, having the same name for different loadouts feels nuts.
Yeah, the "curse" of stompy robot or fantasy wargaming compared with historical rulesets having it somewhat easier in that respect.
I guess is a general curse of non-historical wargames.
But yeah, the clump idea seems more likely to be how the Pod would implement something like that using another ruleset change.
Personally, I'd prefer to see working morale rules that encouraged it, but no enforced it. Fat chance for that, though.
Plus, IME $$$ grab is exactly what DP9 did by setting the v5 primary combat groups to be a minimum of (4) actions when it comes to non-Gear models instead of (3) actions, while likewise ensuring any squad boxes wouldn't go very far towards creating a multiple combat group force.
@Smilodon: The real world comparisons are nice but sometimes they don't work on the tabletop and aren't fun. Robotech RPG in the current incarnation tried to emulate current real world military structure and the only thing they ended up with is a minis game that doesn't let you field the iconic anime small squadron because it was 3 fighters instead of the modern flight of 4. I don't obviously (given my blog rules) have any issues with what you presented above outside of the separate "command" combat groups as I'm not sure a separate command entity activation would add anything mechanically to the game.
I'll assume for comedic effect that it is in Fahrenheit. My god, man! That's below freezing!
As a funny side note, I was talking with a Canadian friend who lives in Edmonton about the beautiful spring day we had a few months back. High 70's, low 80's and sunny. He scoffed at that and said in all seriousness that if it gets into the low 80's by him that the local news issues heat advisory warnings and tells seniors to stay hydrated and indoors if at all possible. Temperature tolerance is quite relative!
mrondeau wrote: I'm seriously considering overtime because the office's AC is significantly better than mine.
On one of my first jobs (as a systems administrator) the only open desk for me was down in the server room. Which was kept a constant 12-13 for various reasons. It was wonderful, though humorous during summer when I'd come into work with a fleece on.
I think in 34 pages the core issue has been rather met. If you can't figure out the problems that exist currently in 34 pages of various ragestates then you should apply for a job at your local politcal office.
In their defense, dead horse beating does somewhat accurately portray the last 10 years of HG's treatment of the Silhouette rules system with biennial edition flipflops that don't change enough but cost the full $$.
My hobby brings me very little fun these days unfortunately since I've doubled down on both HGB and Robotech and both are troubled to say the least. My only hope is Infinity 3.0 as a ruleset. The minis are nice even if the names are almost incomprehensible.
Chemical Cutthroat wrote: I think in 34 pages the core issue has been rather met. If you can't figure out the problems that exist currently in 34 pages of various ragestates then you should apply for a job at your local politcal office.
Now it seems to be just dead-horse-beating.
The complaining will stop when the core issues are solved. Since that requires DP9 straightening up their act, it's not going to happen anytime soon I'm afraid.
warboss wrote: In their defense, dead horse beating does somewhat accurately portray the last 10 years of HG's treatment of the Silhouette rules system with biennial edition flipflops that don't change enough but cost the full $$.
My hobby brings me very little fun these days unfortunately since I've doubled down on both HGB and Robotech and both are troubled to say the least. My only hope is Infinity 3.0 as a ruleset. The minis are nice even if the names are almost incomprehensible.
I guess that's my grump then.
It really makes me sad that the hobby doesn't bring you much fun. I've been having a blast, but I think that's mainly because I've been making up things as I've gone along. If I find something I don't like, I change it for the better... or at least for the more entertaining.
I mean really, if a hobby isn't fun, it is no longer a hobby. It is now a job. So if it is now someone's job to complain about things... well, connect the dots. There has to be more productive use of someone's time than complaining about something they once enjoyed.
I don't like the Blitz rules. I find them awful and cumbersome. But I like the world and the models, so I'm gonna work on a way to enjoy the setting and the conflicts involved.
As much as I enjoy Smilodon's insights on things, he isn't exactly the most personable character. And that comes out in his interactions with TPTB as he so says. Diplomacy checks shall never be his strong suit.
Its a little funny to me, because I was originally drawn to this thread simply because I loved the Heavy Gear series, but had zero experience with the miniature game. I have all the Blitz rules and some other downloads, chewed through them, and then read all the stuff that has been posted here.
All the stuff.
Drinking may have been necessary.
But what I'm getting at is that, 'Hey, even if the tempo here is really down, the people who are posting here do care about the Heavy Gear universe.'
So is that true? Because if it is, why don't we try to do something about it? I know it is a lot easier to talk about what someone doesn't like than it is to talk about what can be improved. And a few folks have taken the effort to do something 'else'... at least with the ruleset.
I'm just not as much of a negative person. If I see something that can be salvaged, I try and work the good out of it.
I dunno where DP9 is going. Obviously with what I hear, it isn't the best of thoughts. But if anyone still cares about the game, there isn't anything stopping us from coming up with something better than what they give us.
mrondeau wrote: I think he meant Infinity's names. If so, play Aleph warboss. Prononcing "Asura" is easy!
I'm aware. As an occasional Haqqislam player, I had to stop myself from thinking that learning Arabic might help comprehension. Now they get labeled alphabetically and I got from there.
It really makes me sad that the hobby doesn't bring you much fun.
Eh, it's my own fault in liking robot anime style tabletop games. Switching "hobbies" isn't easy either as tabletop games require a significant investment of both $$ and time to do properly. I wouldn't mind getting into infinity even though frankly I'm not interested in infinity. I don't have an interest in weird named scifi modern world analog infantry warbands... but supposedly the rules are solid and the company cares about the game. If I got into it, I'd likely go TAG heavy simply because that is the style of game I actually want to play. My hopes were on the Gecko but I'm not liking the fact that there is ZERO that you can customize on the Gecko as I'd really prefer the look of the big rifle on both the geckos instead of the one with the two smg style weapons (combirifles IIRC technically but they look like SMGs on a TAG). In the end, infinity may not help either as no one plays it locally; I've literally never seen anyone playing it. One of the shop employees used to play it but got tired of the rambo-ing apparently inherent in the game which I found out when trying to get him to try HG. If anyone feels like trading Gecko bits btw and want the combirifle version, feel free to pm me.
In the end, I pick up games to play them not simply as a purchasing hobby (like GW would like). If I can't get in games on a semiregular basis, they fail at their primary purpose. HG is a complete failure for me personally in that regard as I've played less non-demo games in person since getting back into it with the Field Manual than the number of years that have passed. I suspect Robotech will likely fall flat in that regard as well. I'll paint up a small army for each side, play one or two games with friends that don't convince them to buy in, and then shelve the forces.
Something I've noticed over the past thirty'ish years of dabbling with all kinds of gaming, or life in general really, is that the end products of someone's own creativity are quite often only acceptable to other fans of whatever if it provides something that aligns with their own ideas.
Yet, perhaps oddly enough, or maybe not, everyone expects those creative types to just keep on bringing new things forth.
Chemical Cutthroat wrote: (...)
So is that true? Because if it is, why don't we try to do something about it? I know it is a lot easier to talk about what someone doesn't like than it is to talk about what can be improved. And a few folks have taken the effort to do something 'else'... at least with the ruleset.
Emphasis mine.
You might not realize it, but most of the regulars in this thread are DP9 veterans. Not HG fans, though we are, but I mean, actual DP9 and HG veterans, that have been involved with the universe, the game, and the company in one way or the other for years, usually two-digits.
We have tried, very, very hard, to improve things, from both the outside and the inside. Most of us have our names in one or more books, and not just in the playtester sections.
Just as an example, the current alpha rules started as the home-rules from one of the proeminent poster in this thread. Of course, this would also be yet another example of DP9 turning gold into lead...
HudsonD wrote: Just as an example, the current alpha rules started as the home-rules from one of the proeminent poster in this thread. Of course, this would also be yet another example of DP9 turning gold into lead...
That's true, and I probably have more right to criticize than most. But I think the point is - that's in the past. I could complain about the way that Dave's handling this or that - but it won't accomplish anything. If people don't know what we've had a bad experience with DP9 by now, they haven't been reading. But by this point complaining only has the value of being cathartic, not constructive. IMO.
I'm just sad that so many people have been burned out from such a vibrant setting. The squandered opportunity is simply depressing.
While I'm mostly in this thread for the catharsis, the thread has at least one big function: it warns potential players. If there has been such a thread when I started HG, I would at least have been warned.
Quite honestly, if I can prevent DP9 from essentially scamming players by complaining, I consider that the time spent was both useful and cathartic.
One gentlemen who has made a great deal of headway with a particular ruleset besides Iceraptor and warboss would be Banzai, in my opinion. His most recent addition to Aurora was worth downloading.
Chemical Cutthroat wrote: (...)
So is that true? Because if it is, why don't we try to do something about it? I know it is a lot easier to talk about what someone doesn't like than it is to talk about what can be improved.
Emphasis mine. We have tried, very, very hard, to improve things, from both the outside and the inside. Most of us have our names in one or more books, and not just in the playtester sections.
I was unsure on how to take some of the points trying to be made in that quoted post, but I perceived one to be that most here have either not been sufficiently creative in the past, or else have not been creative enough in a useful manner of late.
I've found though that creativity isn't something that can be turned on and off like a switch, and quite often trying to force some idea to conform to an expectation you may not share ends up being so mediocre as to have not been worth the effort.
mrondeau wrote: While I'm mostly in this thread for the catharsis, the thread has at least one big function: it warns potential players. If there has been such a thread when I started HG, I would at least have been warned.
Quite honestly, if I can prevent DP9 from essentially scamming players by complaining, I consider that the time spent was both useful and cathartic.
Sometimes you really do need that catharsis when dealing with entities like the Pod, and there aren't a whole lot of folks who'll understand, or a place to talk about it without being modded or banned.
Plus, it is assuredly not a bad thing at all to hope a few potential players might chance across this thread and be aware of how things stand behind the Pod's curtain.
I know I've kind of said this before, but it should not be at all acceptable for anyone else to go through some of what multiple players did just as testers, let alone those actually trying to freelance as a writer or artist for Dream Pod 9.
Dire, feel free. Though "Rumble in the Jungle" wasn't my own work. That was all Mr. Wong, Mr. O'Connor, Greg and Jason, plus the good editors and layout folks.
Brandon, is that rule in your Thunder Run stuff about the Stone Masons, et al being able to carry ammo, going to make it in to the new Beta rules? That is a good rule.
BrandonKF wrote: Any chance of the cathartic ex-players and ex-testers would join in offering up suggestions and advice on Arkana?
-Brandon F.
A whole 34 pages of posts, and you still can't figure that one ?
To be fair, I hold no grudge against Jason, and I'm perfectly willing to provide proof-reading and editing if he apologizes to me for the rules thread fiasco.
@Dire, Short answer, yes. I intend on making those rules ported over somehow into Thunder Run. I'm glad you like it enough to mention it.
@HudsonD, Jason and Greg have offered open requests on Arkana for folks to write to them on the blog. I'm sure any suggestions or offering of opinions would be seen.
HudsonD wrote: I'm perfectly willing to provide proof-reading and editing if he apologizes to me for the rules thread fiasco.
BrandonKF wrote: @HudsonD, Jason and Greg have offered open requests on Arkana for folks to write to them on the blog. I'm sure any suggestions or offering of opinions would be seen.
@HudsonD, Those days are behind us. Water under the bridge. I'm a hopeful man. Hoping to elicit change. I don't want arguments about who did what, when, and where. I don't know what happened back then, and it's none of my business. But I'm hoping that if you would open up a private dialogue you might get whatever it is you seek.
@Albertorius, I'm always interested to hear from your point of view.
When it comes to Arkrite, Jason and Greg have yet to produce anything of their own to set the tone for what their reputation is going to be with the RPG revamp. That some folks might be waiting to see what happens in the near future before deciding things either way is probably perfectly understandable given some of the projects those two have been associated with during their time with DP9.
BrandonKF wrote: I'm a hopeful man. Hoping to elicit change. I don't want arguments about who did what, when, and where.
Asking that fans, players, and freelancers who got stepped upon or left by the wayside, when they had no control whatsoever over things Heavy Gear in the first place regardless of whether or not they personally might have done something actually wrong, be the ones to change and/or forgive so as to once again support the Pod and it's offshoot may not be the most productive approach to the issue.
Perhaps the way it is written might not be as tactful as I would like.
Please keep in mind that I am interested in fans, players and freelancers joining together to make a better game. I am not trying to speak from a position of arrogance.
BrandonKF wrote: Perhaps the way it is written might not be as tactful as I would like.
Please keep in mind that I am interested in fans, players and freelancers joining together to make a better game. I am not trying to speak from a position of arrogance.
If it reads in that way, I apologize.
-Brandon F.
I think I see your mistake. You are mistaking substance (what you're trying to say) and style (how you're saying it) again.
Your style is fine. The substance doesn't deserve an answer, but there are people reading us, and they deserve to know.
Ignoring, knowingly and willingly, all the current problems, past issues, and long history of grievance isn't the solution. It's what got us in this mess in the first place.
DP9 hasn't changed its ethics one bit, and while Arkrite has tried to distance themselves a bit, at least in name, they've yet to prove they follow a different path. When they do, then things will have a chance of improving, and only then.
So I unsubscribed from all the threads that were a source of frustration instead of hobby fun a few weeks back (including every HG and Robotech thread) but I posted a final quick update to my nucoal army when I finished my last models this past week. Lo and behold, the beta rules just came out and seemingly invalidated 2/3 of my completely generic non-subfaction specific collection of models that are usable in every blitz Nucoal subfaction except maybe PAK (don't recall if their CEF hovertanks replace or just add to the normal Nucoal ones). FIF repeat, anyone? This is my smallest army so therefore the first and easiest to check but I'm dreading checking the other larger two.
I'm curious to see if my post will get a suitable response or just disappear since it isn't all rainbow farts and sunshine turds (to borrow a phrase from the Robotech comments). In case it does disappear, here it is:
Spoiler:
Robert or Dave, I was wondering if you could help me. Two thirds of my Nucoal force that I finished painting just last week is basically unusable with the beta rules. Something similar happened with FIF so I'm sure you'll agree that this is potentially very frustrating. I'm not sure if I'm missing something but I can't see any way of using my Hetarois at all and the hoverbikers are limited to only a single subfaction (PAK). Is this on purpose or an oversight? I didn't choose a gimmicky list that borrowed models from other factions and was dependent on ally swaps but instead chose BASIC Nucoal models availabe to ALL Nucoal subfactions. Hetarois? Both stock and firestorm variants are available to ALL blitz Nucoal factions. Jetbike infantry? Human and GREL varieties are available to all Blitz Nucoal factions. While I expect there to be some shuffling of units with a brand new edition, I don't think it is fair or right to invalidate most of a completely generic non-faction specific army.
A quick fix would be to add HV squad types to the list of available ally squad swaps for all Nucoal factions that can ally with the south (or at a minimum at least the HAPF sublist) AND to add hoverbike infantry as a general infantry squad type for Nucoal (whether GREL or at least regular human versions to every sublist).
As it stands, the creators of Hetaroi tanks can't use them and the Temple Heights Jannite GREL faction can't take use one of the only two GREL model packs you make. Again, if I'm missing some details in my admittedly quick army check then feel free to correct me as I would love to be wrong on this matter. If I'm not wrong, the beta rules have just gutted my newly finshed Nucoal army. This is the smallest (and therefore easiest and first) army I've tried checking and I sincerely hope that the rest of my forces fare better than this one did.
warboss wrote: FIF repeat, anyone? This is my smallest army so therefore the first and easiest to check but I'm dreading checking the other larger two.
I'm curious to see if my post will get a suitable response or just disappear since it isn't all rainbow farts and sunshine turds (to borrow a phrase from the Robotech comments).
If it hasn't disappeared or garnered you a nasty PM from el presidente, more likely it'll get a semi-sarcastic but totally useless "answer" from Dave that in the end will somehow be your own fault and not theirs.
Because yeah, this as per usual situation should not have happened again - it should've been far easier to get right compared to minutely checking over the Field Guide army construction format.
And this time there is literally no one else for either of them to blame for once again fething up the list-building.
Not just in hindsight I wondered if this was going to happen as even for my infrequent visits to the Pod forums post-banning one thing I noticed was all mention of "Sub-List Development" completely disappeared when the Northern PDF was finally released, and the big Gen-Con Beta promotion plans were announced.
Well, the biggest tabletop gaming convention in North America has come and gone this weekend. If any of the thread readers/posters went, feel free to share your mech gaming experiences here whether they're specifically about HG and the reception the new rules got or other mech related games.
I'm personally curious about any con news/buzz regarding both HG and Robotech but I'd be interested also about Infinity and Alpha Strike.
Did the HG meetup and game with landships happen? Was the booth adequetly staffed? Did any HG events get added at all to the on site book or were there no officially scheduled events for the game to go along with the beta book release? Any news on the KS that was "leaked"? Any interviews you saw DP9 doing with youtube channels that we should be on the look out for? Those are the things that spring to mind for me. I've been doing a nightly youtube check and sadly didn't see anything for HG pop up over the last couple of days.
warboss wrote: Did the HG meetup and game with landships happen? Was the booth adequetly staffed? Did any HG events get added at all to the on site book or were there no officially scheduled events for the game to go along with the beta book release? Any news on the KS that was "leaked"? Any interviews you saw DP9 doing with youtube channels that we should be on the look out for? Those are the things that spring to mind for me. I've been doing a nightly youtube check and sadly didn't see anything for HG pop up over the last couple of days.
I haven't heard much myself. I think the decision was made to skip 'official' events. I suggested trying to see if there was a way to get into the new game demo area or running some long-form demos (more like RPG sessions as opposed to a tournament) to show off the beta in a more casual environment, but I don't think that idea was adopted.
Gencon has been one of the biggest recruiting drive for DP9, and their boards usually see an influx of new players right after their event. Or at least used to...
You'd think there would be something somewhere for Gencon aside from tiny blurbs by now.
Though I really had to shake my head when I read Dave's comments about the future of the planned Kickstarter:
Dave wrote:Rewards and reward levels for the book kickstarter will be limited to book art, quality of the final published product and ways that players can be a lasting part of the game.
So welcome all, I appreciate your Support and especially your criticism. We need to be objective about making this rules release great so we can ensure that there will be Heavy Gear on tabletops for a long time to come.
Apparently it wasn't enough to end up paying after the fact for errors, omissions, and typos in almost all previous DP9 products. Now those items must be funded by whatever remains of the player-base, with "quality" dependent on $$$ received.
I think this says it all about the Beta ruleset:
Dave wrote:It is my opinion that there is a finite number of models that we can include in a core book release for each faction before they start to bleed into each others design space. Please start a thread in the 2015 rules development section to discuss this.
Thanks for the link and info (scant though it may be). I'll likely sit out the kickstarter for several reasons. The first is that I don't think HG can make the turn around it needs without a change in the physical component of the game (i.e. the models in plastic or much cheaper resin).
The second is that I'm being asked yet again to take it on the chin for "the team" by having half my newly finished Nucoal models unable to use currently. I already took one for the team when they invalidated my RPG books in 2-3 years from first release with my barely used RAFM model collection soon to follow. I already took it on the chin when they invalidated my entire original blitz book collection after 2 years to ONLY SIX MONTHS to come out with L&L that fixed almost nothing. I bent over when FIF came out and wrecked the majority of my squads and caused more variants models to be invalidated or models simply impossible to use in my 30 model army than the previous 300 models in 40k that weathered codex changes. I'm done paying for an aspect of the hobby to keep disappointing me over and over.
I won't be bending over for DP9 yet again. If they're going to half ass the new edition by increasing the scale of games but not address at all the cost of entry to the game (refer to the poll above to see whether cost is an issue for people who don't start HG), I may not go in on the kickstarter. If my collection makes it into the beta intact without being gutted via the FAQ/Errata dave promised, I'll back for the PDF level assuming there is one. If my collection continues to be gutted, I'll skip the kickstarter and wait for the final version to come out and possibly get the PDF on sale IF and ONLY IF issues regarding my missing/illegal/unusable models are addressed.
I don't care about the reasons anymore. If they don't make it easy for me to use the minis in my collection, I'm not even going to bother looking at the rules. And right now, there are lots of stuff I can't field together, between all my armies.
warboss wrote: Thanks for the link and info (scant though it may be). I'll likely sit out the kickstarter for several reasons. The first is that I don't think HG can make the turn around it needs without a change in the physical component of the game (i.e. the models in plastic or much cheaper resin).
The second is that I'm being asked yet again to take it on the chin for "the team" by having half my newly finished Nucoal models unable to use currently. I already took one for the team when they invalidated my RPG books in 2-3 years from first release with my barely used RAFM model collection soon to follow. I already took it on the chin when they invalidated my entire original blitz book collection after 2 years to ONLY SIX MONTHS to come out with L&L that fixed almost nothing. I bent over when FIF came out and wrecked the majority of my squads and caused more variants models to be invalidated or models simply impossible to use in my 30 model army than the previous 300 models in 40k that weathered codex changes. I'm done paying for an aspect of the hobby to keep disappointing me over and over.
I won't be bending over for DP9 yet again. If they're going to half ass the new edition by increasing the scale of games but not address at all the cost of entry to the game (refer to the poll above to see whether cost is an issue for people who don't start HG), I may not go in on the kickstarter. If my collection makes it into the beta intact without being gutted via the FAQ/Errata dave promised, I'll back for the PDF level assuming there is one. If my collection continues to be gutted, I'll skip the kickstarter and wait for the final version to come out and possibly get the PDF on sale IF and ONLY IF issues regarding my missing/illegal/unusable models are addressed.
What makes you think they won't gut it again in a couple of years ?
Seriously, look at the amount of missing stuff from the Northern book, even units from the base GP, despite the beta and the ebook being designed at the same time ? Or how few units were added between the end of the alpha and the official beta release, despite a 4-months gap, and people pointing out the holes in the list ?
They're not competent, that's a given, but more critically, they just plain don't care...
At any rate, DP9's presence at Gencon was very low-key. They had a single booth, with three demo tables, a full display case and the Beta rules. They had some stock, and plenty of the rebranded GP squads, but that was about it. I spent some time there and it seemed like con-goers were enjoying themselves; there was about a 30-40% conversion rate for most demo tables which felt fairly good. What that translates to in terms of future sales is beyond me.
As far as the units go - ignoring the stupidity of giving every . single . variant a 'new name' - I think there's an idea to break with tradition as far as model equipment goes and make some changes that will allow for less TMWS and fewer 'optimized' platforms. However, the approach has been piecemeal, from what I can tell. Same goes for army construction - most people seem to like the new construction in comparison to the older method but it's still too restrictive for the scale of wargame that they are putting out, IMO.
It was very... shall we say telling... to compare DP9's booth to the booths for Dark Age, Mercs, Relic Knights, DZC, Infinity, Malifaux. Warmachine is the beast it always is; but Malifaux's plastics beat the snot out of everything else, and gives them a great position long term, I think. Infinity had a better presence again this year; I caught part of their seminar and their growth is basically geometric at this point. They're up to 33 FTEs at this point and project further growth. Relic Knights had a fairly strong showing - good banner, great booth, excellent rulebook (in terms of composition) - check it out yourself http://sodapopminiatures.com/media/downloads/relic-knights-rulebook-web.pdf. They shared a long booth with DZC, which has fantastic production quality for their figures and the paper-terrain to help them make good sales. I was impressed with what they can accomplish with DP9 style prices which was the real killer - better quality for the same price. Mercs had a strong showing as well, building off their previous success with 4 (!) new games; Myth (kickstarted), Mercs Recon, Mercs Conflict and Emergence Event. Their booth and demo area was always hopping. Dark Age also had a strong showing, with a small tournament and new miniatures. They seemed to be gaining steam more than losing it. Robotech Tactics was present as well... but, well - see the other thread for that. I had my heart set on buying a box, saw the miniatures and kept my wallet in check. I might get a Super VF-1S as a desk model, but that will be about it.
Just from the booth and presentation, I suspect DP9 is sliding into oblivion. It feels like just before L&L was released, but there doesn't appear to be a Mason to revamp the presentation into the glossy, professional format that seem to percolate through the market currently. I'll be interested to see how they fair, but I'm not terribly optimistic.
