Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Anyone tried Dream Pod 9's newest version of Heavy gear, Heavy Gear Blitz? Looks like they rewrote the sometimes cumbersome older rules with faster play in mind. No system specific damage, just damage boxes. Oh, and the scale is now true so it's easier to sue N-scale terrain.

And new minis. Compatible with the older ones (but not the old RAFM ones) but they're remodeling them to look more 'cinematic' and have more options.

Why would I want to sue N-scale terrain? Class action lawsuit I don't know about?

I haven't played it and would be curious myself about how it turned out.

You can get quick-start (demo) rules from their website.
http://www.dp9.com/Funhouse/HGB_Demo.htm

I have bought some gears and N-scale terrain and they are looking good.
Not much gaming experience yet.

They are publishing an updated rulebook (HGB: Locked&Loaded) later this month, so you should wait until then if you plan on buying the rules. These new rules won't make miniatures or "codexes" obsolete, but tweak the balance and include more explanations, examples, pics etc.

I like how the rules try to include more details and different aspects of warfare, so it's not just "move, shoot & hand-to-hand". Theres things like fighter airstrikes, electronic warfare, target designation, forward observing & all sorts of interestings stuff. Plus the different scale is refreshing.

Locked and Loaded isn't scheduled until November, sadly. Looks like it's basically a revised edition instead of just doing a 2nd printing.

I used to be a major DP9 fanboy. The new rules have interested me quite a bit. If only I can find some time to paint and build new squads!

I've bought 'Hammers of Faith' the new-style Northern "Codex". It's interesting. They've gone from a very Battletech style (point values, but loose organization requirements) to something kind of like WHFB (each army has a series of charts detailing unit minimums and maximums at different point values).

Drilling down further, you select squads, not individual models. Like a GW game, a choice might be a selection of troops (Gears, in this case), a vehicle (or multiple vehicles), or a mess of 'swarms' (I.E. Infantry, which aren't completely useless compared to some big mecha games).

Each choice has a lot of options for upgrades and downgrades. You can add units, or swap a particular Gear for another model. Some swaps may save points as it's a downgrade to a less capable model.

An army builder also has veteran slots, which is a separate pool determined by the point value (one for every 750 points) of the game. You spend a slot and make an elligible squad a veteran, and it gets even more options... Usually bringing out the big nasty gears and the oddball weapons.

Moving back to the army level, I was impressed that the book has four army lists (The unified Confederated Northern City States army as well as it's three states. Each has a handful of special rules, most of which are army-building things. Some get special upgrades, some get mandatory upgrades. A few tabletop-rules as well. Each army has a chart of minimum and maximum units for a Gear Regiment, an Armor Regiment, and an Infantry Regiment, although in general all three can contain a little of each.

Then there's a few special units in the back that are more restrictive but have special options and rules.

Oh: I am a little turned off that the game has taken on more of a hand-to-hand edge, but in general it still doesn't seem too widespread.

I've played it quite a bit lately and I like it a lot. The minis are pretty good, with less falshing than GW or Rackham, and they fit together a LOT better.

The detail is nice and they are easy to customise.

As for the HGB game itself, its a much faster and less "beardy" version of the older HG tactical system. Many of the rules have been streamlined (most armor and chassis reinforcements simply add another damage box) and the movement and terrain rules make for a fun game thats easy to teach and learn. You can play a 10 on 10 game with mixed forces (thats 10 models per side, not 10 players) in about 20 - 30 minutes.

Part of what I like is that pretty much the rules are the same across the board. Tanks, infantry, gears, and other vehicles all use the same rules for movement and combat and such. (Infantry has a few additional rules that make them sort of like a swarm, but its nothing complicated.)

And the game is VERY compatible with the HG RPG. (Which is part of the appeal. It makes it easy to get new HGB players when you can introduce them to it by letting them use thier own RPG characters in HGB demos). And the rules are easy to work into the rest of the HG line.