Thanks for the rundown of gencon. I made the comparison to some of those companies in my series of grog articles last year when I was trying to be optimistic and constructive. To be blunt, they remind me of the DP9 that got me into the game back in the mid 90's. Growing, big impressive booth.. and a life size hunter!! DZC is building 6 ft space ships exactly to scale for their upcoming space game and had a 2ft (?) mech from their game at their booth. Sorry to hear about the robotech minis but it isn't a surprise. Luckily, karma kicked palladium in the privates and their attempt to break their "backers first" promise backfired. The zentraedi minis overall with some exceptions are nice but the RDF stuff is disappointing from the pics (doubly so with their 3 colors plus overly heavy wash demo paint scheme).
As for this thread, it keeps shambling on just like DP9. I actually unsubscribed from it for the past month or so but reposted for a gencon update request. I'll likely bow out again after a few more days till the kickstarter starts.
warboss wrote: and had a 2ft (?) mech from their game at their booth.
It was one of the PHR walkers; 2' seems a bit low on first recollection, but maybe I'm remembering wrong. It's was very impressive, if a bit roughly finished. The 'ultra-smooth' look of the PHR models - that comes out well in resin - was a bit rough at that scale. Another another pass with 1500 grit sandpaper or so would have made it fairly awesome instead of just cool. But that's just me being picky
warboss wrote: Sorry to hear about the robotech minis but it isn't a surprise. Luckily, karma kicked palladium in the privates and their attempt to break their "backers first" promise backfired. The zentraedi minis overall with some exceptions are nice but the RDF stuff is disappointing from the pics (doubly so with their 3 colors plus overly heavy wash demo paint scheme).
The Tomahawks and Spartans aren't bad, though the flash on their feet is annoying. The guardians were so static is was painful. The VFs looked okay from a tabletop perspective, but there's no way I'm assembling 12 models of 30 pieces each for a starter army. Forget that.
I was actually really impressed with the new painter that DP9 has found though. Whether or not you like the Scimitar (is that it's name?) the paintjob was very impressive in person. Kudos on that choice.
warboss wrote: Any feelings on whether you'll back the KS?
Categorically will not. There are too many design decisions that have been made that I disagree with. Having seen the sausage being made (so to speak) the deviations get under my skin... so it's probably best that I pass. I'm in the process of divesting myself of the bulk of my HG anyways (having 3 army carriers is probably 2 too many), and I'm not willing to pay the prices they want anyways. So pass.
You should admire the paintjob on the Scimitar. It was done by none other than Angel Giraldez, one of the most prominent guests at Gencon. He's the studio painter for Infinity, and absolutely one of the best in the world.
Killionaire wrote: You should admire the paintjob on the Scimitar. It was done by none other than Angel Giraldez, one of the most prominent guests at Gencon. He's the studio painter for Infinity, and absolutely one of the best in the world.
Hurm, strange. I thought I recalled someone telling me it was local-to-DP9 talent that had painted the Scimitar, not Angel. But I could be mistaken.
The news in the infinity thread was that he was going to be exclusively a corvus belli painter from then on but would finish whatever remaining contracts he had. While it is possible that DP9 had a long term contract with him, I highly doubt it. They don't seem to operate (admittedly from my very limited experience behind the scenes) with so much forethought as to hire a painter 2 years in advance from his last work for them (FIF models). My gut feeling is that they're more of a seat of the pants kind of company instead. In any case, I don't know who the painter is but I agree that the paint job is nice.
warboss wrote: I won't be bending over for DP9 yet again. If they're going to half ass the new edition [..]
IceRaptor wrote: I think there's an idea to break with tradition as far as model equipment goes and make some changes that will allow for less TMWS and fewer 'optimized' platforms. However, the approach has been piecemeal, from what I can tell.
IceRaptor wrote: There are too many design decisions that have been made that I disagree with.
I gave serious consideration a week or so back to creating a "fan edition" of the Northern PDF from the workable draft version as handed in by the test team along with the necessary datacards et al, and then maybe doing the same to South or the CEF & Colonial factions, but I decided in the end it's probably far too much work with so few people still actively playing the game.
To be honest I think it would be far better to spend that kind of time coming up with my own take on the setting from the original material, or collaborating on same, whether anyone used the subsequent ruleset and material or not.
IceRaptor wrote: I thought I recalled someone telling me it was local-to-DP9 talent that had painted the Scimitar, not Angel. But I could be mistaken.
HudsonD wrote: I remember something similar as well, and Angel is supposed to be working only for Corvus these days. I can't find the source for the former though.
Kickstarter announcement thread is up. My post (in case something happens to it) will be quoted below for posterity.
I'm interested as long as the beta rules don't end up making large parts of armies illegal or unable to be used with other parts due to sudden faction restrictions on previously standard models (which is unfortunately currently the case). I'm anxiously awaiting the September FAQ/Errata to see if the half of my completely standard general TPS Nucoal force with NO subfaction specific models can be used with the other half. Unfortunately, the initial beta release leaves me no access to my Hetarois at all and only a single subfaction that can use the jetbikes, both of which were previously universally available for NuCoal.
I had hoped that DP9 had learned from the mistakes of FIF when this exact same thing happened but that doesn't seem to be the case. Robert, I hope you don't take this the wrong way but locking previously ubiquitous units behind a subfaction means that only a small portion of the playerbase for that factions will be able to use their EXISTING minis as well as only a small portion of new players will BUY that mini.
Previously, EVERY nucoal player could buy Hetaroi tanks. Currently, NO nucoal players can buy Hetarois. Even with the errata Dave mentioned to fix this mistake, only ONE subfaction (HAPF) players can buy Hets. You're losing potentially 80%+ of the potential customer base by locking the model behind the subfaction Berlin Wall. The same is true of jetbikes. Take all your jetbike sales from the past few years and divide that by 5. That is how many players will be able to buy them on average because they're going from available to ALL nucoal players to JUST ONE subfaction (PAK). You're basically dividing the potential customer base by 4-5 roughly for each model you lock behind a subfaction Berlin Wall. I have only looked up my smallest army (NUCOAL) and found these issues but can only guess that I'll find more in my southern and northern armies. I do hope that these types of issues (like missing models) get resolved before the kickstarter.
I anxiously await both further KS news and whether I'll be able to use the models I already own as my participation in the former is completely dependent on the latter.
CGHC 23 August 2014 - 11:01 AM wrote:I'm interested as long as the beta rules don't end up making large parts of armies illegal or unable to be used with other parts due to sudden faction restrictions on previously standard models (which is unfortunately currently the case).
I anxiously await both further KS news and whether I'll be able to use the models I already own as my participation in the former is completely dependent on the latter.
HudsonD wrote: Well, looks like DP9 can't afford their rulebook anymore... Cute.
Given the, less than completely positive, comments being left on the Facebook notice for the planned KS as well I'm a little surprised that pruning or thread-locking hasn't happened yet for both web locales.
Had to laugh at this though;
Dream Pod 9 wrote:The Kickstarter's only purpose is to fund the production of new rulebook and what’s needed for it; writing, copy editing, layout, artwork, painting up a lot of miniatures to the new high level paint jobs, terrain, and photos. Plus to make sure we have enough copies of the new Core Rules pre-ordered to pay for everything.
Dream Pod 9 wrote:The Beta Rules are a free ebook download, but we'll need to pay the artists, miniature painters, copy editor, etc. so we need charge for the final rulebook.
Oh, this is now suddenly a concern after literally losing everyone that used to do those things, many when they wouldn't do work anymore solely for product related to a game almost no one plays?
And I notice el presidente neglected to mention exactly who will be doing the "writing," layout, and photos for this particular Pod release. Touch shady, that there, considering Robert is the one who does those things.
The Pod also keeps spending what they don't have re-painting miniatures to try and draw folks, while doing absolutely nothing about things like charging $40USD for individual models less than 2 3/4" (68mm) tall.
Not to mention, will backers get some/all of their money back if the only level to meet its funding is for the PDF version?
Because "The final book release would be Summer 2015 at Gen Con for the 20th Anniversary of Heavy Gear. Backers would get their copies mailed out the month before the official release." sure indicates to me that TPTB believe a physical book will happen.
Meaning Robert thinks a KS can't possibly fail even though DP9's "official" company forums are essentially dead and their Facebook page not much better, with even some of those few folks commenting on how a rules only funding drive won't garner the necessary attention.
This is not a recipe for success. Although that fact hasn't stopped them in the past, either.
While I too am curious as to who will work on the book, I don't think the initial announcement is the place to advertise it. If they're "celebrities", they'll likely announce it later. If they're first timers, I don't think they ever will. In any case, there are bigger fish to fry beyond who they've gotten to work with and potentially burn out next.
Hm, for some reason, there are people over at the pod forums that are bent on making it look as if my problem with the current fluff (specifically the NuCoal... but well, yeah) is the state it ends in.
It's not.
My problem is still that the chains of events needed to reach there (at least as depicted in the fluff) range from barely believable to raging stupid, and mostly are at the raging stupid end of that scale. They, quite simply, completely failed on selling it to me via their setting recounting. Just plain too much stupidity, Deus ex Machina, retconning, GMNPCs and magical humanist technology needed for the stuff to happen as stated in the book.
Seriously, I've had bought it much easier if they just had shut up and went "yeah, it's always been that way. Now get on with it". That way at least it could have been made to make sense.
I'm curious to see what the folks who were responsible for that do with the RPG and/or the nublitz beta fluff. I like alot of the nucoal models but I agree that the fluff is suspect to put it mildly (and i don't even follow the fluff much). I can largely ignore the fluff though in games and tend to focus more on them screwing up the crunch personally.
warboss wrote: I'm curious to see what the folks who were responsible for that do with the RPG and/or the nublitz beta fluff. I like alot of the nucoal models but I agree that the fluff is suspect to put it mildly (and i don't even follow the fluff much). I can largely ignore the fluff though in games and tend to focus more on them screwing up the crunch personally.
Yeah, even I think the cruch is very important, although being more interested in the RPG side of the stuff, the fluff problems raise my anger somewhat more. In a perfect world, they'd get both correctly. Or at least, passable and playable.
As it is now, though, I've been consistently impressed and surprised by other companies and consistently let down and dissapointed by the pod. For example, the guys from Hawk Wargames seem to be doing right for DZC each and everything the pod is doing wrong for Heavy Gear. And even liking a lot what HW is doing... the state of HG saddens me a lot. Each year they seem to be nearing the grave even more, losing market share and letting other, more dynamic, ambitious and... well, competent companies surpass them.
I do hope Arkrite rises to the challenge and manage to get some good stuff out of the license.
We'll I'm pretty disappointed that the new edition is a kick starter. I've never done one and if it doesn't raise enough for a book than that's just it? Have fun with the beta rules and keep buying our models? I was gonna wait for the new book and I still hope it will exist but I'm starting to doubt.
I think I'm gonna start looking for an alternate rule set. Anyone recommend a generic sci fi war game that will handle heavy gear style battles
jedi76 wrote: We'll I'm pretty disappointed that the new edition is a kick starter. I've never done one and if it doesn't raise enough for a book than that's just it? Have fun with the beta rules and keep buying our models? I was gonna wait for the new book and I still hope it will exist but I'm starting to doubt.
I think I'm gonna start looking for an alternate rule set. Anyone recommend a generic sci fi war game that will handle heavy gear style battles
Gruntz could? Depending on your preference you could stat the gears as the baseline gruntz sqauds fairly easily i'd imagine, or just roll them all as walker vehicles and use them like a skirmish game?
Albertorius wrote: They, quite simply, completely failed on selling it to me via their setting recounting. Just plain too much stupidity, Deus ex Machina, retconning, GMNPCs and magical humanist technology needed for the stuff to happen as stated in the book.
warboss wrote: I like alot of the nucoal models but I agree that the fluff is suspect to put it mildly (and i don't even follow the fluff much)..
There is a fine line between science fiction and science fantasy (typically illustrated by space opera settings) that Jason and the other production folks missed completely.
So yeah, there is a clear difference that isn't going to change no matter how many folks try to make it about you not seeing the "correct big picture." And man, does that kind of bs response to the problem get so old.
warboss wrote: I can largely ignore the fluff though in games and tend to focus more on them screwing up the crunch personally.
Albertorius wrote: Yeah, even I think the crunch is very important, although being more interested in the RPG side of the stuff, the fluff problems raise my anger somewhat more. In a perfect world, they'd get both correctly. Or at least, passable and playable.
They definitely seem to be done caring about either part in any fashion whatsoever, at least at the Pod.
jedi76 wrote: I think I'm gonna start looking for an alternate rule set. Anyone recommend a generic sci fi war game that will handle heavy gear style battles.
The general consensus seems to be that there really isn't one at the moment, as most focus on either complex gameplay, skirmish-oriented figures, or complete mecha bash without much in between. Another problem is that many games take a WW2-style or Cold War approach that either doesn't factor in high technology or else makes some very poor interpretations of how the tactics should evolve. The whole point of tanks, APCs, improved infantry armor, and then finally power armor or practical [Walker] vehicles is to allow maneuver under fire. Yet almost always a ruleset still incorporates some kind of suppression or pinning element. There is a big difference between suppression and overwatch; most games get it wrong. Revealing your position on a computerized battlefield by blazing away without a target should be a very bad thing.
So far, as research into the question, I've been looking at elements of;
Hammer's Slammers - (The Crucible; $200-400USD for the book is just a mite steep to bother with though.)
Infinity (No Table of Contents, really?) There is an ongoing attempt to port HG into this ruleset, but there is a considerable divide on it working all that well.
I think a rulebook only KS is not a bad idea as that is what they are trying to fund
if you bring minis into it you may get more pledges, but they will probably be for minis only from existing players (or those using the minis as proxys), and they'll want better discounts than internet discounters too (which will upset your other retailers)
neither of which really give you money to spend printing the rule book
so go for a minimum cost rulebook only KS and at least you find out if there is any real interest in your game any more (which from the sound of the thread is open to question)
Twelvecarpileup wrote: I personally think this is a huge mistake... you're not going to get many players in with just the rulebook.
OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote: [..]at least you find out if there is any real interest in your game any more (which from the sound of the thread is open to question)
Unfortunately, Robert, the DP9 president, doesn't think like that, or at least in those terms.
He fully expects everyone to believe whatever he comes up with is a good idea, so that they will then spread the word wherever they can regardless of past reality, and that folks will come out of the woodwork to throw $$$ at him when he asks.
Additionally, he is firm in the mindset that anyone who doesn't immediately believe what or how he does, or do exactly as he says no matter how impossible, is insulting his person and hating on his company.
You'll notice in his posts or video interviews that he waxes more than a touch grandiose when talking about the company's following or exposure.
In actuality there are about three dozen (36) somewhat active posters on the Pod forums, maybe a dozen or two (12-24) different folks over on Facebook, and maybe another half dozen or so (6) different folks between the Heavy Gear & HG:Assault communities for G+.
Even doubling that figure to account for players who don't post or never register on those kinds of sites isn't exactly what I think another gaming company would consider a reasonable "following."
Because basically, yes, Dream Pod 9 really has driven off or lost the interest of most everyone else that was actively talking about or playing the game even just a year ago.
The interestingly silly thing about that is how TPTB don't seem to care one little bit about losing chunks of their player-base or the ripples of discontent those dissatisfied folks cause on sites the Pod leadership never frequents.
Finally, there is some media coverage of DP9 from Gencon from a youtuber. The interesting part for me (and maybe I'm ready too much into it) is when Robert accidentally photobombs the interview and Dave physically stops him at around 8:15. The interviewer jokes "Ha Ha you're fired!" and Dave follows up with a smug and seemingly completely unnecessary "He can't fire me". Is he part owner of the company now? Or is the response likely more due to him being both the chief rules developer of the savior edition of HG along with the guy who physically makes the minis? In any case, it seemed completely unnecessary to add even if completely true.
doc1234 wrote: Gruntz could? Depending on your preference you could stat the gears as the baseline gruntz sqauds fairly easily i'd imagine, or just roll them all as walker vehicles and use them like a skirmish game?
Gruntz could - it's got the concepts of combined arms fairly well, though it tends to think of walkers as battletech style mechs rather than IFV style armor. You might find that it doesn't quite capture the VOTOMS feel exactly, but you'll be fairly happy I think.
It's not that this Kickstarter is a bad idea, it's that it's a ridiculous idea. The company is 20 years old for sake. They should be able to put out a new edition of a game nearly that old on their own dime. The only reason the Pod SHOULD have for going to Kickstarter, is to overhaul their minis. They shouldn't need to crowdfund STAFF.
I love Heavy Gear, I really do. The setting is amazing, the art is amazing, and the minis are pretty cool. But holy damn, DP9, could you start acting like professionals for five minutes?
Firebreak wrote: It's not that this Kickstarter is a bad idea, it's that it's a ridiculous idea. The company is 20 years old for sake. They should be able to put out a new edition of a game nearly that old on their own dime. The only reason the Pod SHOULD have for going to Kickstarter, is to overhaul their minis. They shouldn't need to crowdfund STAFF.
I love Heavy Gear, I really do. The setting is amazing, the art is amazing, and the minis are pretty cool. But holy damn, DP9, could you start acting like professionals for five minutes?
Just wanted to vent.
So what's your opinion of R. Talsorian Games doing a Kickstarter project to put out a new edition of Mekton Zero?
As far as I understand it, they've got the same reason for the project: Funding for better artwork and to produce a better version of the book than they could otherwise afford.
I don't have any issue with a KS being *just* for a book. I'd obviously prefer a full fledged release with plastic starter minis but I don't really have any faith in DP9 succeeding in something like that even if they had the will... which I don't think they do. If they switch to plastics and the new rules don't end up selling well, Dave will be out of both of his jobs at the company. At least with metal minis, he still has one to fall back on if the other fails.
In any case, I don't plan on pledging past a PDF and that is ONLY if they don't screw me out of using my existing minis yet again. If they do accomplish the latter for the 3rd time (not including the times they prematurely retired books to double dip for cash), I'll bid the princely sum on $1 so that I can comment for eternity.
Firebreak wrote: It's not that this Kickstarter is a bad idea, it's that it's a ridiculous idea. The company is 20 years old for sake. They should be able to put out a new edition of a game nearly that old on their own dime. The only reason the Pod SHOULD have for going to Kickstarter, is to overhaul their minis. They shouldn't need to crowdfund STAFF.
I love Heavy Gear, I really do. The setting is amazing, the art is amazing, and the minis are pretty cool. But holy damn, DP9, could you start acting like professionals for five minutes?
Just wanted to vent.
So what's your opinion of R. Talsorian Games doing a Kickstarter project to put out a new edition of Mekton Zero?
As far as I understand it, they've got the same reason for the project: Funding for better artwork and to produce a better version of the book than they could otherwise afford.
Perfectly fine with that, there hasn't been (as far as I can tell - never played, little to no knowledge of the thing, correct me if I'm wrong) a release for 14 years. Heavy Gear isn't re-launching. This is like GW kickstartering 9th edition. I get that (hopefully) whatever the KS results in will be a better product than had they not done it - lord knows the Pod can't edit or proofread for crap - but a 20 year old company and game going to Kickstarter to put out a new edition that they've already been working just smacks of mishandling. They should have an artist, model painters, copy writers, all the things the KS is for, that should all be there, already. I know they're a small company, with like, what, 4 people on actual staff, and the rest have day-jobs? But one of those part-timers should be an artist they've been paying for the past three years or however long they've been working on this, for new art. One of those people should be a professional painter. And a graphic designer, and so on. I love the Pod, but they handle their resources terribly, and asking people to give them MORE for something they should be able to do themselves at this point just seems incredibly stupid.
You know the thing about kickstarter too? Nothing says you actually have to spend all of that money on developing a product. Especially not one you were going to do anyway.
So what I predict will happen is that we'll see the exact same quality as the last few books, with a handful of new art splashes. And the rest goes into the pocket as basically pre-pre-orders.
Firebreak wrote: It's not that this Kickstarter is a bad idea, it's that it's a ridiculous idea. The company is 20 years old for sake. They should be able to put out a new edition of a game nearly that old on their own dime. The only reason the Pod SHOULD have for going to Kickstarter, is to overhaul their minis. They shouldn't need to crowdfund STAFF.
I love Heavy Gear, I really do. The setting is amazing, the art is amazing, and the minis are pretty cool. But holy damn, DP9, could you start acting like professionals for five minutes?
Just wanted to vent.
So what's your opinion of R. Talsorian Games doing a Kickstarter project to put out a new edition of Mekton Zero?
As far as I understand it, they've got the same reason for the project: Funding for better artwork and to produce a better version of the book than they could otherwise afford.
R. Talsorian has pretty clearly been on minimal staff for over a decade. I *think* the only real employees (as opposed to contracted help) are Mike Pondsmith and his wife, Lisa. And for quite a while, he was working elsewhere to pay the bills (Microsoft, for instance). There have been releases during that time (Cyberpunk 3.0, which was panned), but they've been sporadic.
In short, the company's been on life support for quite a while, and everyone knows it.
That hasn't stopped Mike Pondsmith from planning what he would put together when he did the Mekton Zero release (which he's talked about for quite a while). He's discussed plans on the Mekton Zeta Mailing List from time to time. But the last Mekton releases were in the mid-90s.
DP9, on the other hand, has had continuous new releases, new games, new rule books, etc... On the surface, there's no reason to think that they're anything other than a healthy company, and seemingly have been that way since they killed all but one of their lines back in the '90s. But if that's the case, then why are they turning to crowd sourcing for the new rules?
I got in to the Mekton kickstarter in a big way. Long-time Cyberpunk GM, always wanted to run Mekton. I've got all the books and quite a few minis for it. Patiently awaiting the new game.
Question: I really need to know if I should pre-order a few boxes of the new Robotech from Paladium game. From what people are saying ( three or four posts I've seen ) there are problems with the minis?
Need help quick, I was going to dump about $1,200 my cost into a big pre-order. Yay or nay? and why, if not too much trouble. I could not make GenCon, so I don't know what is going on.
DP9, on the other hand, has had continuous new releases, new games, new rule books, etc... On the surface, there's no reason to think that they're anything other than a healthy company, and seemingly have been that way since they killed all but one of their lines back in the '90s. But if that's the case, then why are they turning to crowd sourcing for the new rules?
Because the only lasting effect those new releases, new games, and new rule books had is to alienate the people who support them. Each new idea is christened the best thing since sliced bread despite it screwing over a portion of the existing customer base and the customers are asked to take on for the team to make the game better. Unfortunately, the fans take it on the chin by losing value in their collection for no reason as the game isn't better and the idea is abandoned... but no worries because the company in the 2 years since has come up with a great idea that will improve the game as long as a certain portion of fans don't mind getting screwed over... rinse, lather, repeat.
A good example is 4 gear squads. Southern players lost the previously STANDARD ability to take 4 gears in a squad (most squads started stock as 4 gears) because it was bad for balance. Plenty of squads were screwed up in the switch over back in 2013 (including all but one of my squads in my army in addition to simply losing access to 4 figs completely and losing another half dozen variants)... but it was for the good of the game! Fast forward to 2014 and... guess what guys?!? We're redoing all the GP squads with the new rules and they're all 4 gears standard! DP9 burns through developers like stoners burn through.. well... you know and their latest and greatest ideas are abandoned pretty much within two products. The cool new TPS gear squad style? Abandoned after only two books. The "balance" changes that screwed over players with FIF who bought all those MILICIA figs? Lasted less than a year privately with internal playtesting and about a year and a half with public knowledge.
I suspect that in 2017 or at the latest 2018 we'll all be talking about that kick ass new edition that DP9 is coming out with that will fix all the problems that the Gencon 2015 edition had. Seriously... look at the dates on the editions and you'll see that they only last 2-3 years with DP9 before they hit the reset button and devalue all your previous purchases to next to nothing yet they never seem to get it right as it is always two steps forward and one fall flat on your butt back.
That's why they need to kickstart this. They've burned through the good will of all but maybe 2-3 dozen players seemingly as those are the only people who seem to care. I guess we'll see how many actually exist in October. I've been wrong about gamers in the recent past with Robotech so I can't say for sure but I am curious just how many of the potential silent majority come out of the woodwork to support the book. Not many came out for the dual failed video game kickstarters but I suspect/hope that the goals for the book will only be in the tens of thousands and not some ridiculous number.
DP9, on the other hand, has had continuous new releases, new games, new rule books, etc... On the surface, there's no reason to think that they're anything other than a healthy company, and seemingly have been that way since they killed all but one of their lines back in the '90s. But if that's the case, then why are they turning to crowd sourcing for the new rules?
Because the only lasting effect those new releases, new games, and new rule books had is to alienate the people who support them.
The question was rhetorical.
I'm also one of the people that's been burned by them. As I've mentioned before, I was pretty hyped about Arena. There's some real potential in the rules. But there are a few areas that just don't work, and there was never any attempt by DP9 to fix the problem spots.
I was also a long-time Jovian Chronicles fan, but that setting was abandoned a long time ago.
The online game has the potential to change things, if it ever sees a full release, and if it is established in time for the Kickstarter. Of course, the problem with THAT is that people who have been loving that game, will look at the minis and go "Huh? That's not a Hunter. Where are the ACTUAL Gears?"
....thus necessitating a Kickstarter for a new model line.
Firebreak wrote: The online game has the potential to change things, if it ever sees a full release, and if it is established in time for the Kickstarter. Of course, the problem with THAT is that people who have been loving that game, will look at the minis and go "Huh? That's not a Hunter. Where are the ACTUAL Gears?"
Wait...
The gears in the video game don't look like the figures?
Er...
What's the point of licensing a setting if you're not going to actually *use* the recognizable parts of the setting!?
They're modernizing them. Some IMO turned out great like the hunter but others turned out badly (like the Jager) with the warrior just in between. We haven't seen any others yet that I know of.
IceRaptor wrote: At any rate, DP9's presence at Gencon was very low-key. They had a single booth, with three demo tables, a full display case and the Beta rules. They had some stock, and plenty of the rebranded GP squads, but that was about it. I spent some time there and it seemed like con-goers were enjoying themselves; there was about a 30-40% conversion rate for most demo tables which felt fairly good. What that translates to in terms of future sales is beyond me.
Just from the booth and presentation, I suspect DP9 is sliding into oblivion. It feels like just before L&L was released, but there doesn't appear to be a Mason to revamp the presentation into the glossy, professional format that seem to percolate through the market currently. I'll be interested to see how they fair, but I'm not terribly optimistic.
warboss wrote: Finally, there is some media coverage of DP9 from Gencon from a youtuber.
For an interview which was "planned" as part of the KS that guy did to get to Gencon in the first place it came off as rather unprofessional in my opinion, from both of them. It shouldn't have taken that long to prep and rehearse a bit for a not even twelve minute long clip. And yeah, el presidente looked a tad constipated there for a moment when Dave arm-blocked him out of frame.
As for the Pod presence, wow, looking at the four (4) whole pics Robert posted to the forums and Facebook, along with IceRaptor's comment, it sure seems like they weren't all that interested in actually selling stock of any kind.
There is no way it is a good idea to deliberately travel to the largest gaming convention of the year, after reserving/renting a booth space, and not take anything that isn't nailed down at the home office that is in a condition to be sold. I think this illustrates very well what folks have been saying about Robert and his leadership of the Pod; he focuses on one idea at a time as if that "shiny" cannot possibly be anything but 100% accepted and drops everything else.
Not even allowing the choice of buying previous products that might attract those not otherwise interested in the current offerings, at yet another venue where most have never heard of either DP9 or Heavy Gear. Smart, oh so smart.
I forgot that was the guy who kept advertising his "pay me to go to gencon" kickstarter. I agree though that both his interviews that I watched (Robotech and HG) were quite unprofessional and seemingly ad hoc. It seems like he pretty much just thought about it for 30 seconds before each and just asked what came to mind instead of having prepared. I'd say they were noticeably worse in quality and flow than his normal standard as I've watched a bunch of his unboxing videos and they're alot better.
The gears in the video game don't look like the figures?
Er...
What's the point of licensing a setting if you're not going to actually *use* the recognizable parts of the setting!?
Yeah, I admit to a face-palm when I saw this. There was a couple day discussion on the DP9 forums that went something like this:
"Look, we found a concept art for the new Iguana that got leaked." (Note: I may be mistaking the gear models, but this was actually a semi-real leak, as it was on a concept artist's personal deviant art page.)
"They got a bunch of things wrong." (Follow with a list of details,)
"Developer here, the art that is being discussed isn't an Iguana, it's actually a Black Mamba."
So, basically, they're taking a lot of liberties with the designs. Some are probably for reasonable reasons: they're apparently using some skeletal systems intended for humans, and Gears are human-ish, but they wanted to trim down the belly areas a bit, as well as adding a lot of customization bits. I.E. the spiked shoulder armor from the Iguana is now a common Southern 'thing' as an option.
In general, I'd give Arkwrite the best odds of being 'true to the setting' right now, but I haven't read their fiction release or had any contact with those guys for about a year. They do seem to care, though, and aren't rushing things.
I've got some notes and half-written ideas for an improved Arena game at home. Arena was a neat idea that could probably be an interesting post mortem if someone a step closer to it than me wanted to. I feel there were a lot of ideas thrown in to a pot and they all got used, even though some didn't quite work. Some good ideas, and potential to build a game that had a reasonably cheap, affordable buy-in with lots of options to expand.
I won't go into much detail on my ideas for a new version as they're unfinished and might step on the toes of anyone doing a 'real' version and, frankly, they're bad in their own unique way unrelated to the current game. :( I took a few ideas and re-used them for a simple beer & pretzels-ish 'space mecha duel' that could be Jovian Chronicles themed. I'm not doing much work on it right now due to mood issues and not sure if I want to try to get permission to release it as a print & play freebie.
Then again, there may be very good reasons I'm not a game designer. I will say some of my early drafts would have involved some really fiddly card mechanics on top of the existing Silhouette-based mechanics. I think I've got those down to something sane that doesn't require quite as much work to keep things straight, although I'd consider going back to the Arena idea if I had a bunch of free time. It was based around each turn making a stack of desired special maneuver cards that had to be executed in order, with some support for breaking combos that meant you weren't guaranteed to get through your stack... In general, there were comments that HGA was "pro wrestling" inspired. My draft was meant to be more '2d fighting game' inspired. It's completely missing a lot of the customization and such that HGA needs, though... And I'm not sure that can be added without making it too ungainly.
Ironically, the new Heavy Gear video game designs might get sold as 3d prints. I'm really hoping they do as I'd like to use the new hunter (which I really like) as an XMG.
I haven't seen any news on it (cost, scale, etc) since they announced the partnership with sandboxr and put out this pic.
Heavy Gear is dying a slow death, and I think anything short of a huge kickstarter including new rules and miniatures isn't going to slow it down. As mentioned in this thread, people try to get into it, but this game has more barriers to entry then most mini games (overly complex rules, expensive minis, lack of availability etc).
Reaper is apparently launching a kickstarter for their mech game, which if it's halfway decent might steal the few remaining HG fans.
Hey that Hunter doesn't look that bad. I can see why they re-did things, as the tabletop models would look terrible in motion, and may not even be possible to move, their proportions are exaggerated in ways that just wouldn't work. MWO had much of the same issue.
Though, ugh, the southern redesigns were really awful, they should at least be recognizable to the fans, even if different -- and I couldn't even tell what their strider was supposed to be!
I don't have a problem with them redesigning some of the gears. As much as I love the Ghislain art from the mid to late 1990s, it is effectively a 20 year old design for most of the gears that was closely inspired by a 30 year old anime (VOTOMS). It is due for a revamp as long as the stuff is recognizable and still pays tribute to the originals. I think the hunter succeeded in that regard but the Jager was IMO a complete fail. It looked like a gear version of an obese GWAR! music group fan.
The new Hunter (at least that 3D printed one) looks pretty sweet, but the arms have a little of that gorilla-arm syndrome some of the live-action Transformers get. Maybe they'll look better with a gun or in a different pose, but it just looks like there's something off about the length of the arms.
Still, though. Far and away better than the Iguamambager.
Something like the KS idea might work for a company with a bigger following, down to earth expectations, and a realistic sense of what they can do as a team.
But in my opinion Dream Pod 9 is not that company - or at least they haven't been for the past (10) years, because as others have pointed out before the folks who brought HG to life with so much vibrancy are long gone.
Simply put, there is no staff anymore to do anything, and even when there kind of was the products had no coherency with other things being created at the same time.
Folks might say this or that in defense of the company to downplay what is being posted and has been posted in this thread, but in the end I don't think it will matter either way.
The Pod's Kickstarter attempt will in all likelihood fail primarily because of the mindset possessed by the tiny number of people "running" the company itself.
Case in point:
Dave 29 Aug 2014- 10:54 PM wrote:Dream pod 9 has almost 20 years experience bringing products to market.
There isn't ever any humility about trying to overcome past mistakes that everyone knows have been made, let alone never corrected.
That is not the way to try and entice anyone, existing or new, into backing a crowd-funded product, when any web search will return content filled with mention of every poor decision and repeated mistake made over the current Pod's history.
Saying otherwise is not going to change that - making it an approach that should not be used.
But most everyone reading here already knows how well that kind of reality-based argument would work on Robert and Dave.
Firebreak wrote: Seems like things are beginning to get heated over there.
One of the biggest things I think is that there is essentially no room for an objective middle ground given how small a following DP9 has nowadays. The company certainly hasn't been all that well known in the past but as Warboss keeps pointing out to them a decade of business as per usual hasn't done their gaming titles any favors.
When folks see nothing at all wrong with asking for things like this;
Vincent Alaric Crowely - August 27 at 8:51am wrote:Just got my first Scimitar yesterday, and I had a question. Can Gearstriders still be duelists? In the NuCoal book it says any model with arms, but beta says gear types. So is a gearstrider a gear type? There's a long tradition of ace pilots getting the fancy new superweapons to play with in anime, it'd be fun to carry that on to the tabletop.
... and the publisher response isn't a flat-out "No, it doesn't fit the setting we're trying to theme as [this] or [this] for our Anniversary total revamp," you either accept that lack of vision too or not play period, as not only is the community so small but preference is repeatedly given by Dream Pod 9 to individuals over the player-base as a whole.
Because yeah, that so totally fits into the "realistic" sci-fi combined arms thing the company lays claim to as a selling point. Just like "all melee weapons are now anti-tank weapons" does.
One kind of ignorant thing is that by now (from 2012, or even this past Spring) Dave should be able to figure out why he keeps torquing people off with his views on legacy model availability for existing players. That he can't would seem to indicate not only a complete lack of competence, but also a lack of caring about products folks have already paid for only to keep seeing the company make the same list building mistakes time and again.
Or even just things like when people suggested changing the new ruleset's name to better differentiate from Blitz, Locked & Loaded, Field Manual, and etc etc in case the Pod does attract any new players. But what did they actually put it out as? Heavy Gear Blitz!: Beta.
Wow - just, so, differentiated. Because hey, the cover of the temporary book was easier for Robert to create that way, right.
Smilodon_UP wrote: not only is the community so small but preference is repeatedly given by Dream Pod 9 to individuals over the player-base as a whole.
High school music class all over again. If you weren't in the band, you weren't worth the teacher's time.
I don't understand the hate for old models etc. (From the company, not the players.) I get that, in reality, there's no reason an Asp should be in a professional army. But who cares about the professional armies? The SRA, the UMFA, and Paxton aren't interesting. The MILICIA is! WFP armies and Badlands are! Squads of weird, useless Gears have always been part of the attraction for me. And, I can't lie, I like the one-on-one duelist aspect. But I also liked how it was presented as "This is a martial tradition of honour, not a serious aspect of warfare." ....until NuCoal. I really considered the Drake the death knell of a lot of my favourite parts of Heavy Gear, but it really did start with NuCoal, didn't it?
I forget, was the Nucoal book the one that added duelist skills? That was the one that really had me groan.
Especially when they already had, or had already announced Arena, and it's rules ended up being utter gak. Like completely unplayable, and it was also completely left to twist in the wind. I don't think they ever answered a single rules question about that game. (And there were loads)
EDIT: I also don't mind outdated gears, and odd mixes and matches of different gears, but they never did a very good job of balancing them. It was more of a way to handicap yourself by taking the wrong gear. So terrible.
ferrous wrote: I forget, was the Nucoal book the one that added duelist skills? That was the one that really had me groan.
Never bought the NuCoal book, so I can't answer that. But it wouldn't surprise me.
Especially when they already had, or had already announced Arena, and it's rules ended up being utter gak. Like completely unplayable, and it was also completely left to twist in the wind. I don't think they ever answered a single rules question about that game. (And there were loads)
a
NuCoal was released after Arena was. And there were supposed to be some Arena tie-ins in the NuCoal book so that you could run a team with NuCoal sponsors. I don't know how much of that made it in, though. As for Arena, an FAQ was eventually released, iirc. But it ignored most of the important questions.
ferrous wrote: I forget, was the Nucoal book the one that added duelist skills? That was the one that really had me groan.
Especially when they already had, or had already announced Arena, and it's rules ended up being utter gak. Like completely unplayable, and it was also completely left to twist in the wind. I don't think they ever answered a single rules question about that game. (And there were loads)
EDIT: I also don't mind outdated gears, and odd mixes and matches of different gears, but they never did a very good job of balancing them. It was more of a way to handicap yourself by taking the wrong gear. So terrible.
FYI, and IIRC, Dave was happy with the Duellist rules in the NuCoal book. I don't think he was properly disgusted by Arena, but I don't remember him defending it or trying to push it.
The outdated gears were never balanced, but the problem was often in the "does not cost enough" side. A single Asp is a joke. 800 TV of Asps is a steam-roller.
Those gears are supposed to be useless, and should be worthless... except that each one has the two most precious things of all: an Action and an activation.
Even worse, it takes at least on Action to kill one.
If you cost them for their individual contribution (i.e. as a replacement for another gear), the cost should be low.
If you cost them taking into account their impact on the Action economy and on the activation sequence, especially taking into account that they don't actually replace another gear...
They were a gift to min-maxers.
Of course, how relevant outdated gears that are not used even by the MILICIA since they are more than 40 years olds are is another question. Their inclusion is a good example of the "single fan" approach of DP9: someone liked them, so they must be in the main game; it does not matter that they don't fit, or that they cannot be both true to the setting or balanced.
In defence of myself, not a fan of the Asp, or the save the Asp stuff, it was just the first thing to come to mind as the "pointless" Gear. Maybe the Bear would've been a better choice. I like that those old Gears exist, they add a tremendous amount of flavour to the setting, but maybe they need to pare things down and leave the irrelevant gears to Assault and the RPG guys.
NuCoal paved the way for the homogenization of the entire setting. The Ferret was cool cos it was unique, so was the Cataphract. Enter the Jerboa and Hussar. And then Drake. And then Scimitar. I'm surprised the South didn't wind up with a butt-wheel Gear. Paxton has, hasn't it? I realise real militaries don't look drastically different, but in a sci-fi game, it's okay for them to. Now everyone gets a butt-wheel and a gearstrider, and it all just tastes the same.
ferrous wrote: I forget, was the Nucoal book the one that added duelist skills? That was the one that really had me groan.
That's in Nucoal they were introduced, yes. At least they were optional. They were supposed not to be though, and I'll let you guess who lobbied (hard) to get them labelled "optional" a few days before release...
1). The sheer amount of rule books for a new player. It's pretty bad- something like 5-6 books just for the base rules. And you have to read them from the first book on, as the newer books had some new rules and addendum.
2). Naming conventions- as has been pointed out, some things are a Gear, some things are a Strider, some things are a Heavy Gear Strider... just for crying out loud- they are all Gears with a subtype!
3). The points system and restrictions. "Threat Value and Priority Levels" Like above, you have to buy ALL the books because in every one they will sneak in new costs for models and equipment, and changes to the Priority Level. Horribly, horribly complicated!
4). Army Creation: When you have to rely on a fan created software program to calculate the costs of each model and various threat levels and the options available, you are doing something wrong. It's pretty much impossible to create an army using the books. Gear Garage is awesome, my hat is off to the fan that built it, but the army creation process is fundamentally flawed and impossible to use unless you are a veteran player with all the rulebooks, or you use Gear Garage. Good luck on validating army lists at a tournament!
5). Movement- there are four movement types (five if you include flying)- ground, walk, hover, static. Each mode has stationary, combat speed, and top speed movement. Terrain types are broken down to clear/open, soft, rough/dense, very rough/very dense, impassable, structures, roads, shallow water, deep water, rough water, difficult, and dangerous. Even though the game is not played on a hex map, it's hex based movement where it costs movement points to change facing and move on the table. But the players are encouraged to have good sportsmanship and just "wing it" when it comes to movement. Need I say more?
6.). The actual play mechanics themselves. I should not have to have a degree in mathematics to play a game. What I mean by that- to perform an attack, I get X amount of dice, where X = an arbitrary number listed as 'Attack Skill'. I say arbitrary, because the values don't seem to follow any kind of logical sense. Some are very high, some are very low, and no reasons are given. Now, I roll my attack dice and consider a matrix of modifiers based on my movement and my target's movement. I pile on more modifiers based on the Perks (advantages) and flaws (disadvantages) of both models. At some point, concealment and cover have to be considered- which is confusing as hell. A model can have BOTH concealment AND cover, and both introduce another matrix of modifiers based on a whole bunch of stuff- and it's scaler. As in, you can have varying levels of concealment and cover. Once the total amount of dice has been determined and all the modifiers, I roll the attack dice. It's an opposed test, so the Defender gets to roll defense dice- and oh yeah, the Defender has a matrix of modifiers as well... So do I hit him or not? Well, the modifiers are applied to EACH DIE ROLL SEPARATELY. Like I could get +3 to each die. If I roll 2d6 and get a 3 and a 5, they would be 6 and 8. Same goes for the defense roll. Let's say he rolled a 2 and a 5 at +3 for a total roll of 5 and 8. You compare the two highest numbers rolled- in this case the attacks 8 to the defenders 8. The attacker has to roll higher then the defender to achieve a "Measure of Successes" (MoS). If you get an MoS of 1 or more, you hit, and remember what that MoS is for applying damage. Now the question becomes how much damage did I do? Well, each weapon has a multiplier like x10, x13, x18... take your MoS and multiply it by the damage multiplier. Got a calculator? Compare the Damage to the Armor value of the target. Actually, it's divide the Damage by the Armor Value of the target. So let's say I did 21 damage and you have an Armor Value of 16. 21/16= 1.3125. You drop the decimals (never round) for a total damage to the target of 1. The target model marks off 1 damage box (most gears have 3-4 damage boxes). Each level of damage effects your gear and adds more modifiers. Did you follow all that? Congratulations! You just did some Calculus and Linear Algebra. And I just gave you the simplified version of making an attack. Can you imagine doing that with 10+ models? /shudder
7). In a game with mini-fusion power sources for gears and tanks, with interstellar travel, high tech Gears, and anime action, why is the best weapon in the game a medium bazooka? I mean, really? It's ubiquitous- it's the standard "heavy weapon upgrade" of almost every gear squad (and if you are a min/maxer, you can load out all your gears with it). There are Rail Rifles, Laser Cannons, Particle Weapons, guided missiles, autocannons, gear sized shotguns!!! and the best weapon a player can take is a medium bazooka? A large metal tube that fires a dumb rocket? Really? The game has broken my suspension of disbelief.
8). Bases on the models- some use hex bases, some use round bases, some have no bases at all. Arcs are HUGE in this game, so maybe the bases should be standardized? As a side comment, the model designers need to either make the bases bigger, or make the models smaller, because I'm so tired of all my Gears hanging over the hex bases. I'd love to swap them out for bigger bases, but arcs matter, and trying to see a 60 degree arc on a round base is all buy impossible unless you paint the arcs on your base. Also, there are some base to base rules, and movement goes by your base overlapping the terrain, while line of sight is basically "true line of sight" for concealment, cover, and targeting. You want the smallest base you can on your gears (or, hey! No base at all like the gear striders or most vehicles!)
The current rule system is clunky and over-complicated. It requires far too many calculations for what you get out of it. One simple calculation mistake, say and extra +1 on a die roll, can have HUGE effects on the outcome. I really don't like a game where I have to have a calculator handy "just in case".
Things I like:
1). The fluff is awesome. Love it!
2). It has mecha (gears!)! There is a serious lack of table top games with mecha right now.
3). The artwork! I've always liked the art work for Heavy Gear.
4). The models! Yes, some are gank, but most are just fantastic!
There is a beta edition out for the new edition of Heavy Gear. I haven't read the entire thing yet, but when I'm talking to Robert D. at Gencon and the most exciting thing he can talk about is that you don't have to track ammo anymore in the new edition... well, there went my high hopes. I really, really wish they would get off this derivative calculations for game effects. It really, really needs to be roll some dice, add a few modifiers and Bob is your uncle. It would speed up game play and make the game way, way more accessible to new players who are used to Warhammer 40K and/or Warmachine.
TLDR; I have a lot of issues with the game mechanics, but I love the fluff, background, art work, and models. Plus, MECHA! The new addition showed promise, but it really seems like Dream Pod Nine made another edition that appeals to the veterans of the game and not new players. DP9 will never expand beyond a niche table top game if they continue to make the game for it's current player base and not new players. The learning curve is basically too steep for a new player, much less one that plays other table top games.
I quit playing when they dumbed down the system. The more they dumbed it down, the less i played. Now that it is dumbed down to 40K levels, I have zero desire to play it.
I loved the harder sci-fi feel of it. You had communications, sensors, detection, concealment, heck you could even track fuel. Their design system was amazingly good. The miniatures were cheaper (both 1/87 and 1/144) compared to their competitors than they are now.
I spoke with both Robert Dubois and.... ummm, some other important guy at Gencon about it for like 30 min. I showed my frustration, but they were all about moving forward with this new blitz, saying "its faster!". I played a lot of heavy gear games back in the day, and don't remember folks every complaining about the slowness of it. Compared to battletech it was blazingly flast. Heck, you could lose a unit in 1 shot and often did.
Anyway, that would be why I stopped, I'm tired of the dumbing down of rule systems.
Tamwulf, aren't gears diesel powered with the v engines or some such that they can run on almost any combustible fuel? Did they change that to fusion powered somewhere along the line and I missed it?
warboss wrote: Tamwulf, aren't gears diesel powered with the v engines or some such that they can run on almost any combustible fuel? Did they change that to fusion powered somewhere along the line and I missed it?
Yeah, basically everything uses internal combustion engines in Terra Nova. Only thing I can think of offhand that uses fusion engines are big landships.
Bad_Syntax wrote: I quit playing when they dumbed down the system. The more they dumbed it down, the less i played. Now that it is dumbed down to 40K levels, I have zero desire to play it.
I loved the harder sci-fi feel of it. You had communications, sensors, detection, concealment, heck you could even track fuel. Their design system was amazingly good. The miniatures were cheaper (both 1/87 and 1/144) compared to their competitors than they are now.
I spoke with both Robert Dubois and.... ummm, some other important guy at Gencon about it for like 30 min. I showed my frustration, but they were all about moving forward with this new blitz, saying "its faster!". I played a lot of heavy gear games back in the day, and don't remember folks every complaining about the slowness of it. Compared to battletech it was blazingly flast. Heck, you could lose a unit in 1 shot and often did.
Anyway, that would be why I stopped, I'm tired of the dumbing down of rule systems.
You may be surprised to know that lots of folks don't like the ultradetailed rules of games like SFB and CBT and prefer rules that are more streamlined and abstracted. That doesn't make you any smarter nor the rules any dumber. It is simply a preference and NOTHING more.
If you increase model count, you can't maintain the same rules complexity without increasing the length of the game which is frequently undesirable. You may want to pkay 12 hour marathon games that can further span into another calendar day so you can track your each of your two dozen individual gears' fuel eficiency but I suspect that most one game night a week at FLGS players don't agree.
warboss wrote: Tamwulf, aren't gears diesel powered with the v engines or some such that they can run on almost any combustible fuel? Did they change that to fusion powered somewhere along the line and I missed it?
Yeah, basically everything uses internal combustion engines in Terra Nova. Only thing I can think of offhand that uses fusion engines are big landships.
Ok, thanks...that is what I remembered. Tamwulf mentioned nuke gears and I wasn't sure if that was a retcon or recent development. I do agree with a bunch of his points in #4 but that detail caught my eye first.
Hey, come on! Stop talking about nuke gears before they hear you and we wind up with one!
I can see it now - the first in NuCoal's line of "Gearships", fresh out of the Fort Neil shipyards. Part gear, part landship, it hovers, it lasers, it even makes french fries!
There is a beta edition out for the new edition of Heavy Gear. I haven't read the entire thing yet, but when I'm talking to Robert D. at Gencon and the most exciting thing he can talk about is that you don't have to track ammo anymore in the new edition... well, there went my high hopes.