As a result, you can play the game on several levels. As a straight wargame with a point based scenario. As a quick way to resolve RPG combats between gears and such. Or as part of a campain where you can run simultaneous combat with starships, landers, fighters, tanks, gears, infantry, and man to man RPG combat all at the same time. Something you can't really do with 40K, Epic, and BFG.

And I like any "giant robot" game where groups of infantry can actually threaten a gear or tank.

Just my 2 cents worth.

Damn, I gotta get me a copy!

I'm finally narrowing down my 'primary' force. I plan on building several factions to around 500 points for demo purposes, but I've sketched out a full 1500 of the Western Frontier Protectorate Army, a northern variant known for poor funding. Blitz! isn't jsut mechs, and I ended up doing an Armor regiment.

My list is available here. I'm still tweaking it. This version of HG has somewhat "WHFB" style unit creation, and there's a number of 5-10 point upgrades available. If I don't make any big changes, I'll probably spend the remaining 15 on drones.

By the way, the newest book, Shields of Freedom, was recently released (in PDF: printed version soon). It's interesting. Some bad typos and last-minute changes, but some really interesting ideas.

SoF has three lists:

First is the Peace River Defense Force, which is the army of the major neutral arms manufacturer of Terra Nova and it's independent city-state. They're big enough to have their own line of Gears (the Mecha of the setting) and take a 'quality over quantity' approach as they don't have the manpower of the polar nations. They don't have the Main Battle Tanks the polar nations like, but they do have some unique toys like the Cataphract.

Next is PAK, or Port Arthur Korps. This is a small faction based around a city that was the foothold of the last failed invasion by Earth. The army is based around this: They have the remnants of the invasion's war machine: Hovertanks, GRELs (clone soldiers), and simialr backed by Gear squads from their Terra Novan allies.

(Plot-wise, PAK is an interesting faction. They could swing either way if Earth returns. They miss their home, but they've gone native and feel abandoned, too.)

Last up is the Leagueless, which seems to be where a lot of issues are located. The Leagueless is kind of an 'catch all' for Terra Novan forces. It can represent raiders, local protective forces, or mercenary bands. The Leagueless is noted as kind of an 'experts' army: players will need access to other books for unit stats as this list pulls units from multiple sources. It's a defintie 'catch all' list, as you could have a Northern Kodiak leading Southern Basilisks with infantry on riding beasts.

Some neat stuff.

Balance wrote:Anyone tried Dream Pod 9's newest version of Heavy gear, Heavy Gear Blitz? Looks like they rewrote the sometimes cumbersome older rules with faster play in mind. No system specific damage, just damage boxes. Oh, and the scale is now true so it's easier to sue N-scale terrain.

And new minis. Compatible with the older ones (but not the old RAFM ones) but they're remodeling them to look more 'cinematic' and have more options.

If you like the old system, detailed wargaming? No, it's not any good.

If you like GW style dumbing down? It's Ok. Just look through the rules and try to spot the systems they were influenced by .

The system used to be a good mildly complex system, in between GW and FASA. Now, closing on the GW level of child like play. So I guess if that's what turns your crank, enjoy. As for me I'll play Heavy Gear Classic, and have fun with damage tables and ammo tracking.

Or maybe return to CBT, a superior game in all ways.

As to the remodelling of the gears, didn't they just lose the guy responsible for thier gears (Just trying to remember what I saw in a different forum)?

Yes they did lose their main modeler.

efarrer: I detect a certain bias. Could you explain why Classic Battletech is, in your opinion, better than Heavy Gear?

Nurglitch wrote:efarrer: I detect a certain bias. Could you explain why Classic Battletech is, in your opinion, better than Heavy Gear?

I prefer Classic battletech for a variety of reasons:

Despite a number of people trying to convince me otherwise the randomness of d6 rolls over 2d6 rolls is a mechanic which bothers me.
I have always preferred the charts and armour of battletech, but I could stand Heavy Gear as a compromise, when you had the location charts.
The curve of veterran pilots in CBT is nowhere near as extreme as it is in Heavy Gear.
I actually like the record keeping aspects of CBT, and the old Heavy gear.
I have played and enjoyed both (CBT and Heavy Gear), but I will always prefer CBT (much to the disgust of my Heavy Gear playing friends).