Robert's a damn fool; thats what he mentioned? I swear every time I think that man can't screw up his company any more than he already has, he says something stupid like that. *arrgh*
Tamwulf, please do give the beta rules a read-through. They are a very significant departure from the old system, designed to make the system more accessible and intuitive for players. It may not be perfect; but I believe strongly that it's has a more modern feel than the older system did. Most (if not all) of the mechanical issues you bring up are addressed in some fashion in the ruleset, so you might find it worth your time.
Keep in mind - I wrote most of the rules, so I'm not an impartial observer. But my goals during the early design phases were to address the concerns you raised - hopefully what Dave has done with it addresses the rest. Feel free to ask me if you have any specific questions.
I really, really wish they would get off this derivative calculations for game effects. It really, really needs to be roll some dice, add a few modifiers and Bob is your uncle. It would speed up game play and make the game way, way more accessible to new players who are used to Warhammer 40K and/or Warmachine.
That's basically the way it works. You always start with 2D6, you add some dice depending on situations for your against you, and roll that collection of dice (usually 2D6 to 6D6). You take the highest value, and then for any other dice that equal or beat the 'augment' rating you add +1 to that high value. You still compare against your opponent; but the entire process is smoother and the multiplication / division is completely gone.
I don't understand the hate for old models etc. (From the company, not the players.) I get that, in reality, there's no reason an Asp should be in a professional army. But who cares about the professional armies? The SRA, the UMFA, and Paxton aren't interesting. The MILICIA is! WFP armies and Badlands are! Squads of weird, useless Gears have always been part of the attraction for me
One major flaw that DP9 suffers from was the decision to expand their 'factions' along background lines, instead of drawing a hard line in the sand from the beginning and saying 'this model is faction X, this model is faction Y, and they don't mingle'. Instead, followed the most permissive model and grouped many 'historical' models together under a single faction. This really hampered their ability to determine which models were successful, by making the choice of a model to field (often) an aesthetic one. This diluted their model line, prompting them to make more and more unprofitable models, instead of trying to expand into new, leaner factions. So now you have the case where plenty of players have a UMFA army (of 15 models) that differs from a NAF army by two models, or a NG army by three models. Only the WFPA (for the North) really had distinct character in play; because many of their downgrades could be used effectively. This isn't to say that armies couldn't easily be invalidated; thanks to arcane construction rules that particular sin was far to easy.
The reason it's a flaw for DP9 is that, for miniature games - new miniatures sell. By expanding the North and South along RPG lines, they took what could have been 8 distinct factions, and essentially made 2. So now you have the problem that all of those models have be desirable between their nearest sibling, and that you have to make them all desirable aesthetically in order to sell enough to make the investment worth it. NuCoal was a huge shot in the army because - surprise! - a new faction always sells well.
They could have made the split (from RPG to wargame) when they changed to Blitz, or L&L, or even now - but they are still doing half-steps instead of taking all the medicine now and dealing with the backlash. Their fans have been a continual drag on them, as they didn't want to address any of their sacred cows. That's understandable - you don't bite the hand that feeds you - but if they want a wider audience they need to loosen up the back-story somewhat and push towards new aesthetics and a bit less of the hard sci-fi vibe. The hard sci-fi element works fine in a RPG setting, but you eliminate many different sub-genres when you maintain it strictly; witness the reaction to the Drake, Scimitar and other 'showpiece' which are fairly good sellers, from all indications.
DP9 has essentially been a wargaming company since Blitz! was first released, but they put people with a passion for the roleplaying game in charge. This has led them down this eternal slide towards oblivion. The only way I think the company can prosper long term is to bring in completely new aesthetics and concepts. They need to start with HG's bones, and work out from there, instead of keeping the focus so strongly on Terra Nova. Gears sell the game - and they just arent' managing those well.
Such has been my opinion for nearly six years now. I doubt they have what it takes to make that change, unfortunately.
I can't say I agree with everything in there, especially the bits about maintaining (or not) the character and identity of HG on the table, but in the end, what matters the most is DP9's ability to manage the game and licence, or rather its thorough inability to do so. Having followed the beta, Dave has shown so far a disturbingly gleeful incompetence.
I can't say I agree with everything in there, especially the bits about maintaining (or not) the character and identity of HG on the table, but in the end, what matters the most is DP9's ability to manage the game and licence, or rather its thorough inability to do so. Having followed the beta, Dave has shown so far a disturbingly gleeful incompetence.
This is going to be a fun kickstarter...
Yeah, talk about a dichotomy in ideas! I say it's foolishly complicated and needlessly complex, and Bad_Syntax says he gave it up because they dumbed down the system! For Bad_Syntax, I'd say look at Battletech for your rules fix. Or another game out there that you might enjoy- Star Fleet Battles from the Amarillo Design Bureau. If you still want the kind of Rules Mechanic you see in Heavy Gear: Blitz, you might also try Silent Death from Iron Crown Enterprises (surprised the heck out of me to discover they were still in business!).
I knew the comment about the V-Engines and Fusion engines would grab some attention. It's funny how you can make a comment like that and instantly be corrected, but the point of the comment was still lost. In a setting with such technology possible, why is a medium bazooka the best weapon in the game?
@IceRaptor- No offense, but when you posted the Alpha rules last year I think it was? I made a pretty long and detailed post in the DP9 Alpha Rules Forum about it, and it was pretty much ignored. You did NOTHING to address the issues I brought up. Instead of a Threshold Check and Measure of Success, we now have a Test called a Roll or a Check compared to a Target Number. You count of the amount of successes instead of a Margin of Success. Here is a goody from page 7 of the beta rulebook:
(P(> + X ) >=
(P(> + X), >=
Select the highest roll (P is the dice roll, but X is never defined. I assume that's modifiers maybe?...). If the attacker's total is higher then the defender's roll, you subtract the defenders total from the attackers roll to get a margin of success. So let's break it down:
You take a derivative with a limit of 0 to the number of dice rolled, then use a function to calculate the highest number, compare that to a derivative function from the defender, and if positive, subtract the defenders total from the attackers total. So, huh. Calculus and Linear Algebra again, though this time I don't have to multiply the result (damage) by something and compare it to the Armor Value.
Movement- we don't have movement speeds anymore, now we have postures (speeds)- Combat Posture, Braced Posture, and Top Speed posture- movement rating (movement points). There is still this clunky movement point system that would work great on a hex map, but on a table top just does not work. An extraordinary amount words and diagrams are expended to show how to turn and when you can turn. What? Why? How difficult and how much game play would it have changed if you simply said " A Gear has a Movement Rating of 5, modified by it's posture, and can move up to its movement rating in inches modified by the terrain." Then you could have broken it down to Combat speed can turn as much as they want, top speed has to either turn, then move, or move then turn, etc. etc. The movement system just doesn't work on a table top. You are basically saying your model is a static model that moves only in straight lines when the battlefield has curves. I can't go around an obstacle in an arc, I have to move in straight lines around it. At least the amount of terrain types was drastically cut down and their effects made more clear. I like the way terrain is either instance terrain or area terrain, and that area terrain can contain instance terrain.
Cover is OK, but again, seems complex. In my mind, a model should have complete cover (hiding behind something or the attacker can't see the model) or partial cover. It's no wonder the percentage thing didn't work according to the call out on pg. 27- it's totally different from what was used in the old rules, and instead of adopting, we now have this bastardized silhouettes thing that defines how much volume (space) my model takes up regardless of it's actual physical size. So we have this very precise way of moving with fire arcs that are critical to making an attack, and suddenly we have this totally abstract cover system. That's a rule disconnect and inconsistency.
Lock (Target lock...) is a needless complication. It's a hold over from the old rules set that just should have been scrapped. What about EW then? EW could be used as a defensive or offensive modifier to the attack and defense roll. Lock just adds more rules to the game, and if you were going for a streamlined version, this should have been dropped entirely.
Damage is different. No more multiply and divide, but now it's add the penetration value of the weapon to the Margin of Success (MoS... where have we seen that before?) and subtract the target's Armor Value (AV). No room for crit hits, which is OK I guess, but "marginal hits" should be taken out- it's always better to take rules away then add, right? Simple is always better. What is happening here is the chance to add more steps and dice rolling in the damage step. We're in Trouble is a "freebie" and a second chance to reduce or negate damage suffered. No matter what the attacker rolled to hit, We're in Trouble gives the defender a chance to reduce this damage. From a design perspective, was this to increase the durability of gears, or prolong the combat? There is a good chance that a really good pilot will be able to never take any damage. I could only imagine that it was a nightmare of balancing weapon penetration values versus Armor Values and then adding in the We're in Trouble rule. The Hull and Structure system is nice. Not too keen on the Weapon Traits though. Some seem far, far too good like Armor Piercing (double the weapons penetration value...) and Anti-tank (add more damage based on how many of your dice, not just the highest roll, got an MoS). Looking at the Weapon Table and thinking about the type of armor and how Lasers work, I would have though all lasers would have the Armor Piercing trait, but they don't. They have high damage values and good range, but no traits except the Gatling Laser. Not to get too picky here, but looking at a Railgun with AP means it has possible penetration values of 14/18/22 while the highest armor rating I saw was an 11. When I see a Mammoth, arguably the largest Strider in the game with AV 11 and 5 Hull/4 Structure, it could be one shotted by a Railgun... haven't looked too closely at what Gears have Railguns, but I'm thinking I'd take one in every one of my forces for the chance to one shot basically anything in the game.
Side note here on the Appendix 2 Models table- DC is listed for each model, but I couldn't find what DC was. I assume it's Hull/Structure points which is about the only thing that makes sense to me?
The Force Selection rules seem OK. My biggest hiccup in Blitz! was always trying to figure out the points cost and what was available at a given Priority Level. All of that seems to be gone now. I have to give a HUGE THUMBS UP to Appendix 2 and the models- no more options, just models. I liked the fact that the old RPG Variant names were kept. I.e., Hunter, Hunter Gunner, Assault Hunter, Destroyer Hunter. That simplifies things AMAZINGLY WELL and makes the army selection process so much easier. So far, this is the best thing I've seen about the new edition.
OK, so that's just me having a glance over the rules here. Overall, it's not so much a new edition as a revision of whats come before. There is a huge disconnect for me in the movement/facing rules when compared to the abstractness of the table top. Cover and Silhouettes need to be reworked. Precise rules (cover) combined with abstract rules (silhouettes) muddies up the rules. One or the other, but not both. A lot of things require actions to perform, and most models can only perform one action. That makes things kind of easy to perform/keep track of during the game, but also means a lot of times, I'll have a ton of options available, but when I can only do one of them (like attack) and eliminating my opponent wins me the game... well, maybe attacking should be a free action so that my models can do other things during the game as well, eh? Attacking/Damage still seems needlessly complex. Force selection is great, and needs to stay.
@IceRaptor- No offense, but when you posted the Alpha rules last year I think it was? I made a pretty long and detailed post in the DP9 Alpha Rules Forum about it, and it was pretty much ignored. You did NOTHING to address the issues I brought up. Instead of a Threshold Check and Measure of Success, we now have a Test called a Roll or a Check compared to a Target Number. You count of the amount of successes instead of a Margin of Success. Here is a goody from page 7 of the beta rulebook:
No offense taken. I've not been involved with the development of the rules since shortly after Gencon 2013; Dave took over as sole dictator shortly thereafter. So there's some of your criticisms that I can take the blame for, and some that I'm going to have to punt one. The rules have shifted since I was involved in them, and in the case of not responding to them - I couldn't, because I was never an official rules presence for DP9. They took my work (with my blessing), built upon it and have spun that into the Alpha and Beta, but I was never in a position to respond to you in an official format. However, if I failed to respond to you in an unofficial format - I apologize. For various reasons I've avoided the official forums as much as possible, and only check in here every now and again.
However, with regard to your complaint - I never liked having both a Roll and Check, with the Roll being what you refer to above (roll XD6, you get 1 success for each dice that equals the TN). The original drafts had a single roll system (the check) with opposed rolls being against another player's roll, and an unopposed roll against a threshold. That was scrapped because the roll was 'simpler' than the threshold, enough to warrant the two different systems. I tended not to agree with that - but such is the nature of compromise.
Select the highest roll (P is the dice roll, but X is never defined. I assume that's modifiers maybe?...). If the attacker's total is higher then the defender's roll, you subtract the defenders total from the attackers roll to get a margin of success. So let's break it down:
That's a very tortured way of describing something that works simply in practice, but admittedly is complicated to describe. You determine how many dice you're going to roll - you start at 2D6, and add or subtract XD6 based upon situations. You roll those dice, and pick the highest die that's showing. For each die (excepting the high roll) that is greater than or equal to the model's augment, you add +1 to the high value. For an opposed check, the attacker wins if their total is greater than the defender's, and the difference is the margin of success. In practice, the calculation is fairly simple... throw 2-4D6, pick the highest, add +1 for winners. Compare to your opponent. It's at least in the same realm of complexity as Warmachine (2D6 + attribute, minus opponent's) Malifaux, Infinity, etc.
So while it's fair to say it's not as simply as say 'roll XD6 and pick winners' or 'flip a coin', I think comparing it to Calculus is a tad excessive. But then, I'm biased
A Gear has a Movement Rating of 5, modified by it's posture, and can move up to its movement rating in inches modified by the terrain."
The movement system used to be exactly that; you just paid a certain amount of movement in order to make a turn. A walker paid 0" of movement for a turn, ground vehicles 1", hover vehicles 2". Top speed doubled your speed, but also your costs to turn (walkers used 1" at Top Speed). I know there was some complaints that it was 'easier' to turn at top speed than at combat speed, which is why I think they have changed to what they have now. But I don't know the exact specifics of why what they have was adopted - sorry.
Cover is OK, but again, seems complex. In my mind, a model should have complete cover (hiding behind something or the attacker can't see the model) or partial cover. It's no wonder the percentage thing didn't work according to the call out on pg. 27- it's totally different from what was used in the old rules, and instead of adopting, we now have this bastardized silhouettes thing that defines how much volume (space) my model takes up regardless of it's actual physical size. So we have this very precise way of moving with fire arcs that are critical to making an attack, and suddenly we have this totally abstract cover system. That's a rule disconnect and inconsistency.
Silhouettes have become something of a defacto standard for many miniatures games that want to have a strong tournament presence. I'm not a huge fan of them, but concede they do provide utility in the case of disputes. However, last I checked - I thought the rules for cover were based simply on 50% coverage of the silhouette?
Lock (Target lock...) is a needless complication. It's a hold over from the old rules set that just should have been scrapped. What about EW then? EW could be used as a defensive or offensive modifier to the attack and defense roll. Lock just adds more rules to the game, and if you were going for a streamlined version, this should have been dropped entirely.
It was seriously considered. However, by keeping it let me grant a greater battlefield role to scouts, beyond just EW. I think there was a reasonable balance reached - lock only applies if you have full cover, so it doesn't tend to happen except at longer ranges. And the goal to streamline without removing tactical depth, if at all possible - I wanted people to have choices in the course of play. Interactions between those types of rules are the majority of tactics you can get at that scale, IMO.
From a design perspective, was this to increase the durability of gears, or prolong the combat? There is a good chance that a really good pilot will be able to never take any damage.
The last I knew of it, you spent an action to add +1D6 to any defense checks for the remainder of the turn. So that would apply before you roll.. not sure what it is now. Sorry.
Some seem far, far too good like Armor Piercing (double the weapons penetration value...) and Anti-tank (add more damage based on how many of your dice, not just the highest roll, got an MoS). Looking at the Weapon Table and thinking about the type of armor and how Lasers work,
I'll freely admit that Armor Piercing and Anti Tank weren't where I wanted them when I left; getting the 'feel' of them right was really damn hard. I experimented with many things, like making AT weapons work only against high armor targets, or AP weapons doing damage directly against structure points instead of hull. Playtesting went back and forth on them for a while, but I was still focused on trying to get the ACs and RPs working right, with the other weapons coming in later. So I'll take part of the blame for this - it just didn't get done.
Side note here on the Appendix 2 Models table- DC is listed for each model, but I couldn't find what DC was. I assume it's Hull/Structure points which is about the only thing that makes sense to me?
Yup, when I was involved with it, DC was just combination of Hull and Structure points. Nothing more or less.
That simplifies things AMAZINGLY WELL and makes the army selection process so much easier. So far, this is the best thing I've seen about the new edition.
I personally wish they had gone a little further, but this is still leaps and bounds over the old army system.
Hope that helps clear some things up. Good luck in whatever game you end up playing!
Firebreak wrote: New kickstarter idea: Buy the IP and put Ice, Smilodon, and Hudson back in rules development.
I'd be interested in the IP, but only to do it as a ground-up revamp. There's some good ideas out there, and some really nice designs, but all of them need to be modernized. If I had the cash I might seriously consider a bit... but I already have a well paying job and was more than a little burned by the entire process. If I knew artists that I could harness to generate new designs, maybe... but I'd be more likely to try to do my own thing, honestly. I love the world of HG... but I'd like to evolve the setting, like HG did with Votoms, more.
Heh, calling multiplication and some division Calculus is a bit of an exaggeration. Does make me roll my eyes a bit when people call it hard. We never, ever needed or used a calculator during any of our games. Also, adding a constant to two numbers, then taking the higher of those two numbers is the equivalent of taking the highest number and adding the constant to it.
That said, a lot of the other complaints are completely valid and I totally agree with =)
Roll and Check was dumb, I'm glad that wasn't you Ice =) It's just super confusing the first time I read through it, and it looks like I'm not the only one. One unified system would've been better.
Movement has always been tough, if you do it wrong, then tanks end up either crazy slow, or crazy agile, and they should be fairly fast, but not very good at turning. Same with gears in SMS mode, to a lesser extent. Do it wrong and there becomes no reason to ever use walker mode. I think they probably could've kept it as turn costs, and maybe just tripled or quadrupled turn costs at top speed.
Concealment and cover, yeah.... ugh, the old system was awful, (especially concealment!), and the new system I wish could've been simplified further. I kind of like the Mech Zero or whatever it is called, where it just gives cover if the defender is within like 2" of a piece of terrain, and that terrain is between the attacker and defender. No LoS check required, or proxy model or whatever.
It uses to be Strider/Gear, and that was it, and they looked fairly obviously different, Strider's tended to not look anything like the humanoid Gears, but then they added Gearstriders, which just straddle the line and confuse things. (Oh and Tankstriders, but really, they are just striders, no different rules or anything)
As for 40 year old equipment, that happens in real life too, gak gets re-used quite a bit. (The B-52 is still in service, and it's from 1952) So I'm completely fine with some of the poorer factions having old, outdated gears.
Though yeah, the army building was broken, and the stupid TV system was awful, you either needed to spend as few points as possible on certain models, like the Asp, or you spent just a wee bit more than the standard default Hunter, and got bad ass models, like Arrow Jags.
Also in total agreement with the stupid MBZK, which they exacerbated by adding rules to let you take one on every single model in a squad.
I haven't checked the rules overly much, but last I knew, the Railgun was a really big gun, and only mounted on the heavy tanks, so yes, it tends to kill things very well.
Firebreak wrote: New kickstarter idea: Buy the IP and put Ice, Smilodon, and Hudson back in rules development.
I'd be interested in the IP, but only to do it as a ground-up revamp. There's some good ideas out there, and some really nice designs, but all of them need to be modernized. If I had the cash I might seriously consider a bit... but I already have a well paying job and was more than a little burned by the entire process. If I knew artists that I could harness to generate new designs, maybe... but I'd be more likely to try to do my own thing, honestly. I love the world of HG... but I'd like to evolve the setting, like HG did with Votoms, more.
C'est la vie.
Oh, absolutely. I am still devotedly passionate about the setting, though I agree it needs an overhaul. The Black Talons may have been what got me into the game, but I think everything post-Interpolar War could and perhaps should be entirely redone. There's a consistency in the older material that disappears later on.
But I suspect you meant something more sweeping than that. What would you like to see modernized? Where would you take the setting, to do to it what HG did to Votoms?
Roll and Check was dumb, I'm glad that wasn't you Ice =) It's just super confusing the first time I read through it, and it looks like I'm not the only one. One unified system would've been better.
I deserve some blame for not sticking to my guns, but hindsight is 20/20. *shrug*.
I think they probably could've kept it as turn costs, and maybe just tripled or quadrupled turn costs at top speed.
Very likely the route I would have followed. Top Speed doubles your move but adds +4" to any turn would probably have fixed the issue outright, but I never got around to testing that.
Concealment and cover, yeah.... ugh, the old system was awful, (especially concealment!), and the new system I wish could've been simplified further. I kind of like the Mech Zero or whatever it is called, where it just gives cover if the defender is within like 2" of a piece of terrain, and that terrain is between the attacker and defender. No LoS check required, or proxy model or whatever.
Cover at one point was fairly simple. For non-humanoid models, if you weren't completely covered, your had no cover. If you were a humanoid model, you needed to be in base contact with cover, but anything that covered your base counted as cover. We went back and forth on that one quite a bit, as lots of people didn't like that there was no significant difference between '5% covered' and '95%' covered. Or that your tank that was showing 5% of it's turret could be shot like it's in the open. Tanks could benefit from 'Hull Down' to mitigate that somewhat, but it still ended up being fairly unpopular and we abandoned it.
I'm still not happy with the way cover worked out; by adding dice, it helps models with high augment ratings (2+, 3+) significantly more than models with low augments (5+, 6+). At some point we simply called it 'good enough' though I was never satisfied with it. It should probably instead count like the old hull down did; cover just gives you a flat value (to mitigate rolling poorly). I've made some changes in that respect which works better, IMO; but that's after the split.
But I suspect you meant something more sweeping than that. What would you like to see modernized? Where would you take the setting, to do to it what HG did to Votoms?
I would change up several of the presumptions about the setting, that give it a quasi-WW2 feel for combat. I feel like the NECAF as conquering power is rather stupid; I think instead what you'd get would be a heavily developed solar system enriched by materials harvesting from the outer colonies. I'd made Caprice the 'hub' of a much larger web of exploitable planets, which acts as a factory system for refined goods heading to the Sol system. However, the Sol system wouldn't be unified; there would be enough resources built up that Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, maybe Venus rival Earth in terms of economic and military power. The NECAF would still come to power on Earth, but the interim conflicts would give the other planets time to solidify governments on their own. Caprice and the outer colonies would still be cut off from Sol at one point; but they wouldn't collapse as badly as they do, given the nature of the economic pipelines already laid down by Sol I'd probably dial back the years between today and TN, or have a significant near-extinction event occur to slow technological growth; I'm a big fan of the 'VR crash' as depicted in the "Unincorporated Man" books and would likely try to work that in to slow the explosive growth in technology somewhat.
I'd still have Terra Nova shut off from the outside for several centuries, which would allow their technology to proceed as it did. However, the other colonies would have a greater degree of cybernetics, quasi-AI and some of the lower-end of the sci-fantasy scale of technology to make things interesting. I would leave TN factions on the 'lower' end of the scale, with other factions (that suffered less during the fall) utilizing more of an quasi-autonomous combat suit / vehicles rather than manned ones. I think you could cover quite a bit of ground by making energy weapons / railguns / etc more prevalent in the other forces, and giving them toys like you see in Infinity. Earth forces would probably be mostly highly interconnected infantry backed by ground-effect vehicles, or possibly repulsion vehicles if you wanted to take it two notches towards science fantasy. Maybe add some basic kinetic energy 'bleedoff' shields, or charged particle 'shields' to let defense keep pace a bit with offense.
So yeah. Take what's been presented, approach it with a dash less hard sci-fi, and make the story 'bigger' and go from there. That's my intent, at least...
I could get behind that. The economy of things definitely felt extremely weak, and the timescale stretched out. It would be interesting to see almost two wars going on - Earth trying to regain the colonies being one, and Earth using those resources to fight the other Solar powers as another.
One of the things that always attracted me to Terra Nova was "Why use a hovering tractor when an ox will do?" The planet is supposed to be hard to live on, and their technology rugged. That seems to have been forgotten, in recent years. I'd love to see Terra Novan tech as lower-end but sturdy, up against high-tech Solar and Colonial armies. I guess we've had a taste of that, but it felt like Earth showed up and anything Terra Novan about Terra Nova's tech was lost.
I just read the new Beta rules and also read through the last few pages of this thread. I've been a fan of Heavy Gear since the wonky card game that came in the VHS style box. I'm sad to see the enterprise I fell in love with is basically gone. What initially drew me in was the genre and Ghislain's illustrations. When the first book came out I saw massive potential. I was hoping it would eventually evolve in to a tight hex and counter game, maybe similar to ASL but streamlined and for modern warfare.
I was bummed when it turned in to a miniatures game. Having said that, I still think the original mechanics were good and well thought out, they just needed some streamlining to minimize bookkeeping. What was so wrong with the early dice mechanics and the Damage Multiplier vs. Armor Rating? I thought it was elegant and I liked the way vehicles systems could go out - all it really needed was more cardboard counters to keep track of stuff, which wouldn't be that cumbersome because vehicles usually didn't last long enough to rack up a bunch or status counters...
I really had high hopes for the game and the company. I feel now like that original game and company are already gone. I'm wishing the new incarnation the best though. If it's still around in 2 years and the player base has grown, I'll definitely play.
This is the problem though- DP9 has no new player base and does little to nothing to attract new players. The new game was made basically by the existing fan base with play testing by the same fan base- no clear objectives or reasons why a new edition needed to be created. Consider this- NuCoal had been rolled out with a new way of building an army that was welcomed by all players. So DP9 spent a LOT of time and effort on a new army selection process and adjustment in TVs for everything in the game. At the same time, development on The North faction book and The South faction book was in full swing until something happened and the North book was dropped with basically no comment from DP9 at all (something about production delays and such, but I heard other rumors that have no place here). Instead, we got the South book, which was gorgeous in appearance and everyone I talked to liked it. Next up was supposed to be Peace River, and instead of a book, we got an eBook "resource". About this time, a new edition was suddenly announced.
I really thought the old system could benefit greatly from a revision- a major rework of army selection which they basically had in place thanks to NuCoal, clean up the cover/concealment rules, tweek the IF rules, and clean up the gears a bit to make them fit more inline with each faction. Instead, the new edition really, really feels like change for the sake of change with no real improvements over the old system. Army selection in the beta is better, but not as good as it was in the NuCoal/South books. The action resolution system uses more dice now then modifiers to dice rolls, but is essentially the same. More dice rolling was added now that I really think about it- before it was add up modifiers, throw a couple d6's, compare to a target number, count out success. Now, I throw more d6's with modifiers, the defender rolls d6's with modifiers, but the counting of successes is still the same. Basically, instead of a static target number derived from a skill and modifiers, it's a random number now. That's not a bad thing, it's just more of the same old system.
Movement is still clunky as hell- I'm really, really hard pressed to come up with any other table top miniatures game that makes me count out each inch of movement in a straight line, pay for a turn, and move in a straight line again. Every major game system has "free movement". It's more intuitive, easier to teach, and still adds tactical complexity to the game. This system just feels way too much like Battletech. Even Battletech moves further and further away from this kind of movement system with each iteration of the game (heck, Alphastrike completely does away with Hex maps and the movement system from Battletech). I mean, hey, great and all the power to a player that likes this kind of very formal, stilted, well defined movement. Myself, I like to envision my Gears running around, jumping over obstacles, shooting left at a target, then right at a target, and then crouching behind some cover. It's very dynamic and flows well. When I play HG, I just don't get that feeling. Instead, I get this feeling that my Gear is standing fully erect, that it moves forward a couple meters, stops, turns to face a new direction, then moves again, stops, shoots a weapon, stops, and then crouches behind cover. That's what the current movement/action sequence feels like to me. Very static, very calculated. Movement should be an easy thing to perform, but in HG, its complex, interrupts the play, and has no "contact" or "flow" with the rest of the game. It is relentlessly defined and forced to work with an abstract table with terrain and models that are not always scaled properly with that terrain. It causes major headaches in the "Cover/Concealment" phase of the game, forcing the game designer to use artificial silhouettes to represent models volume.
This is just one of the many examples I can use to illustrate the high barrier of rules a new player has to overcome to get into Heavy Gear. Comments such as "It's really not that bad when you actually play the game" do not help a new player to understand HOW to play the game. The Holy Grail of Game Design is clear, simple rules and fast, fun game play. Look at X-wing/Star Trek Attack Wing. Stupid easy rules, awesome fun games. 40K- again, simple rules, fun game play (it's GW mucking with the armies that cause so much conflict in that game), even with some of the rule "holes" present. Warmachine/Hordes- very tight rules, simple in execution, but long on complexity brings more and more players to the game all the time. What attracts new players to Heavy Gear? Artwork? It's very anime-ish, and anime seems to have a very polarizing effect on people- they love it, or hate it. The fluff? It's very, very good with a lot of detailed history and background. IMHO, some of the best fluff out there. Game play? This is where HG stumbles a lot. It's nothing innovative- movement is like Battletech, action resolution has an RPG feel to it, but it just feels clunky and uneven- something I would not expect from a game that has been out for over 20 years. Models? Oh, Heavy Gear has some fantastic mecha models that should appeal to a lot of people. Tanks and infantry for Flames of War type gamers, terrain for the hobbyists. I've found the Gears a really pleasant experience to assemble and paint. Conversions are a bit harder though, much like they are in Warmachine/Hordes. I think this is more GW's fault, as they encouraged and forced gamers to convert models for a long time (something that is sadly coming to an end, thanks Chapter House Lawsuit!).
Why would a new player want to play Heavy Gear? That's the main question that should have been asked from the beginning. A clear, concise, statement of what the game should be about needed to be written. Identifying market trends (who is playing what and why), incorporating those into the design process, and then following up with impartial testing and feedback should have been the route taken for the game. Finally, revision of the statement and core rules with the whole process starting over again should have been implemented. This would have given DP9 a VERY solid game with room to grow and attract new players.
Instead, this edition just seems to be made by the current player base for the player base. Where are the new players? I've tried to get new players into the game, and while some kinda liked it, they gave up and went back to Warmachine/Hordes, 40K, whatever. When I asked them why, it was always the same answer "The rules- so many rules..." Something to think about.
GW's cover rules, ever since TLOS, have always been a bit wonky, and runs into the same problems that Blitz does, and basically falls back on artificial silhouettes as well. Only real difference is a few extra modifiers.
It's only recently that DP9 has revamped the tanks, and IMHO, most are still fugly and overly boxy, even compared to tanks from earlier eras. Hovertanks not included, they've always managed to look pretty good.
Tamwulf wrote: NuCoal had been rolled out with a new way of building an army that was welcomed by all players.
What? No. No, it was not. That "new way" of army building was in some aspects worse than the older one, like for example how, due to the PL system's constraints, the best way of doing Gear (or armor, or whatever) armies was selecting any regiment but the one for the type of army you wanted. Or the way the "named loadouts" were confusing and stupid, due to not being the same between units. Or... well, it had loads of problems. And some people said as much, back in the day.
Instead, we got the South book, which was gorgeous in appearance and everyone I talked to liked it.
Oh, wow. You mean the book that made me forsake Heavy Gear? Yeah, everybody liked it. As attests the thread I did back in the day:
I believe that's what Tamwulf is trying to emphasize.
I don't think so, in this case, as he's framing it as "welcomed by all players" and "everybody liked it". I think it's more that he liked the army construction system of those books and he looks a bit irked that the Pod decided to not follow through with them.
I can say both PS and FiF were above-board on art and looks.
@IceRaptor, I like your ideas about quasi-autonomous weaponry versus manned weaponry for Gear-sized things.
Something a little bigger than Infinity's T.A.G.s, perhaps, like HG, but just as clunky or just as streamlined as technology will allow.
However, I wouldn't include much armor on the frames. Once you get to slinging armaments that break Mach 7, electronic warfare, chaff, and maneuvering capability (plus really solid mountains and hills for defilade) would be your best bet at survival.
I can say both PS and FiF were above-board on art and looks.
Art and looks were never the problem (and they have never even entered in the discussion, up until now). Mason does good work. The problems were others.
I believe that's what Tamwulf is trying to emphasize.
-Brandon F.
Believe whatever you want, as long as you take into account this has nothing to do with what was written. Tamwulf says the Southern book was a great success, when it actually crippled the southern audiences, which were the Pod's main source of income.
The new players didn't materialize in the two years since the book release, and the effect has been bad enough on the pod that they cancelled the next books in line, and are now trying to adopt a completely new army building system, the 3rd one in 6 years.
Feel free to call that a success if you'd like !
Edit :
Yeah, the art and layout were good, the actual content (writing and playability) ranged from mediocre to atrocious. The Pod can't even afford layout now.
@Hudson, Yes, I'm aware of what's been going on. That doesn't change me still putting the word out about HG.
Edit: At this point, the Kickstarter they are talking about might attempt to address the issue of the mini price, the availability, and also provide folks with coreach rules that can last
BrandonKF wrote: @Hudson, Yes, I'm aware of what's been going on. That doesn't change me still putting the word out about HG.
Edit: At this point, the Kickstarter they are talking about might attempt to address the issue of the mini price, the availability, and also provide folks with coreach rules that can last
That's what the fans would like.
What DP9 will actually do is another matter, especially since it was supposed to be only for a rulebook, at first.
I'm sharing as often as updates come, seems to be getting folks to have a look. Just met up with one of the guys here in Houston, so we might have some more stuff to put out for everyone. And you?
BrandonKF wrote: I'm sharing as often as updates come, seems to be getting folks to have a look. Just met up with one of the guys here in Houston, so we might have some more stuff to put out for everyone. And you?
How many people did you actually get to buy and build armies and play games on a weekly basis ?
None at all ? Well, I started a group of 7-8 people that played for a couple of years in Montréal, before DP9's incompetence killed it, so color me unimpressed.
These days though ? Well, I don't know anyone I dislike enough to recommend them a DP9 game.
My specific wording was how many people have you played with in the last year.
I admit to not playing the tabletop game on a prolonged basis, unlike you, but I do enjoy the RPG greatly and I have kept that going awhile. Now, with the new Beta, seems there is a few folks on the DP9 forums are gathering people together and playing.
No. I said that I haven't had the opportunity to play, unlike you. I would certainly play if given opportunity and means. In the meantime, the RPG has been fun.
@IceRaptor, I like your ideas about quasi-autonomous weaponry versus manned weaponry for Gear-sized things.
Something a little bigger than Infinity's T.A.G.s, perhaps, like HG, but just as clunky or just as streamlined as technology will allow.
Actually, I tend to think the TAGs are probably the right size, or perhaps a bit beefy for what I'm talking about. Without a human to protect, you minimize the chassis to the point that it can serve the role you are designing it for. For instance, right now in infantry teams you often have a squad support weapon. That weapon is fairly heavy and requires quite a bit of equipment to maintain. It would make sense to move that role onto a small support 'tank', perhaps like a half size Tachikoma and leave the remainder of the infantry squad unhindered. The infantry squad becomes a command and control unit for those automatons, carrying lighter weapons and gear but being the 'decision makers' of the unit. You can extrapolate that up to even TAG sizes, but you start running into the same issues that make Gears less believable. So you might have TAG sized 'anti-tank' units, but they would be limited to deployed in very dense areas or areas there their legged movement offers some advantage over conventional vehicles.
If you include 'repulsor' technology (basically improved ground effect) then the use case for the larger models really starts to suffer, because you can float over the ground, eliminating many of their advantages. Ground-effect vehicles prevent the obsolescence to some degree, as they aren't as 'perfect' over rough terrain, depending on their form. And conventional assault helicopters (or hoppers in the HG case) make larger robotics less cost-effect. But in all cases, directed energy weapons can tip that balance somewhat so YMMV. If DEWs can engage missile weapons effectively, you either need swarms of missiles or engage with direct fire weapons. I personally think the latter offers more variety; I think that DropZone Commander gets it really right in that particular case.
However, I wouldn't include much armor on the frames. Once you get to slinging armaments that break Mach 7, electronic warfare, chaff, and maneuvering capability (plus really solid mountains and hills for defilade) would be your best bet at survival.
Depends on the other weapons in play. High energy railguns make a mockery of any sort of earthen defense short of several meters of solid ground, and even then you're wanting rock not earth. DEWs can generally hit whatever you can lock, so hiding behind obscurement doesn't help you much. You either need a way to bleed off energy from the shot (either ablative coating or some way to reduce the energy imparted during the pulse) or have to hit them back first. That doesn't tend to play well as whomever sees the target first, wins - it's something that's been discussed in other forums and I think you have to loosen that up a bit to make for a fun game. If you do, those frames need some form of defense, whether it's an active kinetic 'bleed-off' shield, laser ablative shielding or unobtanium armor. Maneuvering capability doesn't really come into play at all; there's just no way to construct a vehicle that can move faster than target acquisition occurs.
I agree on the EW part; that should be a major part of the setting, but I'm not sure it can prevent acquisition in the first place except at extreme ranges. I think you weave it into the setting because it's cool and interesting more than accurate - thus my 'turn down the hard sci-fi a notch or two comment'. Having it in play can make for a fun setting, which is still mostly crunchy, but updated to reflect modern sensibilities and science. It's very much like that Shadowrun did with the 4E; they added concepts like augmented reality taken from today's pages to still let them capture a 'future' feel, rather than a dated one. That's what I think the HG settings needs from a background perspective; and update to reflect the changes that have occurred in nearly 20 years.
BrandonKF wrote: My specific wording was how many people have you played with in the last year.
I admit to not playing the tabletop game on a prolonged basis, unlike you, but I do enjoy the RPG greatly and I have kept that going awhile. Now, with the new Beta, seems there is a few folks on the DP9 forums are gathering people together and playing.
In Hudson's defense, only the professor has shown any interest in gaming. Gilligan keeps losing the models, the Skipper won't even give it a shot, and Mr. Howell thinks it is beneath him. He's currently trying to convince Mary Ann and Ginger to partake in "other" two to three player activities.
I've done 3-4 demos over the past year with no one interested in another game. The only HG player I've found in my state who actually had figs was SgtCapraco who hired LCM to paint his minis over a year and a half ago and hasn't seen them since. I don't think his experience in looking behind the curtain during playtesting wet his appetite for games either. He picked up a few more minis after sending the majority to LCM but we've only gotten in a two games in the year and a half he's been here with the last one in late 2013. I still try to harangue friends into the occasional themed "event" game like testing out my DZC cityscape and (hopefully) trying out my 28mm votoms but the pool was never more than a puddle for me in two states and keeps drying up completely. Considering I don't have problems finding folks for other games with better rules/support/followings, I don't think my personality is the key problem.
Actually, I tend to think the TAGs are probably the right size, or perhaps a bit beefy for what I'm talking about. Without a human to protect, you minimize the chassis to the point that it can serve the role you are designing it for. For instance, right now in infantry teams you often have a squad support weapon. That weapon is fairly heavy and requires quite a bit of equipment to maintain. It would make sense to move that role onto a small support 'tank', perhaps like a half size Tachikoma and leave the remainder of the infantry squad unhindered. The infantry squad becomes a command and control unit for those automatons, carrying lighter weapons and gear but being the 'decision makers' of the unit. You can extrapolate that up to even TAG sizes, but you start running into the same issues that make Gears less believable. So you might have TAG sized 'anti-tank' units, but they would be limited to deployed in very dense areas or areas there their legged movement offers some advantage over conventional vehicles.
If you include 'repulsor' technology (basically improved ground effect) then the use case for the larger models really starts to suffer, because you can float over the ground, eliminating many of their advantages. Ground-effect vehicles prevent the obsolescence to some degree, as they aren't as 'perfect' over rough terrain, depending on their form. And conventional assault helicopters (or hoppers in the HG case) make larger robotics less cost-effect. But in all cases, directed energy weapons can tip that balance somewhat so YMMV. If DEWs can engage missile weapons effectively, you either need swarms of missiles or engage with direct fire weapons. I personally think the latter offers more variety; I think that DropZone Commander gets it really right in that particular case.
I agree with DEWs, and I can understand your extrapolation about the chassis being smaller without a pilot, but then what kind of power plant and how big would the control system have to be?
As far as squad support weapons, depends on what you are packing. Machine-guns tend to be pretty reliable and don't require as much maintenance. But if you are including rail guns at that size, yeah, I could see the humans acting both as controllers as well as technicians.
Depends on the other weapons in play. High energy railguns make a mockery of any sort of earthen defense short of several meters of solid ground, and even then you're wanting rock not earth. DEWs can generally hit whatever you can lock, so hiding behind obscurement doesn't help you much. You either need a way to bleed off energy from the shot (either ablative coating or some way to reduce the energy imparted during the pulse) or have to hit them back first. That doesn't tend to play well as whomever sees the target first, wins - it's something that's been discussed in other forums and I think you have to loosen that up a bit to make for a fun game. If you do, those frames need some form of defense, whether it's an active kinetic 'bleed-off' shield, laser ablative shielding or unobtanium armor. Maneuvering capability doesn't really come into play at all; there's just no way to construct a vehicle that can move faster than target acquisition occurs.
I agree on the EW part; that should be a major part of the setting, but I'm not sure it can prevent acquisition in the first place except at extreme ranges. I think you weave it into the setting because it's cool and interesting more than accurate - thus my 'turn down the hard sci-fi a notch or two comment'. Having it in play can make for a fun setting, which is still mostly crunchy, but updated to reflect modern sensibilities and science. It's very much like that Shadowrun did with the 4E; they added concepts like augmented reality taken from today's pages to still let them capture a 'future' feel, rather than a dated one. That's what I think the HG settings needs from a background perspective; and update to reflect the changes that have occurred in nearly 20 years.
That sounds very reasonable to me. Though target acquisition in the instance of sensor-using vehicles tends to get messed up a lot by ground clutter. It also dampens the effect of the ECM. I do admit to having to lose some crunch in exchange for speed and flash. It is what I like, anyway. War is hell enough without having to worry about getting killed at a glance.
The other thing that occurs to me is the premise for ground warfare... with so many resources in space, what are the planets useful for other than breathable air and gravity? What would prompt war in these instances? Infinity and MERCS both go the corporate and military espionage route.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
In Hudson's defense, only the professor has shown any interest in gaming. Gilligan keeps losing the models, the Skipper won't even give it a shot, and Mr. Howell thinks it is beneath him. He's currently trying to convince Mary Ann and Ginger to partake in "other" two to three player activities.
I've done 3-4 demos over the past year with no one interested in another game. The only HG player I've found in my state who actually had figs was SgtCapraco who hired LCM to paint his minis over a year and a half ago and hasn't seen them since. I don't think his experience in looking behind the curtain during playtesting wet his appetite for games either. He picked up a few more minis after sending the majority to LCM but we've only gotten in a two games in the year and a half he's been here with the last one in late 2013. I still try to harangue friends into the occasional themed "event" game like testing out my DZC cityscape and (hopefully) trying out my 28mm votoms but the pool was never more than a puddle for me in two states and keeps drying up completely. Considering I don't have problems finding folks for other games with better rules/support/followings, I don't think my personality is the key problem.
I wasn't trying to imply personality issues by any means, warboss. But thanks for giving that very reasonable explanation.
And ouch on the models. I haven't heard from LCM recently. Let Capraco know I said I am sorry on his behalf.
An interesting post with an inside yet outside POV on what went wrong with TSR and D&D many years ago... I suspect a few things might ring a bell here.
If you find this article useful, please share it with your friends!
In the winter of 1997, I traveled to Lake Geneva Wisconsin on a secret mission. In the late fall, rumors of TSR's impending bankruptcy had created an opportunity to made a bold gamble that the business could be saved by an infusion of capital or an acquisition with a larger partner. After a hasty series of phone calls and late night strategy sessions, I found myself standing in the snow outside of 201 Sheridan Springs Road staring at a building bearing a sign that said "TSR, Incorporated".
Inside the building, I found a dead company.
In the halls that had produced the stuff of my childhood fantasies, and had fired my imagination and become unalterably intertwined with my own sense of self, I found echoes, empty desks, and the terrible depression of lost purpose.
The life story of a tree can be read by a careful examination of its rings. The life story of a corporation can be read by a careful examination of its financial records and corporate minutes.
I was granted unprecedented access to those records. I read the TSR corporate log book from the first page penned in haste by Gary Gygax to the most recent terse minutes dictated to a lawyer with no connection to hobby gaming. I was able to trace the meteoric rise of D&D as a business, the terrible failure to control costs that eventually allowed a total outsider to take control away from the founders, the slow and steady progress to rebuild the financial solvency of the company, and the sudden and dramatic failure of that business model. I read the euphoric copyright filings for the books of my lost summers: "Player's Handbook", "Fiend Folio", "Oriental Adventures". I read the contract between Gary and TSR where Gary was severed from contact with the company he had founded and the business he had nurtured and grown. I saw the clause where Gary, forced to the wall by ruthless legal tactics was reduced to insisting to the right to use his own name in future publishing endeavors, and to take and keep control of his personal D&D characters. I read the smudged photocopies produced by the original Dragonlance Team, a group of people who believed in a new idea for gaming that told a story across many different types of products. I saw concept artwork evolve from lizard men with armor to unmistakable draconians. I read Tracy Hickman's one page synopsis of the Dragonlance Story. I held the contract between Tracy and Margaret for the publication of the three Chronicles novels. I read the contract between Ed Greenwood and TSR to buy his own personal game world and transform it into the most developed game setting in history - the most detailed and explored fantasy world ever created.
And I read the details of the Random House distribution agreement; an agreement that TSR had used to support a failing business and hide the fact that TSR was rotten at the core. I read the entangling bank agreements that divided the copyright interests of the company as security against default, and realized that the desperate arrangements made to shore up the company's poor financial picture had so contaminated those rights that it might not be possible to extract Dungeons & Dragons from the clutches of lawyers and bankers and courts for years upon end. I read the severance agreements between the company and departed executives which paid them extraordinary sums for their silence. I noted the clauses, provisions, amendments and agreements that were piling up more debt by the hour in the form of interest charges, fees and penalties. I realized that the money paid in good faith by publishers and attendees for GenCon booths and entrance fees had been squandered and that the show itself could not be funded. I discovered that the cost of the products that company was making in many cases exceeded the price the company was receiving for selling those products. I toured a warehouse packed from floor to 50 foot ceiling with products valued as though they would soon be sold to a distributor with production stamps stretching back to the late 1980s. I was 10 pages in to a thick green bar report of inventory, calculating the true value of the material in that warehouse when I realized that my last 100 entries had all been "$0"'s.
I met staff members who were determined to continue to work, despite the knowledge that they might not get paid, might not even be able to get in to the building each day. I saw people who were working on the same manuscripts they'd been working on six months earlier, never knowing if they'd actually be able to produce the fruits of their labor. In the eyes of those people (many of whom I have come to know as friends and co workers), I saw defeat, desperation, and the certain knowledge that somehow, in some way, they had failed. The force of the human, personal pain in that building was nearly overwhelming - on several occasions I had to retreat to a bathroom to sit and compose myself so that my own tears would not further trouble those already tortured souls.
I ran hundreds of spreadsheets, determined to figure out what had to be done to save the company. I was convinced that if I could just move enough money from column A to column B, that everything would be ok. Surely, a company with such powerful brands and such a legacy of success could not simply cease to exist due to a few errors of judgment and a poor strategic plan?
I made several trips to TSR during the frenzied days of negotiation that resulted in the acquisition of the company by Wizards of the Coast. When I returned home from my first trip, I retreated to my home office; a place filled with bookshelves stacked with Dungeons & Dragons products. From the earliest games to the most recent campaign setting supplements - I owned, had read, and loved those products with a passion and intensity that I devoted to little else in my life. And I knew, despite my best efforts to tell myself otherwise, that the disaster I kept going back to in Wisconsin was the result of the products on those shelves.
When Peter put me in charge of the tabletop RPG business in 1998, he gave me one commission: Find out what went wrong, fix the business, save D&D. Vince also gave me a business condition that was easy to understand and quite direct. "God damnit, Dancey", he thundered at me from across the conference table: "Don't lose any more money!"
That became my core motivation. Save D&D. Don't lose money. Figure out what went wrong. Fix the problem.
Back into those financials I went. I walked again the long threads of decisions made by managers long gone; there are few roadmarks to tell us what was done and why in the years TSR did things like buy a needlepoint distributorship, or establish a west coast office at King Vedor's mansion. Why had a moderate success in collectable dice triggered a million unit order? Why did I still have stacks and stacks of 1st edition rulebooks in the warehouse? Why did TSR create not once, not twice, but nearly a dozen times a variation on the same, Tolkien inspired, eurocentric fantasy theme? Why had it constantly tried to create different games, poured money into marketing those games, only to realize that nobody was buying those games? Why, when it was so desperate for cash, had it invested in a million dollar license for content used by less than 10% of the marketplace? Why had a successful game line like Dragonlance been forcibly uprooted from its natural home in the D&D game and transplanted to a foreign and untested new game system? Why had the company funded the development of a science fiction game modeled on D&D - then not used the D&D game rules?