I don't think I've been particularly unclear about my preferences, but I did like the older version of Heavy Gear. Just preferred battle tech.

Let me just number these things, to keep track of things.

You prefer Classic Battletech to Heavy Gear because:

1. So you prefer a curve rather than a flat distribution.

2. You prefer more book-keeping.

3. What do you mean by "extreme"? I haven't checked but the curve described by increasing skill in Heavy Gear seems to be less extreme than that of Classic Battletech, although I suppose we'd have to get into binomial distribution to check.

4. Same as #2.

5. You prefer Classic Battletech to Heavy Gear.

You've been clear, if somewhat circular in some cases, why you prefer Classic Battletech to Heavy Gear. I just don't much explanation as to why. I mean, how is the distribution of 1d6 more random than 2d6, and why do you prefer the latter to the former supposing it is more random? Likewise what is it about the record keeping aspect that appeals?

Nurglitch wrote:Let me just number these things, to keep track of things.

You prefer Classic Battletech to Heavy Gear because:

1. So you prefer a curve rather than a flat distribution.

2. You prefer more book-keeping.

3. What do you mean by "extreme"? I haven't checked but the curve described by increasing skill in Heavy Gear seems to be less extreme than that of Classic Battletech, although I suppose we'd have to get into binomial distribution to check.

4. Same as #2.

5. You prefer Classic Battletech to Heavy Gear.


You've been clear, if somewhat circular in some cases, why you prefer Classic Battletech to Heavy Gear. I just don't much explanation as to why. I mean, how is the distribution of 1d6 more random than 2d6, and why do you prefer the latter to the former supposing it is more random? Likewise what is it about the record keeping aspect that appeals?

Roll 1d6. pure random.
Ok. roll 2d6 keep best one. repeat a couple of times. (Qualified are just better then not, and you've doubled your chance of a 6 while reducing your chances of crit failure to 1 in 36))
Now roll 3d6 and keep the best one. Repeat a couple of times. (Veteran HG IRC).
Legendary is 4d6. Failure is highly unlikely. Critical failure becomes a rarity as levels go up. It is an exponential improvement in preventing automatic failures( getting a 1 on the roll becomes a 1 in 1296 chance ) and 4 times as likely to return higher numbers.

Battle tech rolls 2d6. Probabilities are fixed for 2d6 rolls You know roughly whether or not you will fail. I like the mathematical certanties of battle tech. The randomness of heavy gear always bothers me a little. A vet is +1 and an elite is +2. That is an incremental improvement.

Heavy Gear veterans are thus hugely better than CBT veterans, and elites even more so.


Did you keep track of your ammo and system damage when you played heavy gear? It's lighter book keeping then CBT but not by that much, but it was fun with some cool results.

Do I like book keeping? Yes, I do. I find it fun (and the fans who keep on buying Cbt must as well). I've done some accounting type work too and enjoyed that. Doesn't make me evil, just mistunderstood .

efarrer wrote:

Roll 1d6. pure random.
Ok. roll 2d6 keep best one. repeat a couple of times. (Qualified are just better then not, and you've doubled your chance of a 6 while reducing your chances of crit failure to 1 in 36))
Now roll 3d6 and keep the best one. Repeat a couple of times. (Veteran HG IRC).
Legendary is 4d6. Failure is highly unlikely. Critical failure becomes a rarity as levels go up. It is an exponential improvement in preventing automatic failures( getting a 1 on the roll becomes a 1 in 1296 chance ) and 4 times as likely to return higher numbers.

But your missing something, difficulty modifier. Let's take a legendary pilot, so 4d6. And just for fun put him in a snake eye black mamba. Then we are going to have our pilot go top speed secondary movement system (-3), at extreme range (-3), and just for fun engage multiply targets (-1 per target). So you have a -7 modifier on a roll of 4d6, and even if you roll four sixes you still have a net result of 2.