In all my research into TSR's business, across all the ledgers, notebooks, computer files, and other sources of data, there was one thing I never found - one gaping hole in the mass of data we had available.
No customer profiling information. No feedback. No surveys. No "voice of the customer". TSR, it seems, knew nothing about the people who kept it alive. The management of the company made decisions based on instinct and gut feelings; not data. They didn't know how to listen - as an institution, listening to customers was considered something that other companies had to do - TSR lead, everyone else followed.
In today's hypercompetitive market, that's an impossible mentality. At Wizards of the Coast, we pay close attention to the voice of the customer. We ask questions. We listen. We react. So, we spent a whole lot of time and money on a variety of surveys and studies to learn about the people who play role playing games. And, at every turn, we learned things that were not only surprising, they flew in the face of all the conventional wisdom we'd absorbed through years of professional game publishing.
We heard some things that are very, very hard for a company to hear. We heard that our customers felt like we didn't trust them. We heard that we produced material they felt was substandard, irrelevant, and broken. We heard that our stories were boring or out of date, or simply uninteresting. We heard the people felt that >we< were irrelevant.
I know now what killed TSR. It wasn't trading card games. It wasn't Dragon Dice. It wasn't the success of other companies. It was a near total inability to listen to its customers, hear what they were saying, and make changes to make those customers happy. TSR died because it was deaf.
Amazingly, despite all those problems, and despite years of neglect, the D&D game itself remained, at the core, a viable business. Damaged; certainly. Ailing; certainly. But savable? Absolutely.
Our customers were telling us that 2e was too restrictive, limited their creativity, and wasn't "fun to play'? We can fix that. We can update the core rules to enable the expression of that creativity. We can demonstrate a commitment to supporting >your< stories. >Your< worlds. And we can make the game fun again.
Our customers were telling us that we produced too many products, and that the stuff we produced was of inferior quality? We can fix that. We can cut back on the number of products we release, and work hard to make sure that each and every book we publish is useful, interesting, and of high quality.
Our customers were telling us that we spent too much time on our own worlds, and not enough time on theirs? Ok - we can fix that. We can re-orient the business towards tools, towards examples, towards universal systems and rules that aren't dependent on owning a thousand dollars of unnecessary materials first.
Our customers were telling us that they prefer playing D&D nearly 2:1 over the next most popular game option? That's an important point of distinction. We can leverage that desire to help get them more people to play >with< by reducing the barriers to compatibility between the material we produce, and the material created by other companies.
Our customers told us they wanted a better support organization? We can pour money and resources into the RPGA and get it growing and supporting players like never before in the club's history. (10,000 paid members and rising, nearly 50,000 unpaid members - numbers currently skyrocketing).
Our customers were telling us that they want to create and distribute content based on our game? Fine - we can accommodate that interest and desire in a way that keeps both our customers and our lawyers happy.
Are we still listening? Yes, we absolutely are. If we hear you asking us for something we're not delivering, we'll deliver it. But we're not going to cater to the specific and unique needs of a minority if doing so will cause hardship to the majority. We're going to try and be responsible shepards of the D&D business, and that means saying "no" to things that we have shown to be damaging to the business and that aren't wanted or needed by most of our customers.
We listened when the customers told us that Alternity wasn't what they wanted in a science fiction game. We listened when customers told us that they didn't want the confusing, jargon filled world of Planescape. We listened when people told us that the Ravenloft concept was overshadowed by the products of a competitor. We listened to customers who told us that they want core materials, not world materials. That they buy DUNGEON magazine every two months at a rate twice that of our best selling stand-alone adventures.
We're not telling anyone what game to play. We are telling the market that we're going to actively encourage our players to stand up and demand that they be listened to, and that they become the center of the gaming industry - rather than the current publisher-centric model. Through the RPGA, the Open Gaming movement, the pages of Dragon Magazine, and all other venues available, we want to empower our customers to do what >they< want, to force us and our competitors to bend to >their< will, to make the products >they< want made.
I want to be judged on results, not rhetoric. I want to look back at my time at the helm of this business and feel that things got better, not worse. I want to know that my team made certain that the mistakes of the past wouldn't be the mistakes of the future. I want to know that we figured out what went wrong. That we fixed it. That we saved D&D. And that god damnit, we didn't lose money.
Thank you for listening,
Sincerely,
Ryan S. Dancey
VP, Wizards of the Coast
Brand Manager, Dungeons & Dragons
Tamwulf wrote: NuCoal had been rolled out with a new way of building an army that was welcomed by all players.
What? No. No, it was not. That "new way" of army building was in some aspects worse than the older one, like for example how, due to the PL system's constraints, the best way of doing Gear (or armor, or whatever) armies was selecting any regiment but the one for the type of army you wanted. Or the way the "named loadouts" were confusing and stupid, due to not being the same between units. Or... well, it had loads of problems. And some people said as much, back in the day.
Instead, we got the South book, which was gorgeous in appearance and everyone I talked to liked it.
Oh, wow. You mean the book that made me forsake Heavy Gear? Yeah, everybody liked it. As attests the thread I did back in the day:
I know for a fact I was not the only one whose army was borked by the FiF book, and one of those actually started this very thread.
Army selection in the beta is better, but not as good as it was in the NuCoal/South books
...really. Let's just say I disagree. Strongly. And I don't even like the new army creation rules all that much.
Huh. That's interesting. All the players, all three of them that is, in my group really liked the Southern Book. As far as Army Creation was concerned, yes, it has issues, but it was a HUGE step up and didn't require a fan made piece of software to create a new army. PL was a joke in the old system, and if you dig back into the DP9 forums a few years ago, you'll see a thread I made about TL and PL and what a waste of time it was.
To be honest, my interest in Heavy Gear went out the window shortly after the release of the Southern Book after I found out what really happened to the North and Peace River books. It was further exacerbated by the way the Heavy Gear tournament at Gencon was ran that year, and the announcement of a new edition. My bad about not realizing the Southern Book was so bad. I assumed it was your typical old players complaining about changes to "their army" that you see all the time. Sorry about that.
I still stand by my statement that army creation in NuCoal and Southern books was a step in the right direction.
The army creation system in NuCoal was a step in the right direction.
The problem is that it was implemented by DP9.
The basic idea was sound, but the regiments were not designed correctly and the squads were incoherent, each without a clear function.
The southern strike's options and variants, for example, mostly turn it into a fire support!
The squad variants were supposed to replace the options; instead, they were added to the options, increasing the complexity when the whole point was to reduce it.
That's not going into the model themselves, the useless variant names, or the TV.
Nothing like seeing a model that's better on every point cost less, because it was optimized to exploit the fails in the TV system. Or a major upgrade costing 0 TV.
I can't talk for NuCoal, but I know I screamed about that, in detail, at the beginning of the southern playtest. The "response" is what finally made me realize that the company just did not care. Incidentally, looking at my notes, most if not all of the points I raised were still applicable to the final product.
I wasn't trying to imply personality issues by any means, warboss. But thanks for giving that very reasonable explanation.
And ouch on the models. I haven't heard from LCM recently. Let Capraco know I said I am sorry on his behalf.
Anything I can help with?
Thanks and no offense taken or taken as implied. My sarcastic humor can come off online as abrasive and I've found that blaming the "victim" is a trend on the internet (not with you specifically) so I threw that one in there to prevent/delay the inevitable. As for the last part, I don't think so unless you re-enlist, get stationed at Ft. Benning, and live way off base!
Invited to the party, thanks BrandonKF. I'm a little late, and I'm not going to read all 39 pages to get to this point. So I'll start kind of fresh.
First off, I like the new edition to the rules. I think it plays a lot quicker, is easier (somewhat, but I'll get to that) to understand. And it seems like they are listening to their customer base, at least from the outside.
I don't know the current internal politics of what's going on over at DP9, and I don't claim to know most of it. I've got a job, and a family, and friends that do more than game. I have heard some of the the fact that there was a big shake up with several people who may, or may not, have been a central to the community and even worked for DP9, and when they gave a dissenting voice to the direction things were going, they were shut out. Hey, I can respect those people, honestly I caught a bunch of ire from some people for coming up with a marginally revolutionary concept on a forum thread on DP9's forum. I'm still getting disagreed with, I think just on principle at this point.
Secondly, in the Subject of this thread, I do play. I bought miniatures, I got some people excited to play, they lived together, so they played a lot more than me. Then one guy moved to Pennsylvania, the 2 brothers got separate apartments, and we are all just trying to work enough hours to keep our heads above water. But this is a case by case basis. I've met potential players, who aren't interested in assembling, posing and painting the Mini's (my best friend Chad). He likes the game, but he's not interested in maintaining an army.
The lack of players is my biggest concern. There are some very dedicated, hardcore, militant even, players who live for conventions. But well, there can only be so many of them. There is a critical mass of hardcore players. And Heavy Gear is an obscure game system/world. It's beautiful, it's complex, it's storyline is great, if even just kind of rehash of Battletech lore. (I made the connections, it's there and when you see it, you can't deny the coincidence.) They have no advertising, no real attempt at exposure. Having a volunteer force of Demo players, that have their own lives and aren't compensated other than is swag, is a great way to do it, but there aren't a whole lot of them. I'd like to sign on to the "Pod Squad" when I can, and have spoken with their "Pod Squad Commander" and he told me when I get my stuff together to email him back. I've got a fairly decent sized Northern Army, had a similar sized Peace River force, and wanted to get some CEF hover tanks and infantry to run demo games at FLGS, not that we have a whole lot that stay open down here in Houston.
Interest and uniqueness are what's holding this game back. Outwardly, there is very little difference in size (not scale) and visual cues to differentiate HG from any of several other Table top games. The figures are an inch and a half to 2 inches, and if you didn't put them next to their scaled infantry, you'd just think they were powered armor suits. Well, that is visually similar to 40K or Infinity, etc. Everybody i know who is looking in, and has a passing understanding Warhammer 40k, think it's all the same game.
I've been harping on a new 2 or 2-3 or 2-4 player starter box. Other game companies have done it to mixed success. And generally the feedback i'm getting has been mixed too. People who agree see that it's a great idea to get new players, a complete boxed game, for less than $100 for the 2 player, max $150 for the 4 player. Build variety to the figures, make the CEF Hover tanks, not frames. Make the other squads anything but General Purpose. How about Strike Squads, and Firesupport. GP is boring now, and there is no real purpose with the new rule set, as Priority Level (PL) is gone.
Those who disagree with me, think that they need to build Single player starter sets, and let the potential players sort it out trying to arrange when and who to play with. They've got those, their the squad packs, and starter armies. So what they're really asking for is no change. But many of the people who disagree with me on that point are still angry about the scale change and losing validation to their armies in the old RAFM line of mini's. Do you still have the rules? Then play that. Sorry the market moved on. The bigger minis are cool, but the game changed.
Get over it. "But did you Die?" is kind of the meme that needs to go here.
I haven't stopped, I just got started. We've got a Computer Game in development, and I have to tell you it looks good, if they can get players. The RPG is getting love, and good for it, I hope to play. BrandonKF, you're GMing, trying to get local players. They have HG Arena, that looks like a great game, until you find all the holes in the rules. I'm going to try to update, and error correct it to the current style of Rules. It's on my docket. Badlands Rally is a fun as heck Board game that has gotten NO love since it was released. Again, it's got holes in the rules, but it actually showcased the new rule set. I think Dave McCloud used it for prototyping the new dice mechanics. It's fun, and has huge amounts of potential.
I hope for continued growth, and I'll do what I can. I hope others can too.
But if you ever need, I could PM and discuss options on the last part.
@Tamwulf, Sorry that what happened to PRDF and North soured your taste. Hopefully you and your friends might look at the Beta and visit the forums to offer up your opinions and your votes.
@mrondeau, The new army creation rules I have posted up a poll regarding them on the Beta forum. Votes are open. Have you checked them out?
I'm coming off as pretty negative in a lot of my posts here, and I apologize for that. Sometimes, when a person invests a lot of time or effort into an idea or concept, they feel they have a vested interest in the success or failure of that idea or concept. We want that idea or concept to be successful so we can point to it and say "See? I was a part of that!". When it struggles or fails, we like to lay blame and criticize.
Heavy Gear has so much damn potential to storm onto the Table Top Gaming scene and take over a niche that has long been demanded (mecha warfare on a large scale battlefield). Look at the competition. Battletech? That game has wallowed and suffered for over 10 years under various companies. I really think Catalyst Games wants to see it take off again, but they are sticking too much to "classic" Battletech and they really need to just wipe the slate clean and start over. Alphastrike was a good step in that direction. The last 10-20 years has been VERY unkind to the Battletech IP (Mechwarrior video games, "Clickytech" Mechwarrior, the failed card game... all awesome by themselves, but never brought together in some kind of unified Battletech Universe.
CAV from Reaper? Fun little game. Had it's issues, like the biggest was that it was a one man operation until he sold it to Reaper. The problem here is that Reaper was undergoing some rapid expansion issues itself, and so CAV languished for a long time. There is a new Kickstarter for it up now, so hopefully we'll see some more CAV in the future.
What else is there? Well, if you talk to a Warmachine player, they will tell you that Warjacks are in the top 3 reasons why they wanted to play the game. Giant robots, hmm. Games Workshop- EVERYONE loves Riptides, Dreadnaughts, Contemptor Dreadnaughts, the Mechanium models, Knight Titans... the rules might be bad or awesome, but every time one of those models is placed on the table, people look. Relic Knights- the new kid on the block, and so far, it's doing pretty good with the players zeroing in on the Relic Knights themselves (the guys piloting the mecha suits).
The Robotech Tactics RPG Kickstarter raised over $1 million- due to Palladium Games ineptitude and financial difficulties, and the infighting with Ninja Division (the guys that, you know, wrote the RULES for the game...), has doomed the game before it's even been released. After more than a year, the game has finally started shipping to Kick Starter backers, and I'm still waiting for mine to arrive.
There is a "need" for a mecha game at the skirmish level (and scalable to large battles) that just has not been filled by any game company yet. I think DP9 could be poised to take over that niche if they would just pull their heads out of their collective butts. They have an awesome artist, they have great fluff, it's an established company (a bit checkered maybe, but it's no Palladium Games), they have in house production with great sculptors and they have great models. I really believe DP9 could pull it off if they just looked around a bit and not only talked, but LISTENED to people outside the company that know a thing or two about gaming. Not me! I know that I don't know squat/enough about the gaming industry to offer that kind of advice. But I do know the people that do, and I listen to a lot of what they have to say.
TLDR; My criticism of Heavy Gear comes from my vested interest in the IP and wanting the game to succeed. I'm sorry if I come off a bit jaded and cynical about the game now.
If you invested as much in Robotech as warboss did, I don't think you are jaded about it. Yes, I know HG has languished, and I agree things do need to change.
@Tamwulf, Sorry that what happened to PRDF and North soured your taste. Hopefully you and your friends might look at the Beta and visit the forums to offer up your opinions and your votes.
Brandon- you can only climb to the top of the mountain and scream at the burning bush for so long before you realize it's just a burning bush that's not listening to anything you say, and the mountain certainly doesn't care if you climb it or not.
In reference to the North and PRDF books, that got "early release" Army lists, one of which was Broken. And then all talk about a new Storyline and Fluff that was supposed to go with the Blood Debt and Lion's Wrath books, books that were supposed to continue the story of the second CEF invasion. and were supposed to explain what is going on with Temple Heights and the hybrid child, and the Valkyrie Troops, and the SandStriders being the same (Prime Knights anyone?) This is good story, I want to know the rest.
And then... no word. The books were just Army lists, that nobody liked. And it took months to get any kind of reply.
The PRDF book is "Blood Debt" BLOOD DEBT! The CEF destroyed their home city-state just before a peace treaty between the Terra Novan was supposed to be signed there? Now the CEF is back, yeah, Peace River is going to get some payback.
And Lion's Wrath for the North. The North had basically all of it's landship fleets destroyed, the second wave of CEF invaders is landing, didn't they lose a city like the south did?. It's time to unleash the full force of the North's military might. This is a war of survival
With the invader fleet here, maybe it's time to redirect some of Terra Nova's Space fleet to strike at the CEF's supply lines, Caprise, Utopia, Eden...Earth?... Let's see how the CEF reacts when the Black Talons crack open one of those domed cities. Just my 2 cents, hope this shows my excitement for the IP.
Heavy Gear was a game I always wanted to play. I bought a bunch of the RPG books. loved the art style. Loved the Mechs.
I'm huge on mini games, and will often play/collect multiple games. My group and I were huge on the idea of Heavy Gear, and we're Canadian so go local game company.
Here's why we tried, but couldn't get into the game.
Alright... I want this game. I gotta play it! I'll grab the starter box.
$60 online (plus shipping), $80 in Canada. Six mechs, the rule book and some dice. Not really a good deal when you compare it to other game starter sets (Dropzone, Flames of War, Dystopian Wars etc etc).
That's not a great value, but man oh man I want to play this game.
Then I find out the rulebook isn't valid anymore...
Then I find out the included mechs literally can't play a game as Blitz uses 5 mech squads, and there's 3 mechs on each side. Wait, how many damn mechs do I need for this?
So why am I buying a starter box?
Alright, screw it. I'll buy the PDF read the rules and figure it out from there.
Read the rules, they honestly look kind of weak. Seems like people will spend a lot of time shooting at each other with nothing happening? Wait, what are these dice I'm supposed to have beside each mech? How many special dice am I going to have to buy? Also, seem overly complicated for little benefit. Watch a gameplay demo. Several shots, literally nothing hits. Okay...
But I still love those mechs. Figure I'll need three squads for a decentish game. Looks like each squad is 250-300 points, and a battle is between 500 and 1000 points. In Canada that's about $100-$150 after tax. Most of the group balks, way to much to simply try a game that has a terrible reputation.
A friend and I decide to still do it. We're going to get the units we need, buy the book. It's about $300 when we're at the store for everything we need.
We look around, seeing everything with a much better price, and more support.
For $300 we left with the Dropzone Commander Starter Box, Dust Tactics Starter Box, and a Malifaux crew each.
More support for those games, better rules IMO and we ended up with far more minis then we would have if we had played Heavy Gear.
If there was ever a game that needed a complete rebuild from scratch it's Heavy Gear. Most people forget it exists. Do a kickstarter maybe? Or a decent starter set? Even if they have to use plastic minis, do it. The goal of a starter set is you give me enough to play a few great games, but wet my appetite for more. 3 mechs a side for a game that requires a minimum of four isn't going to do it for me.
@Tamwulf, Sorry that what happened to PRDF and North soured your taste. Hopefully you and your friends might look at the Beta and visit the forums to offer up your opinions and your votes.
Brandon- you can only climb to the top of the mountain and scream at the burning bush for so long before you realize it's just a burning bush that's not listening to anything you say, and the mountain certainly doesn't care if you climb it or not.
Talking to the wrong guy here Tam, remember? I'm a believer.
But I get the analogy of futility. I just think a few questions and some polls showing votes - plus advertising and getting the word out about the free Beta as well as the Kickstarter - could do something for the IP.
Warphound wrote:In reference to the North and PRDF books, that got "early release" Army lists, one of which was Broken. And then all talk about a new Storyline and Fluff that was supposed to go with the Blood Debt and Lion's Wrath books, books that were supposed to continue the story of the second CEF invasion. and were supposed to explain what is going on with Temple Heights and the hybrid child, and the Valkyrie Troops, and the SandStriders being the same (Prime Knights anyone?) This is good story, I want to know the rest.
And then... no word. The books were just Army lists, that nobody liked. And it took months to get any kind of reply.
The PRDF book is "Blood Debt" BLOOD DEBT! The CEF destroyed their home city-state just before a peace treaty between the Terra Novan was supposed to be signed there? Now the CEF is back, yeah, Peace River is going to get some payback.
And Lion's Wrath for the North. The North had basically all of it's landship fleets destroyed, the second wave of CEF invaders is landing, didn't they lose a city like the south did?. It's time to unleash the full force of the North's military might. This is a war of survival
With the invader fleet here, maybe it's time to redirect some of Terra Nova's Space fleet to strike at the CEF's supply lines, Caprise, Utopia, Eden...Earth?... Let's see how the CEF reacts when the Black Talons crack open one of those domed cities. Just my 2 cents, hope this shows my excitement for the IP.
Your enthusiasm is great Warp. But the guys in this thread happen to be old hands. New blood is good though, and with the franchise on the line, maybe some new blood will be able to pull off the Hail Mary that the Pod has been languishing for the last two years.
PS and FiF both offered a fresh look. I remain vigilant in hoping that all parties involved will both speak as well as listen. And of course, listening is only as good as heeding. We all are aware that this IP needs a kick in the pants. So here's to the Kick that makes the game. Yes, I went footballsy.
I've been harping on a new 2 or 2-3 or 2-4 player starter box. Other game companies have done it to mixed success. And generally the feedback i'm getting has been mixed too. People who agree see that it's a great idea to get new players, a complete boxed game, for less than $100 for the 2 player, max $150 for the 4 player. Build variety to the figures, make the CEF Hover tanks, not frames. Make the other squads anything but General Purpose. How about Strike Squads, and Firesupport. GP is boring now, and there is no real purpose with the new rule set, as Priority Level (PL) is gone.
3-4 player starter boxes for minis games? And other companies have "done it to mixed success"? I'm not the omnipotent guru of minis gaming but I've never heard or seen a company do that let alone to *any* success for a minis game. In any case, I think it is practically about the worst idea presented other than a switch to 28mm. Putting 4 even "starter" armies into a single box puts the price tag well into the bundle deals they have on the website and way out of the realm of reasonable for the average joe just looking to buy it to try it just because it has some cool art on the box. I'm not sure (actually I am completely sure) how realistic (or completely unrealistic) your quote of $150 for 4 players worth of 2-3 combat group armies is.
Put simply... there is a reason pretty much every company out there in the hobby who makes multiplayer starter boxes chooses 2 players and no more.
So what they're really asking for is no change. But many of the people who disagree with me on that point are still angry about the scale change and losing validation to their armies in the old RAFM line of mini's. Do you still have the rules? Then play that. Sorry the market moved on. The bigger minis are cool, but the game changed.
Get over it. "But did you Die?" is kind of the meme that needs to go here.
*snip*
They have HG Arena, that looks like a great game, until you find all the holes in the rules. I'm going to try to update, and error correct it to the current style of Rules. It's on my docket. Badlands Rally is a fun as heck Board game that has gotten NO love since it was released. Again, it's got holes in the rules, but it actually showcased the new rule set. I think Dave McCloud used it for prototyping the new dice mechanics. It's fun, and has huge amounts of potential.
You realize that "sorry the market moved on" can justify pretty much any change you can envision up to and including making the minis out of bacon, right? In any case, the market did NOT move on with the scale change. We are the market and players didn't clamor for their collections to suddenly incompatible with further releases. Something happened behind the scenes between RAFM and DP9 that made the later decide to screw everyone over (a trend with them frankly). People still pay plenty for the RAFM minis and there is STILL a market for them. The tactical minis that replaced them, however, are pretty much the bottom of the barrel when it comes to demand. As for HG Arena and Rally, I suppose you could take your own advice about lamenting the lack of support/followup/planning/effort and just chalk it up to "the market moving on".
The fact is that the company keeps CHOOSING to screw over their player base year after year and the hardcore players that slowly leave are NOT being replaced with enthusiastic young bloods. The churn is cummulatively negative. If you want to see what a company looks like that is growing in popularity, check out Corvus Belli or Hawk Wargames. CB regularly changes the game and minis but they do so in a respectful manner. Hawk Wargames got started at the time the field manual came out and feel free to look at what they've accomplished since then compared to DP9 with the same staffing (at least initially).
Another sad fact is that DP9 needs those same customers that they've screwed over repeatedly now to fund the next advancement. Yes, the company that put out over a hundred HG titles over the years hasn't been able to pay for a print run of the last two and needs a cash infusion to make the next. The new players aren't going to fund that; they'll just wait and see what comes out the other end. The existing largely UNHAPPY playerbase (or what is left of it) is supposed to fund this... but I guess they can just take your advice to just play their old rules because the market has "moved on".
Talking to the wrong guy here Tam, remember? I'm a BELIEBER.
*snip*
Your enthusiasm is great Warp. But the guys in this thread happen to be old hands. New blood is good though, and with the franchise on the line, maybe some new blood will be able to pull off the Hail Mary that the Pod has been languishing for the last two years.
I fixed that first part for you.
I suspect that DP9 needs both new and old to support it to succeed but frankly they don't seem to have a handle on how to make either happy over the past decade. Each change pisses off (and rightfully so IMO) a portion of the existing base that leaves permanently and gets a few more new guys to only partly replace them. The new guys then a few years later get pissed when the same exact thing happens to them and leave. It's basically a funnel and we're swirling around the bottom at the moment.
Tamwulf wrote: you can only climb to the top of the mountain and scream at the burning bush for so long before you realize it's just a burning bush that's not listening to anything you say, and the mountain certainly doesn't care if you climb it or not.
I'm going to shamelessly steal that metaphor.
That's kinda the big problem: DP9 does not actually try to fix the problems. They keep doing the same thing, years after years after years. The current test procedure is not a test procedure; it's also the same thing they have done since Blitz. It never worked. They keep changing vision, of the game, the fluff, etc. every two years, usually because all the problems are undeniable at that point.
There's no direction, there's no attention to details, there's no vision. They don't even care about the game and the players. They will sacrifice anything and everything to add something that stroke their fancy, or that a sufficiently obsequious fan wanted. They will sacrifice anything and everything to implement a hair-brained solution to the loudest problem. They will sacrifice anything and everything to deflect blame to an ex-employee, a tester or a player. They will sacrifice anything and everything to save face. What they will never do is admit they made a mistake, and need to change how they work. What they will never do is make themselves accountable in any way. What they will never do is fix their mistakes or prioritize supporting the game.
Robert can wait on a 90% complete FAQ, given to him by a fan, for months. He can string along that fan with "the revised version is coming soon!" for weeks. When said fan decide to post what he had, with mention that it's completely unofficial, Robert can delete the post in about 30s and infracts the fan in question. I checked the timestamps. Don't get me.. sorry, "said fan", started on the FAQ that was finally published.
Warboss, you know what else has moved on, Computer technology. Heavy Gear 1 works okay for about 10 minutes on my current computer, but the menus are a Red Bloody mess of pixels, and then all the Gear, Tanks, and Striders suddenly act as if they are on ice, and you just skid off in whatever direction you were headed when it happened. Heavy Gear 2 won't even freaking load, and I've tried everything in my limited computer experience to fix it, with help from computer experts. It sucks that every 2 - 4 years computer technology advances enough that you have to do a major upgrade or outright replacement of a $500 to 3000 computer system if you want to keep up with the latest and greatest in multi-threaded 8 core capable AAA games with flashy graphics, and 100,000 swearing preteens online. And that's a bigger investment than a few hundred dollars on figures.
Now that that bit of nonsense is out of the way (I'm sure I'll get reported for it, yet I won't do the same to anyone else...) you are preaching to the choir here. I agree with you. I got reported and caught warning because I made a statement, that was neither refuted nor supported by the rulebooks and fluff, that a 2 action "gearstrider" with a turret on it's back like the Hussar and Scimitar must have 2 pilots. And I caught more kinds of hate over that because when Cerberus refuted me, and I asked for him to explain it, to go as far as show me where in the rules and storyline it says that "Gearstriders" only have 1 one pilot, he just got louder. So yeah, I'm not scared of disagreement. "I'll get chewed out. I've been chewed out."
Again, like I said, I don't know the politics of any previous falling outs, rule changes, creative differences, or sex scandals. And well, I don't care IF it doesn't effect the game, though it sure seems to in this case. I understand history, and how it works. I understand it sets the stage for where we are today, and if you don't pay attention to it, you will be doomed to repeat it. What I am not, is bitter about it. Yeah, I had to rebuild and repaint more than a handful of my mini's with the last couple revisions and now the new revision. I built my strategy around a Dragoon squad that had Fire Jaguars in it. When I started playing, they weren't called Fire Jaguars, they were just Jaguars with twin Medium Rocket Packs. Then with Lion's Wrath, they had a name, YAY!!! then 6 Months later, the new rules Alpha comes out, and they are gone, BOO!. But then the Beta hits, with more complete Armylists, and they're still gone. BOO! But it's a game, I'm not going to cry about it.
Yeah I bitch as much or more than the next guy, probably more so. If a Marine Veteran isn't complaining then something has gone really really wrong. But all the bitching aside, I don't cry about situations. If I can fix them, I fix them. If I can't, I still try, then either live with it, or move on to the next thing and lament "what could have been".
I'm sorry that Robert Dubois is a jerk and makes bad business decisions. It was posted up here earlier, and you know who else did, Gary freaking Gygax. The grand -daddy of Hobby gaming. People treat the guy like he was a god, but he sure wasn't. He created a core market for his system, he saturated the market of his dedicated consumers. And when competition popped up with easier and more accessible product, he kept to the hardline because TSR didn't listen to their players. So they were unable to grow to meet their expectations, and a business that doesn't grow becomes stagnant, and then dies. Consumers / players will more often than not go with the easier and more accessible thing. You said that yourself I believe. Another good example is CCP, the makers of Eve Online. I played Eve back when it just got started. I took a 2 year hiatus because I was too busy to play, and when I come back, the game is full of players whose sole purpose in virtual life is to mess with new players. And the company didn't add anything in all their frequent updates that didn't make the game harder. Now, whether they admit it or not CCP is going to probably go under in the next 2 - 5 years, and that's sad. I love the world of EVE, but when I tried to start back up this January, the tutorials were better, the graphics were great still, but the game had lost it's soul. It wasn't about trade and exploration anymore. It was about surviving the pirate players long enough to become a pirate yourself.
I don't know if you have played the new ruleset yet. And I don't even really care. I hope you have, and I hope you have gotten some enjoyment from it. I'm not blind to the fact that this is probably DP9s last chance to pull it out of the nose dive. I've had businesses that have failed. That's right, Plural. Some of it was me and my team, some of it was competition, some of it was just the market didn't side with me. It happens. It's sad, but I'm not going to curl up and let the world keep kicking me. If you don't like the direction DP9 is taking Heavy Gear, then ignore it. If you want to salvage your mini's, go play Gruntz15mm, that's my escape plan. If the business fails because Robert and company can't put their finger on the pulse of the market, then they'll get a nasty worded letter from me, and I hope everybody else, and I'll move on.
If you want to save the game, then let's save the game. If you have ideas, then let's write them up. I'm real good at churching things up. I've written all my friends resumes, and honestly they're all doing better than I am. If they won't listen to you or you're banned from the forums and what not, get an advocate, a mouthpiece, a plant, somebody to plant your ideas in the subconscious of the players and lurkers on the DP9s forums, they have to listen to somebody, or we'll leave in droves, not just a few here and there like it's been. Heck, I'll volunteer for that, if you'll work with my schedule and I agree with your ideas. Just don't complain and say "This is wrong. We shouldn't be doing it this way." Come up with a solution, if you have a solution and I just haven't read it because i'm not going to spend 3 days trying to catch up on the 38 pages from the last year or so on this forum thread. Then PM me and give me the summary, of the solution. If it involves a shovel, a road trip, and an alibi, I don't want to hear it. (that was a joke people. )
Smilodon, and everybody else who got pushed out with out an explanation. You got the short end of the stick there, no doubt, with the getting blamed for something you didn't do, and then pushed out. I was actually wondering where you went after that. If Robert and Dave won't listen, and are keeping all the gold for themselves, then let them taste the burn when the doors close. Forgive them eventually, but don't forget their names.
I'm doing, what little I can, as a casual, yet kind of obsessed, gamer down here in Houston. I love the world and art design, and everything. I dislike the Politics and close-mindedness, on both sides of the line, but that's with anything. I'm writing what are essentially, hugely overblown house rules for campaigns. I'm drafting up my own fan fiction just because it's in my head. I'm going to try to re-edit the Beta rules, hopefully with some peoples help, into a more logical, progressively advancing, easy to play rule book. I covered my idea in my DP9forum thread about a new 2015 Starter Set.
(Oh, on the note of a new starter set, I meant a 2 player Starter Set, and was just brainstorming about a larger possible set, and I've got ideas on how to make that work too. So yeah, Thanks for jumping on my without asking for clarification.)
I agree about the kickstarter, and the lack of funding. They have new models (to include the Scimitar that everybody seems to hate, and some others that fill smaller niches, the Lynx for example) that need to get produced with no timeline or expected delivery.
I'll throw them a couple of bucks to help get a book published, if it's done correctly, in the chance that they could bring in some new players.
I'd fund a kickstarter for them to retool to plastic minis, just not the only GP squad make up,
and a new starter set that could get some talk going and bring in new players.
But yeah, for the most part, there are not enough players too keep the game alive. My honest opinion is that if we could all just agree to get along for 10 minutes or so, here, on DP9s forum, and Robert and company, we could pull the game out of the fire. If DP9 would admit their faults, and the "angry players" could hold off getting the pitch forks and torches, then maybe we could save the game, and work together to make it great. If not, then... anybody bring marshmallows?
So I hope you can see that there are new players, that are excited about the IP, just like y'all were once, and that we want to see the game succeed.
Tamwulf wrote: This is the problem though- DP9 has no new player base and does little to nothing to attract new players. The new game was made basically by the existing fan base with play testing by the same fan base- no clear objectives or reasons why a new edition needed to be created.
The new game was designed by a fan of the existing game (Blitz), that's certainly true. And it was pitched to fans of the existing game, because they were the ones in charge. However, it's not true that there were 'no clear objectives or reasons why a new edition needed to be created' that were discussed. They were discussed at length, with various options thrown around. Everything from moving to a board game format, or a smaller skirmish game format, to a format more suitable for larger battles. You can see elements of those decisions made in the Badlands Rally game, Arena and NuBlitz.
The rules grew out of my group's desire to play a smoother, easier to understand Blitz. It was developed with the goal of 1) lowering the barriers to entry for new players 2) make the dice more important to the game, without completely removing the 'smoothing' that the Sil system provides 3) trying to make the gameplay more like the fluff description of actions, rather than the mechanics that they actually supported. Those were my primary goals - others were added when the DP9 guys showed an interest. I don't feel like I can relate them, since they were (sorta) covered by an NDA, but they basically aligned with 'we have to keep doing what we're doing' rather than any substantial changes. So the goal was not to change production or business models, but try to alleviate a painpoint (the rules) that prevented easy adoption.
I really thought the old system could benefit greatly from a revision- a major rework of army selection which they basically had in place thanks to NuCoal, clean up the cover/concealment rules, tweek the IF rules, and clean up the gears a bit to make them fit more inline with each faction.
Some of the recurrent complaints that prompted the change in rulesets were the multiplication / division step, the lethality of IF (which had several patches attempted) and how difficult it was for new players to learn winning strategies. Under Sil, basic things like shooting a gun in the open across an open board rarely worked - which was very frustrating to newer players. You had to learn how to stack modifiers, and when modifiers were better than dice, which took time. The competition doesn't suffer from that, and players seem to systems that are more intuitive. That's why there was a wholesale change adopted, rather than refinements.
Instead, the new edition really, really feels like change for the sake of change with no real improvements over the old system.
I'm sorry the new rules don't hold an appeal for you. I tried to make things work better in some ways, with the understanding that I was going to make them work worse in other ways. Cover still isn't right, nor are the weapons. There was lots of work to be done with command actions, and EW actions needed refined. But I feel that there are many improvements; I believe game play is smoother for new players, recon models have more uses, and there is a better connect between on-table actions and results. But I recognize that I'm biased, so if nothing else, thank you for the frank feedback. Were I in a position to make a change, I would try to address those concerns - but now, your best bet is to PM or email Dave McCloud directly and see if you can sway him to your position.
Movement should be an easy thing to perform, but in HG, its complex, interrupts the play, and has no "contact" or "flow" with the rest of the game.
That was the point in the playtest rules, which allowed walkers to turn freely (no restrictions) - which essentially gave them free movement. Other models had restricted movement, and I'll freely accept the criticism of those; I never worked out a better solution that demonstrated the mobility of Gears in comparison to vehicles. But that was a design decision to try to keep those distinctions clear.
Why would a new player want to play Heavy Gear? That's the main question that should have been asked from the beginning. A clear, concise, statement of what the game should be about needed to be written. Identifying market trends (who is playing what and why), incorporating those into the design process, and then following up with impartial testing and feedback should have been the route taken for the game. Finally, revision of the statement and core rules with the whole process starting over again should have been implemented. This would have given DP9 a VERY solid game with room to grow and attract new players.
Those discussions were had; I personally performed due diligence about trends, competitors and the like - and presented it to DP9 in informal discussions. But the key is - this was a hobby project for me, not my business. That's why I took the path I did; I wanted to help the game however I could, but I wasn't going to quit my software engineering job to do it. And at the end of the day, the questions you raise - the really good questions about what market to approach, which media to use, etc - aren't questions that I could answer for DP9. They had to make a choice themselves, based upon their finances, their strengths and whatever support they could cobble together. From the beginning I asked questions like 'how many models should we be targeting in a 3 hour game. 5? 10? 30?' - and their answer was based upon what business tactics they wanted to purse. Based upon what they could afford, or not afford - and I adapted certain things to fit their constraints.
At the end of the whole process, I walked away in part because what DP9 needs the most isn't a new ruleset - it's exactly what you've identified. They need someone at the helm who understands market trends, has a solid vision for a product that they can make money on, and the social skills to pull all the threads together. Outsiders can advise you in that respect, but you need that talent internally with the ultimate decision on what works, and what doesn't. It's what has made all of the other big game companies successful - you have a solid businessperson at the helm, but also someone who understands just exactly why there's an appeal to pushing little blocks of metal around the table.
Sorry if this post comes off as preachy; but I lobbied long and hard for substantial changes to the approach to the market and game so being accused of being a fan pushing 'more of the same' is a bit disheartening.
I agree with DEWs, and I can understand your extrapolation about the chassis being smaller without a pilot, but then what kind of power plant and how big would the control system have to be?
Well, if you allow fusion planets in the setting at all, your options for energy typically come down to how compact your battery systems can be. If you have effectively unlimited energy, you can cram quite a bit of energy into substances that store energy well, and only consume what you need and when. I tend to think that the 500km range used by HG is a fairly reasonable range, and with current advances in battery storage extrapolated (for an example http://main.omanobserver.om/?p=109071) to the future setting you could easily state that batteries are the preferred power source. Maybe a solar panel to fill up in the wild if necessary, or something similar - but supply chains aren't that horrible to manage, and if you can airdrop batteries that can be easily replaced range can be extended significantly. So I tend to fall into the belief that you don't need a 'engine' on your robot as much as a power source, and batteries charged from a FOB work just fine.
As for the control systems; depends on your goal, I think. HG uses a fairly small box for the NNet, which provides most of the 'AI' work present in a Gear. Even if you doubled that volume, you're still looking at a fairly compact unit. Miniaturization of computer resources is marching on; if quantum computers prove practical then all bets on the side of computer that you need is off. The foot-print provided by a computer will be mostly constrained by the form factor that's interfacing with it, more than the physical area you want. This again can be limited to a specific level of tech, and might be a good way to distinguish factions. The high 'AI' faction might feature fully autonomous units that make tactical choices on their own, whereas most factions use units that require tactical direction but can manage their resources appropriately.
As far as squad support weapons, depends on what you are packing. Machine-guns tend to be pretty reliable and don't require as much maintenance. But if you are including rail guns at that size, yeah, I could see the humans acting both as controllers as well as technicians.
Yeah, it's mostly based around the ideal that if you can get a tank or spider-tank the size of a person or so, you gain the ability to mount fairly powerful weapons and electronics compared to the same thing that could be carried by a human. Any bigger than that and you start having to hand-wave its purpose, except for very specialized units. Missile carriers will always be fairly large due to the propellant loads required, and anti-tank units would need larger weapons and batteries to be successful, I tend to think. But yeah, the humans act as the 'tactical guidance' and technicians, which side-steps the issues of fully autonomous drones attacking humans and other ethical concerns.
The other thing that occurs to me is the premise for ground warfare... with so many resources in space, what are the planets useful for other than breathable air and gravity? What would prompt war in these instances? Infinity and MERCS both go the corporate and military espionage route.
That's one thing the setting gets wrong in a big way, I think; asteroids are going to be your primary resource extraction point, not planets. Planets are just good for increasing population; exploitation though has to fight gravity wells. Unless you have completely 'free' transitions between gravity wells, it's always going to be less efficient to extract and manufacture on a planet rather than in space. I tend to go with Infinity and Mercs on this route as well; colonization wouldn't be 'I own this planet', but would have lots of different power groups in play on each plane in a heterogeneous fashion. People would want planets to have something all their own, and for the hope that it engenders; the power of a 'new life on the frontier' is very seductive to the underclasses in particular. In particular, being able to transport your most disruptive elements away from where they can do harm to a point where they are 'over there' is a time-honored tradition, which I doubt wouldn't be practiced widely.
But full-out ground war is just stupid, unless your point is to capture the population. You have to start playing with themes of genetic diversity and what value people provide in that case. You can go the dictatorship route or 'evil big empire' if you want then, but it's very unlikely that you're going to be able to bring enough ground forces to pacify a planet. A specific region on planet is probably doable - but bigger than that and it starts getting silly, IMO.
IceRaptor wrote: But full-out ground war is just stupid, unless your point is to capture the population. You have to start playing with themes of genetic diversity and what value people provide in that case. You can go the dictatorship route or 'evil big empire' if you want then, but it's very unlikely that you're going to be able to bring enough ground forces to pacify a planet. A specific region on planet is probably doable - but bigger than that and it starts getting silly, IMO.
Well, one thing to keep in mind is that for quite a while (at least as far back as the storybooks), we've known that there's something important hidden away on Tera Nova. What exactly that is has never been explained (presumably something tied to the Prime Knights and Sand Riders). But the official reasons for the CEF invasion of Tera Nova (i.e. money and other resources) aren't the actual reason - or at best are a secondary reason.
Well, one thing to keep in mind is that for quite a while (at least as far back as the storybooks), we've known that there's something important hidden away on Tera Nova. What exactly that is has never been explained (presumably something tied to the Prime Knights and Sand Riders). But the official reasons for the CEF invasion of Tera Nova (i.e. money and other resources) aren't the actual reason - or at best are a secondary reason.
Yes. Maybe it's the old RPG player (never played Heavy Gear RPG, sorry) but people forget that this is kind of telling a story. I harped on it, somewhere, either here or on DP9's forum. I want to know the rest. We're all kind of taking part in a story. We're the Colonels and Generals, the Squad Leaders and Rover Band leaders. We're playing this story. I hope DP9 is listening.
On a side note, I think I got banned shortly from DP9's forums. Don't know if it was because I had an opinion on there, or on here. But somebody didn't like it. I'm back on now, it was only for a couple hours, but still.
mrondeau wrote: Wait, you are to blame for this abomination upon English? And you are proud of it ?! Have you no shame ?
Absolutely! Out of respect to IceRaptor, I used the proper (and super double secret probation code name like Blue Harvest!) name while he was in charge but once Dave took over and it became evident that that they'd use the Blitz title during the pre-Alpha announcement instead of just reverting to the simple original HG name (like D&D and Tomb Raider did), I started using Nublitz instead.
Again, like I said, I don't know the politics of any previous falling outs, rule changes, creative differences, or sex scandals. And well, I don't care IF it doesn't effect the game, though it sure seems to in this case. I understand history, and how it works. I understand it sets the stage for where we are today, and if you don't pay attention to it, you will be doomed to repeat it. What I am not, is bitter about it. Yeah, I had to rebuild and repaint more than a handful of my mini's with the last couple revisions and now the new revision. I built my strategy around a Dragoon squad that had Fire Jaguars in it. When I started playing, they weren't called Fire Jaguars, they were just Jaguars with twin Medium Rocket Packs. Then with Lion's Wrath, they had a name, YAY!!! then 6 Months later, the new rules Alpha comes out, and they are gone, BOO!. But then the Beta hits, with more complete Armylists, and they're still gone. BOO! But it's a game, I'm not going to cry about it.
The problem is that it DOES affect the game. There are basically two ways for the general fan to get "heard" by the pod. You either:
A) Agree publicly with every decision no matter how moronic as well as voice your support privately via personal direct communication. Also, you must be willing to spend large amounts of money on product face to face direct with the Pod at conventions they attend. Free labor helps with this as well. This is also the most direct route to working for/with/under the Pod currently.
B) You create unavoidable drama about a douche move on their part. The louder the better. If you privately complain or present constructive criticism through their preferred route (private email), you will be ignored and be screwed over.
I've never been one to suck up and I don't go to cons anymore regardless so the first option is out the door. I tried the polite way and IT DOESN'T WORK. With the pod, it's not enough that the left hand doesn't know what the right is doing but rather that the right is actively giving the middle finger to the left. Their problems are for the most part obvious, preventable, and completely predictable. Just for the record, Fire Jaguars have been around since 1995ish or so... they just fell out of favor (like with almost all the named variants) and were replaced by half variants swaps during the L&L era as the flavor of the month design idea to soon be abandoned.
Yeah I bitch as much or more than the next guy, probably more so. If a Marine Veteran isn't complaining then something has gone really really wrong. But all the bitching aside, I don't cry about situations. If I can fix them, I fix them. If I can't, I still try, then either live with it, or move on to the next thing and lament "what could have been".
*SNIP*
If you want to save the game, then let's save the game. If you have ideas, then let's write them up. I'm real good at churching things up.
You'll find that the people most passionately complaining here have done exactly that... and it, to put it mildly, didn't work out well. I tried during most of 2013 to help and it has left a mildly bitter taste in my mouth (to go along with the majorly sour taste of getting screwed over repeatedly as a customer). I started my blog, did demos, joined the blitz playtesting for the northern book (demoted to PDF in the interim), as well as the super secret Nublitz prealpha/proof of concept testing.
I've been harping on a new 2 or 2-3 or 2-4 player starter box. Other game companies have done it to mixed success. And generally the feedback i'm getting has been mixed too. People who agree see that it's a great idea to get new players, a complete boxed game, for less than $100 for the 2 player, max $150 for the 4 player. Build variety to the figures, make the CEF Hover tanks, not frames. Make the other squads anything but General Purpose. How about Strike Squads, and Firesupport. GP is boring now, and there is no real purpose with the new rule set, as Priority Level (PL) is gone.
3-4 player starter boxes for minis games? And other companies have "done it to mixed success"? I'm not the omnipotent guru of minis gaming but I've never heard or seen a company do that let alone to *any* success for a minis game. In any case, I think it is practically about the worst idea presented other than a switch to 28mm. Putting 4 even "starter" armies into a single box puts the price tag well into the bundle deals they have on the website and way out of the realm of reasonable for the average joe just looking to buy it to try it just because it has some cool art on the box. I'm not sure (actually I am completely sure) how realistic (or completely unrealistic) your quote of $150 for 4 players worth of 2-3 combat group armies is.
Put simply... there is a reason pretty much every company out there in the hobby who makes multiplayer starter boxes chooses 2 players and no more.
*snip*
The fact is that the company keeps CHOOSING to screw over their player base year after year and the hardcore players that slowly leave are NOT being replaced with enthusiastic young bloods. The churn is cummulatively negative. If you want to see what a company looks like that is growing in popularity, check out Corvus Belli or Hawk Wargames. CB regularly changes the game and minis but they do so in a respectful manner. Hawk Wargames got started at the time the field manual came out and feel free to look at what they've accomplished since then compared to DP9 with the same staffing (at least initially).
Another sad fact is that DP9 needs those same customers that they've screwed over repeatedly now to fund the next advancement. Yes, the company that put out over a hundred HG titles over the years hasn't been able to pay for a print run of the last two and needs a cash infusion to make the next. The new players aren't going to fund that; they'll just wait and see what comes out the other end. The existing largely UNHAPPY playerbase (or what is left of it) is supposed to fund this... but I guess they can just take your advice to just play their old rules because the market has "moved on".
Talking to the wrong guy here Tam, remember? I'm a BELIEBER.