Mr_Lime wrote:
But your missing something, difficulty modifier. Let's take a legendary pilot, so 4d6. And just for fun put him in a snake eye black mamba. Then we are going to have our pilot go top speed secondary movement system (-3), at extreme range (-3), and just for fun engage multiply targets (-1 per target). So you have a -7 modifier on a roll of 4d6, and even if you roll four sixes you still have a net result of 2.

Also you ignored the positive modifiers for fire con and accuracy.



Yes.
I can generate automatic failures in either system as well. If you want to fail free to, but don't try to argue that represents some sort of balancing out. Lets try somethin more realistic.

Medium -1
Fire Con +1
Combat Speed 0

reasonable chance of a six or higher.

Using your scenario,
Battletech
ran +2
Extreme range +6
Secondary target +1

for an 13 to hit modified down to a 11 by elite status


Your point?

Yes sorry about that I forgot those.

How many games of heavy gear have you played where the average engagement range is that far away? Usually when ever I have fought in heavy gear, I am fighting at short to point blank range.

Ok, I see your point.

effarrer: If you look at the probabilities for U2d6 and 1/2d6, I think you'll see that they're equivalent in terms of randomness, but someone better versed than I in statistics would have to demonstrate that.

I found that keeping track of damage and ammunition in Heavy Gear easier, book-keeping-wise, than Battletech. I especially prefer the combat system and the interactions between success, damage, and armour (in terms of book-keeping and aesthetic appeal - the trees don't get in the way of the forest).

Don't get me wrong, I find book-keeping very interesting from a point of view of the philosophy of mathematics, and very entertaining in certain cases (Carcassonne, for example, is a game I enjoy that is a book-keeping exercise, or Bohnanza when you allow a future's market). I just prefer the amount and kind of book-keeping in Heavy Gear to that of Battletech (as well as game-play). I was just curious to hear more about your perspective.

Nurglitch wrote:effarrer: If you look at the probabilities for U2d6 and 1/2d6, I think you'll see that they're equivalent in terms of randomness, but someone better versed than I in statistics would have to demonstrate that.

I must now admit to being totally wrong. The silcore probabilites, while completely different to the ones I am familar with are infact much more likely to return higher results.

malfred wrote:Yes they did lose their main modeler.

They did, but it's more accurate to say he's switched from full-time to working as a freelancer. Apparently due in part to some frustrations with DP9.

While efarrer may find HGB! simplistic and 40k-like, I feel it is significantly less simplistic than 40k and would be a good system to try if you find that 40k has become repetitive and/or uninteresting lately...

I have looked at BattleTech about 10-15 years past, in fact I bought the rules before getting Rogue Trader but the book-keeping did not appeal then and not now. Plus the current Mechs simply don't look good. In fact there are many things I don't like about BattleTech (and some I do like) but appreciate it is a matter of personal preferences.

The sculptor DP9 "lost" has just posted previews of the latest large Strider class walker (Dragon) on the DP9 forum, looks quite imposing.

SamuliA wrote:While efarrer may find HGB! simplistic and 40k-like, I feel it is significantly less simplistic than 40k and would be a good system to try if you find that 40k has become repetitive and/or uninteresting lately...

Or you could try one of the very cheap to get older versions of Dp 9's preimer game and get the real experiance, which has been my commentary on Blitz from the very beginning of the thread. I don't think highly of the new version. Doesn't mean I think the property is worthless. I just think that the older version of the rules is the better product.

It's a different game, despite using the same core mechanics and setting.

My attempts to play Heavy Gear Tac Mini Rules (Which I think are a freebie at DTRPG) were not entirely successful. As a learning thing, you lost a lot of the 'feel' by ignoring the advanced rules to keep game play speed up.

The new system seems a lot more 'tuned' to the setting, which is good. A lot of stuff that made sense when they were pushing RPG/Tac integration has been hidden as it isn't relevant in a Tac based game.