*snip*
Your enthusiasm is great Warp. But the guys in this thread happen to be old hands. New blood is good though, and with the franchise on the line, maybe some new blood will be able to pull off the Hail Mary that the Pod has been languishing for the last two years.
I fixed that first part for you.
I suspect that DP9 needs both new and old to support it to succeed but frankly they don't seem to have a handle on how to make either happy over the past decade. Each change pisses off (and rightfully so IMO) a portion of the existing base that leaves permanently and gets a few more new guys to only partly replace them. The new guys then a few years later get pissed when the same exact thing happens to them and leave. It's basically a funnel and we're swirling around the bottom at the moment.
Well, we are getting newer players now. I also understand that everyone here has put their heart into this at one point or another.
So I am going to keep on keeping on, sharing every update that is offered and also making as much headway as possible to raise awareness.
I am glad that others have chimed in with their opinions here. Warboss, mrondeau and Hudson and Al are by now old names to me. Tamwulf is new. Having met Warphound, I am glad that HG has an appeal to folks.
The whole concept of came for the Gears, stayed for the universe is often repeated, but it is time to get out from the bottom of the whirlpool.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And now I have new Peace River miniatures to share.
Most welcome Firebreak. Although I put these in the wrong thread, I had intended for them only to go into my personal 'Gear-finity' thread, though now I suppose it's a happy accident of drinking too much Monster and not enough attention to detail.
Tamwulf wrote: There is a beta edition out for the new edition of Heavy Gear. I haven't read the entire thing yet, but when I'm talking to Robert D. at Gencon and the most exciting thing he can talk about is that you don't have to track ammo anymore in the new edition... well, there went my high hopes.
Bad_Syntax wrote: I spoke with both Robert Dubois and.... ummm, some other important guy at Gencon about it for like 30 min. I showed my frustration, but they were all about moving forward with this new blitz, saying "its faster!".
Robert's a damn fool; thats what he mentioned? I swear every time I think that man can't screw up his company any more than he already has, he says something stupid like that. *arrgh*
The biggest issue I still see with any kind of Kickstarter attempt by Dream Pod 9: Quite a number of folks are making the assumption that Robert Dubois is reading over, listening to, and above all understanding the assorted feedback and suggestions. Plus, as was pointed out to me elsewhere, there isn't anyone left who will stand up to the man and try to explain what all is being said, especially when reality diverges from what Robert wants to hear or has already decided to do.
Because after two Skype conversations and multiple email conversations over the better part of a year when he could be bothered to do so I, and others, have absolutely no need to make up anything regarding el presidente's level of competence involving "his" gaming title.
In fact, I think one reason it's been so hard to get across just what Robert is really like and why the company under his "leadership" has done so poorly isn't due to a small handful of folks drinking the cool-aide who'll defend him at every turn no matter what, but rather more that what stories have been related about his decisions and directives actually do read like attempts to make things up.
New fan or player blood, let alone the potential for new employees that a KS might make possible, is irrelevant, as the exact same person will still be making all of the necessary decisions in the manner he has repeatedly made them over the past decade.
Tamwulf wrote: [..] but the point of the comment was still lost. In a setting with such technology possible, why is a medium bazooka the best weapon in the game?
My thought on the matter, in case you or anyone else talking here rather than visiting the Pod forums hasn't seen it:
It's that time again ? I feel like yawning, I've written this post before, more than once, in this very thread.
Every few months or so, we get a bright-eyed eager new DP9 initiate that comes in here to prove himself by lecturing us old bags about how we complain too much, the past is the past, and if we really wanted to improve things, we'd lend a hand to make the game better and all, etc, blablablabla...
Been there. Done that.
Read the 39 pages for a more detailed accounts of all the things we tried and experienced. Nothing worked. No amounts of efforts and selfless dedication made any difference past the cosmetic. Why ? DP9™.
What else are you here for other than being a pain?
The new initiates try to do something that you've given up on. Heck, you hardly even post anything helpful in the forums at all anymore at DP9, you just lurk.
Second Edit: Put Hudson on Ignore. I'm through trying to talk things out with him. Sorry guys.
Look, everyone knows that, when you put your hand on a red stove, and it hurts, you have to touch the stove again! It does not matter that it's still glowing red, or that there's no reason to think it had time to cool down.
You keep putting your hand on it until it does not hurt!
Incidentally, I may get to visit a third degree burn and a psychiatric ward soon.
I've actually been a forum member at DP9 since Jul 2010. I've played Heavy Gear in some form or another since the mid 90's and rolled with Heavy Gear and the company since then. Heck, I'm still listed as a member of the Pod Squad!
As far as the playtest goes, here is what I posted in the DP9 Forums in December, 2013:
Ok, here is an issue I'm seeing right now:
People are discussing game balance with the units. More TV, less TV, what about this weapon, what about that weapon, this Gear should have X rule or Y ability…. these are all end game balance issues and are very easy to fix AFTER the actual rules have been ironed out.
I understand we need stats on models to play test, but the last thing we should be testing right now is unit balance. We need to be focusing on how the rules work or don't work. It doesn't matter that a Grizzly has too much movement or can shoot clear across the table. Big deal! That issue can be ironed out later. What matters is how EW interacts with cover and locks. Or are the modifiers to hit a moving target in cover too much, or too little?
The new rules are a significant change over the old system and really, really need to be play tested to the maximum extent possible. Once the rules are established, it becomes very, very easy to create units capturing the flavor/vision of each unique faction in the game. But this can only happen after the rules are solid.
Really, it would be a much better play test if we were given very generic Gears with no obvious affiliation with any of the armies on Terra Nova (or beyond). We would be less concerned with how "our" army is going to play in the new rules, and be more focused on how the rules actually play out.
I was taken to task for making this post by more than one of the employees of DP9 at the time and by some of the "Old Hats/Neckbeards". I was astonished that I was told to STFU, and that I didn't know what I was talking about. Right then and there, I knew this edition of Heavy Gear was going to be a failure. That marked the end of my active participation in the DP9 Forums and play test. When the play testers won't accept criticism or feedback, then why bother?
I applaud your enthusiasm for Heavy Gear and the game, and wish you the best! For me, I'll still buy the occasional model, and if I can find a game, I'll play. My enthusiasm for the game has waned considerably after being taken to task one too many times from die-hard neckbeard veterans that are so entrenched with DP9, that they can't see the forest for the trees and by staff that have become "Yes Men" to Robert D. in the extreme. It would not surprise me if DP9 announced they were building Dreamland Amusement Park and inviting the little children over to play and drink some Jesus Juice.
The fact is however that the sub-lists are not meant to be balanced with the base faction list, they are meant to augment that list in a characterful and flavorful way.
Oh boy... looks like we'll have a repeat of the talons in RTCE's original release. They sure were flavorful and characterful without a hint of balance! I guess Paxton keeping their starting extra d6 on defense for absolutely no cost and nucoal's sublist that gets extra MP for no added cost are here to stay! In the meantime, other factions get the ability to have you, the player, spend more money.
Tamwulf, I have send numerous emails and PMs to DP9, about proper testing procedures. I tried using hand-wavy descriptions of the problems and simple improvements. It did not work. I tried using more technical descriptions and proposed more reliable, and systematic, procedures. It did not work. I tried to point out that the previous use of their procedure failed. It did not work. There's a reason I'm using a repetitive sentence structure: I'm trying to give you a taste of trying to get then to improve!
I tried, more than once, to get them to actually test. They don't want to.
I think that they believe, despite having no experience with game design, or design in general, they are experts. After all, they have played games for decades. That make them automatically experts! That's why I'm an expert in video game programming, 3d modelling, acting, singing, space exploration and rocket science. I have been using the end product for decade, so I'm an expert!
... Wait, no, that's ridiculous. I'm not an expert on any of those things, nor am I an expert on game design. Ironically, I could probably become an expert in video game programming relatively rapidly, because I spent a lot of time learning maths and programming, when I was not playing video games. It's also that experience that makes me look at DP9 testing procedure and recoil in horror. It's the kind of procedure I would use to deflect responsibility for the bugs, or to pretend that my proposal improves performance; it's definitively not the kind of procedure I would use to find and fix bugs, or to prove that my proposal improves performance.
What else are you here for other than being a pain?
The new initiates try to do something that you've given up on. Heck, you hardly even post anything helpful in the forums at all anymore at DP9, you just lurk.
Second Edit: Put Hudson on Ignore. I'm through trying to talk things out with him. Sorry guys.
HudsonD wrote:What can I say ? Some people just can't handle the truth...
mrondeau wrote:Look, everyone knows that, when you put your hand on a red stove, and it hurts, you have to touch the stove again! It does not matter that it's still glowing red, or that there's no reason to think it had time to cool down.
You keep putting your hand on it until it does not hurt!
Hudson, Yeah, I shouldn't have come to this Negatively themed thread, "[Heavy Gear] Why did you stop or never start playing it?" , to try to see if there is anybody here that might want to save this. Fine. You don't like it. Let it burn, but please go stand across the street while the rest of us try to save the structure.
Yeah, I started playing in 2012, when L&L was on. No, I didn't immediately start going on to forums looking for drama. I just wanted to play, and I only really wanted my friends and I to play. I only started hitting the forums because I had rules questions.
Now, now I'm stuck in the middle of the debate, at least over on DP9s forum. I've pissed some people off, Cerberus_02 being a key one. Now I've gotten some of y'all all up in arms, though I think you were to begin with. Should have learned be inconspicuous, the enemy may be low on ammo. I get your arguments and complaints. But I don't give up, I'll be bailing on the Titanic. It's just the way I was raised, the way I wast trained, it's in my DNA. Ask my wife, my old Platoon Sergeants, and my Boss now. Stubborn should be on tattooed on my shoulders, to serve as warning for the rest of you. But I'm not some jack*** who just digs his heels in arbitrarily.
I'm not taking Robert Dubois side. Yeah, I've had a couple email conversations with him, and he was completely, "Just wait, it gets better. We have big things in store. Will we see you at GenCon this year? You can email me any time with a question, I love talking to fans. " Seemed like a nice guy, but appearances can be deceiving. And I've had emails be completely ignored from both Dave and Robert. Cool, whatever. I'm sorry that you think those of us who went, hey, this is a fixer up / rescue dog. Maybe with enough love and discipline we can save this poor creature. Yeah, I'm seeing the cracks in the plaster. I see the mange. I just won't give up hope.
At this point, you seem to want it to fail. Let it fall then, but it isn't your job to help push it over. I guess my side of it is, if the company is going to fail because there primary product fails, and they are in dire enough straights that it drags them down, has anybody given thought to at that point swooping in and trying to save the Universe? If and when the business fails, then we could get together and approach the owner of the IP and offer to buy it. Where would the controlling interest go? Arkrite Studios who are making the RPG? Stompy Bot / Mektek who are developing the next generation of PC games? Where does that leave the IP as far as tabletop gaming?
Look, I'll come with ideas all day long. Like I said, I'd still be bailing on the Titanic. I'm a fighter, and I don't go down easy, or back out.
mrondeau wrote:
I think that they believe, despite having no experience with game design, or design in general, they are experts. After all, they have played games for decades.
That make them automatically experts! That's why I'm an expert in video game programming, 3d modelling, acting, singing, space exploration and rocket science.
I have been using the end product for decade, so I'm an expert!
... Wait, no, that's ridiculous.
I'm not an expert on any of those things, nor am I an expert on game design. Ironically, I could probably become an expert in video game programming relatively rapidly, because I spend a lot of time learning maths and programming, when I was not playing video games.
It's also that experience that make me look at DP9 testing procedure and recoil in horror. It's the kind of procedure I would use to deflect responsibility for the bugs, or to pretend that my proposal improve performance; it's definitively not the kind of procedure I would use to find and fix bugs, or to prove that my proposal improve performance.
You bring up really good points. I'm not "read in" as the CIA likes to say, into the whole situation. I got jumped up and down on when I had an original thought the other day, and what I believe to be Rob D and companies cheerleaders kept telling me that trying to get new, casual gamers by presenting the rules in a logical and progressive manner is idiocy, because this is a HARDCORE game for HARDCORE GAMERS and that is the market the company needs to appeal to. I had a few people that thought I was trying to get them to dumb the rules down, when infact, I just wanted to make them progressive. Start with simple army construction, move to target lock, movement and shooting direct fire. Then bring in IDF, FO, Guided trait and target designation in the next chapter. Then add.. etc. You read 3 chapters, you can play a basic game of heavy gear. Myself and others fleshed the concept out in another forum thread, but I'm starting to get a sense that I should have done this here, or on another forum entirely, because it'll probably get picked to death by the Company, and not get introduced as a cohesive whole that will work. But instead will have, "this concept, and this concept and *flip flip flip* this concept. Throw the rest away" Oh well. Maybe Robert and Dave aren't reading my thread, so I shouldn't worry too much.
Firebreak wrote:That's an interesting point. If the Pod fails, who retains the IP/IP rights to Heavy Gear?
I'll volunteer for that. Anybody else want to join me, maybe help get a business loan? Any body an expert on international Copyright Law? I know it's a Canadian company. But there seems to be a strong interest in a distributed Network that seems centered on the US. or maybe we just have the biggest mouths.
HudsonD wrote: Being eager, and being useful. Two different things.
Thanks Hudson, for that great nugget of... something.
Input, that's not right...
Snark? No, it wasn't really all that clever, just a little.
Ah, Interference, that's it. You were hindering the idea I was bringing to the table. You were being the exact opposite of useful. You were being a hindrance, a road block, what Marine officers like to refer to as "Friction".
Thanks for that. I'll treasure it always, like the scars I've earned. As a lesson to be remembered.
You might have gotten a more positive reception if you had not started by dismissing your interlocutors and their experience, while trying to silence them.
Warphound wrote: Hudson, Yeah, I shouldn't have come to this Negatively themed thread, "[Heavy Gear] Why did you stop or never start playing it?" , to try to see if there is anybody here that might want to save this. Fine. You don't like it. Let it burn, but please go stand across the street while the rest of us try to save the structure.
So... let me get this straight... you've come to post to a "negative" thread to... tell people to piss off and stop talking? Hm. That's... something. Not sure what.
I thought this thread was intended to be constructive for newcomers.
Warphound summed up my feelings pretty well in most respects. I am not, repeat, not telling anyone to STFU. But I have reiterated often that those who worked with Dream Pod 9 in the past have had serious headaches. I get that, but as Warphound said, if you feel so burnt, why not just let it be?
Tamwulf, sorry you got such a reception at the forums. I have always strived to make the online community welcome... particularly since it is a very public face to all the Internet comers and goers.
My enthusiasm is sometimes stepped on.
Right now though it appears that there are hard questions to ask about the Beta, which I will poll in the Development forum.
I know we are not going to get what we all want, but I do want to help show we aren'the a bunch of neckbeards. *checks neck* Nope, still clean shaven mostly.
My basis for much of my defense of the game has been the story. Heavy Gear has a lot to offer new players who want to get in on a mecha genre game that has more crunch than Gundam, Macross, or in some cases Mechwarrior/Battletech.
Is it in need of updating? Yes. My military background often leads me to use inference and writing what I know about present day combat to help new players get the feel for the story.
I don't want the game to burn down, flush down or self-destruct. I want it to grow.
As far as who retains the IP rights, my understanding is that the Pod still is the original holder, Firebreak.
Warboss, I am thinking that that question about army creation and sub-lists will help grow the game. Lots of guys have pointed out that the sub-lists need improving, so I will see about asking other poll questions for play testers and newcomers to sound off.
As far as systematic, mrondeau, I don't have the mathematics background that you do. If you can confer with Ice raptor about his maths, perhaps you could give everyone a better math-based understanding of the probabilities?
Edit: To answer my own question at the beginning, I think most of those who have posted here do want to see the same success for Heavy Gear as I do.
As far as who retains the IP rights, my understanding is that the Pod still is the original holder, Firebreak.
Wouldn't it be a horrifying world in which tabletop games had the same clauses as movies - don't make one for X number of years, lose the rights! The atrocities we would see would make GW and the Pod's worst mistakes seem like walks in the park!
(I have no idea who they would hypothetically lose the rights to, in that case )
BrandonKF wrote: Walk away Hudson. Heck, you hardly even post anything helpful in the forums at all anymore at DP9, you just lurk. [..] I'm through trying to talk things out with him.
Warphound wrote: Fine. You don't like it. Let it burn, but please go stand across the street while the rest of us try to save the structure.
BrandonKF wrote: I am not, repeat, not telling anyone to STFU. But I have reiterated often that those who worked with Dream Pod 9 in the past have had serious headaches. I get that, but as Warphound said, if you feel so burnt, why not just let it be?
To be frank, this isn't one of el presidente's dictatorial fiefdoms where he or his disciples can mod or ban at will without objectivity (some mods are exceptions to this obviously) - folks here are free to say most anything they want at any time. No one is forcing their views on anyone else, or not to the extent that keeps happening over on the Pod forums as ever fewer folks bother to post anything, at least for those that haven't already been modded until they leave if not banned outright.
Everyone is also perfectly free as well to use or not use what gets posted, or just /ignore one another at will.
As I think mrondeau said before, part of the intent here is not just to talk things HG, but also to keep alive discussing what the Pod has done wrong, and why, so that knowledge exists for folks to find, whether they be an existing fan or a potential/new player. And given how people tend to never read beyond the last few pages, if that, I think keeping going exactly why this thread got started in the first place actually is kind of important.
People should always be able to get multiple viewpoints on something before deciding to spend their own $$$, rather than simply see an almost endless series of nigh-perfect reviews or supportive posts that may not reflect reality.
The fact is however that the sub-lists are not meant to be balanced with the base faction list, they are meant to augment that list in a characterful and flavorful way.
Oh boy... looks like we'll have a repeat of the talons in RTCE's original release. They sure were flavorful and characterful without a hint of balance! I guess Paxton keeping their starting extra d6 on defense for absolutely no cost and nucoal's sublist that gets extra MP for no added cost are here to stay! In the meantime, other factions get the ability to have you, the player, spend more money.
Going back to allowing a "generic" faction kind of boggles me, considering that starting with NuCoal in 2011 it became impossible to not pick a sub-faction during force creation.
I don't have L&L on the PC right now, so I don't remember for sure if folks had to pick a sub-faction back then too, or if they could just play a primary faction and simply not use a set of League-specific swaps or rules.
Warphound wrote: [..] when the business fails, then we could get together and approach the owner of the IP and offer to buy it. Where would the controlling interest go? Arkrite Studios who are making the RPG? Stompy Bot / Mektek who are developing the next generation of PC games? Where does that leave the IP as far as tabletop gaming?
Firebreak wrote: That's an interesting point. If the Pod fails, who retains the IP/IP rights to Heavy Gear?
The Generalissimo may hold the license(s) personally after the previous DP9 folks left en masse. I'm pretty sure he mentioned something like that while talking about what lawyers the Pod had on retainer during a Skype meeting about updating the VASSAL module, although what might be used to actually pay them could be an interesting topic point.
I also recollect somewhat, as I don't have the email or Skype message anymore, that at least one person told me they looked into getting the rights to [JC] but Robert asked for such a ridiculous sum that the attempt went nowhere.
But I suppose it's only to be expected when the guy has no qualms about trying to get interest in a KS going prior to announcing part of the funds would go to staff costs, all without mentioning he would be one of those folks himself because he can't keep employees or freelancers.
It is my belief that a company that knowingly sells a flawed product isn't ethical, and should be warned against, for recommending people toward such a business is just as unethical, if not more so.
I understand that not everyone shares that belief, and that's ok, I'm not easily intimidated.
As for DP9, first they lost the original files for 2nd Ed, and couldn't be arsed to salvage them. Funny how they boast about "listening to the fans", yet the most commonly asked product is thoroughly ignored by the Pod. Hmmmm.
Then, as if that wasn't enough, they've actually lost the master for some minis !
Making new silicon molds of the masters is only possible if you still have the master which is not the case here
Things happen.. masters get dropped or damaged when removed from the mould. If the model isn't popular, I can see why they wouldn't want to redo do it for the limited sales it generates. I'm more curious as to exactly which models he is referring to (just the Recon Hunter or others as well?). The last time I bought multiples of an older sculpt from an online store, I pretty much got very old models that had been sitting around for years. The art was from the old L&L days and the pewter used was much duller than the last 5 years of new sculpt offerings. If folks want the older models that they've can't sculpt any more, there is a good chance of still getting them through 3rd parties.
In any case, as long as existing players still get to use their models then I think the most important base is covered. If there is suddenly a demand for a particular model, they can recommission the sculpt again to meet it.
Ok, warboss, I know you got whole armies invalidated. Twice. I can sympathize. That sucks.
That being said, I think you are so focused on that that you are reaching for the other extreme.
What you are currently pushing for (i.e. being able to play anything) would have adverse effects too.
Game balance would become non-existent.
Faction identity would be destroyed.
New players would be lost in an amorphous cloud of models and choices.
Even worse, fixing it later by re-adding restrictions would hurt even more.
It would perpetuate the problem and make it harder to fix later.
At this point, what's needed is a well defined vision for the factions, with a well defined doctrine and toolbox for each faction, sub-list and combat group.
Each model need to have a well defined task, and to be only allowed where needed.
Then, when all that's done, it need to be refined and refined again.
Then, and that's the important part, it needs to be used for ever.
The restrictions are the symptoms; the illness is lack of vision and consistency.
Your prescription is to forget about vision and consistency altogether; mine is to actually have vision and consistency.
Retro-compatibility is important, but it has costs too.
Sometimes, it's better to break it.
That's usually when you are trying to be retro-compatible with many diverging standards.
It's better to fix the real problem.
A faction's doctrine and identity can be created to try and minimize the disruption to existing players.
That's better than losing game balance and severely increasing confusion for new players.
I would really like it if dakka implemented LaTeX-like formatting. It would be so much easier to write easy to read walls of text. I miss footnotes and well formatted paragraphs. Also, equations.
The restrictions are the symptoms; the illness is lack of vision and consistency.
Your prescription is to forget about vision and consistency altogether; mine is to actually have vision and consistency.
Retro-compatibility is important, but it has costs too.
Sometimes, it's better to break it.
Your prescription is an 1800's magic cure all tonic as it'll never happen in the current and perennial climate at dp9 whereas mine is a bandage for the gaping wound that is HG. You make some good points that I agree with but, again, they'll never happen. At best, DP9 will pick and choose the best parts in terms of their own short term profits (retrocompatibility is bad... especially if we broke the masters!) and forget the rest ("it needs to be used forever"). I'm just more grounded in my approach and admittedly am looking out for myself as well because DP9 has proven time and time again that they don't give a damn.
If they don't care, you might as well just stop playing. After all, even if they give you what you want now, they will just take it away later.
You'll just get to play an even more unbalanced game for a little bit longer.
It will be harder to recruit, because of the lack of balance, and because it'll also be even harder for new players to start.
Ultimately, after years of short time thinking and easy solutions that did not solve anything, only a magic cure all tonic can help HG.
I don't believe in magic. I just like to pretend I do.
mrondeau wrote: Ultimately, after years of short time thinking and easy solutions that did not solve anything, only a magic cure all tonic can help HG.
On that I think we can agree. What remains to be seen is whether the kickstarter will turn out to be some magic beans that will grow into a gigantic stalk or just something that fits in one hand and gives everyone bad gas.
They've pretty much painted themselves into a corner. Due to stupid patch fixes and short term thinking, along with other imbalanced variants being added, they really have to invalidate some models and combat groups.
Example: Those all MBZK squads.
And I agree with mrondeau, they really needed to ensure that models and weapons have well defined roles. Blitz was terrible at this, because generally the higher damage, more accurate weapon was better versus everything, and superior in every way.
Companies that operate in fear mode will never deliver great products and services to the marketplace. Their efforts will be hamstrung by their talent-repelling management practices.
( Note that 'companies' could just as easily be replaced by '[x] organization,' or even 'governments.' )
"Our reason is the director of our actions and also the spirit of our plan.... We must analyze its motive and discover where it has failed us; thus we shall turn errors to our advantage by compelling them to teach us."
"Why do we so persistently fail to do so? Not only because we lack imagination, but because we suppress the little that we have. If we wish to think clearly, we must cease imitating; if we wish to cease imitating, we must make use of our imagination." - J.F.C. Fuller
sake. They should be able to put out a new edition of a game nearly that old on their own dime. The only reason the Pod SHOULD have for going to Kickstarter, is to overhaul their minis. They shouldn't need to crowdfund STAFF.