As an interesting note, I'm working on painting and converting a 1500 point Western Frontier Protectorate Armor Regiment. 1500 points, which I think DP9 is intending as a similar level of complexity to a 1500 point WH40k game, gets me four tanks (three small, one large), a Mammoth strider, and two squads of gears (to act as maneuver units and designate/forward observe for the tanks) along with a couple drones. This should all fit in a single Sabol army transport tray...

For anyone interested, the PDF of the revised rules, titled Heavy Gear Blitz!: Locked & Loaded, has been released via dtrpg. I'm still jsut getting into it but there's some interesting tweaks:

Many units have been recosted along with some stat tweaks.

The one book effectively replaces the previous main rules and three army books.

Multiple Attacker Penalty has been replaced with a new rule to minimize the oddities of 4-model squads with three peashooters and a hand-cannon being overpowering.

Army creation is different. There is no longer seperate WHFB-style charts for different point values. A 'Priority level' system replaces this and the use of 'veteran slots' and contributes to a new 'resource' called Support Points. A high Priority force gets easier access to elite units and such, but is likely going to have a lot more to do in a 'real' scenario as they will have multiple objectives.

SPs and the Priority system are one of many things designed to minimize a flaw of the previous book, which was that horde armies had massive advantages. Air Strikes and defensive stuff are now bought with SPs, not normal TV. Leftover SPs turn into Command Points. Both of these rules can probably be ignored if you're jsut doing a 'brawl' scenario.

So far it's interesting. They've released the PDF for the 'early adopter' fanboys like myself, and will be taking feedback to prepare the version to go to print in a couple weeks.

I have been waiting for this release to get back into HG! I guess it's time to dust off the old gears and maybe slap some paint on a few new ones.

It's too bad that HG Blitz has never really grabbed a hold of the gaming community. It is a fantastic wargame and I would imagine LaL will make it even better.

Hopefully L&L does well. it's a very nice looking book (at least the PDF I currently have!). They've gone back to the older Heavy gear layout and changed just enough to hopefully make it play a bit smoother.

Over on the Pod's forums they've mentioned they are brainstorming changing the planned CEF book into a bookt hat advances the storyline a book and has rules for the 'modern' CEF* and some of the other colonies. (Probably Caprice. Maybe someone else.)

* "Shields of Freedom" (now succeeded by L&L) has rules for PAK, or Port Arthur Korp, a force formed from stranded CEF troops who have built a small nation in the badlands.

Some other itneresting stuff I've noticed while reading the rules:

Drones are now more like what the 40k community would think of as 'wargear' specifically a better defined version of the various familiars, robed midgets, etc. The same three kinds exist (Hunter-Killer (Anti-infantry), Recon (Scouting, target designation), and Demo (Boom!)) and are joined by one 'special' drone, the AA Drone, that is purchased with Support Points instead of TV.

This is kind of a weird decision, but as the aircraft are also a Support Point purchase, it makes some sense: The rules state that SP and some associated stuff can be dropped for simpler games or possibly tournament play. (The other SP stuff includes bunkers and static defenses, reserves and airdroping units, and buying additional command points.)

* The army creation is, overall, simpler. On the downside, there is now no forced difference between an Armored, Gear, or Infantry unit. Each squad entry contains a small list of the factions (broken down into leagues, so the Northern GP squad lists the CNCS as well as the Norlight, UMFA, and WFPA) and if the unit counts as Core, Special, Aux, or Elite for each.

* The ECM and lock-on rules, something that has always been confusing in Heavy Gear, are much more explainable now.

*The re-balancing means my 1500 point WFPA went to about 1300. I'm redesigning it to go to 1000 and 2000 as these seem to be the new suggested sizes: the book includes sample armies for each main faction at 1000 points, PL3.

* They're offering a $10 discount on ordering the printed book if you get the PDF. Not sure how long this will last... Good if you want a portable copy.

I agree, there is some great stuff in LaL. I'm just trying to soak it all in while I'm painting Gears.