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.

So here is where you all have been hanging!
I'ts me Rolando, good to see some familiar faces.

I think the desert viper always had more squared legs, and the water viper looks slightly more rounded but the only drawing I have may be deceiving.

It seems they are releasing more new models and parts this year, like the Longbow Jager, but the stats may not be according to old fluff, instead they are meant to fill a niche in the current states of the armies, I think that is better for the game even if it makes no sense in the traditional fluff.

The Rooster guy is doing a good job at handling the new rules and what few players still post in the official forums.

I still miss some of the old rules like detection but the new rules is what is getting company support and new players like that, most people don't like playing dead rules with no support or new material, and they are better in some ways I think, so, I still be in the official for a while... and local players are getting an interest the game again.

I think they are making everything 3d first, it is faster and easier.

It also seems to me they are giving free reigns to the sculptors as to what to produce, because the nemesis jaguar is such a fringe model compared to other variants it makes little sense to produce. But I like more new models so I got no problem with that.

 warboss wrote:

 Pointman wrote:
I think they are making everything 3d first, it is faster and easier.

It also seems to me they are giving free reigns to the sculptors as to what to produce, because the nemesis jaguar is such a fringe model compared to other variants it makes little sense to produce. But I like more new models so I got no problem with that.

I'd say it's no more niche than the Fer de Lance and we got that around 5(?) years ago. It fills a specific role (commander/duelist specific gear) for one of the two big TN factions and looks cool too.

Good point!

Compared to artwork everything looks ham-fisted
these ones are going to be metal, though, so I expert them will be as good as previous blitz metals.

They will never be like in the tactical (large scale) era.

It will probably will use the current jaguar and add the weapons, just like the longbow jager.

I have to agree that the old models I have seeing in pictures are somewhat better in look and more faithful to the drawings (specially like the command jager German helmet head), but they would be prohibitively expensive today.

This forum is like a "just talk thrash of dp9 forum", it's sad, I came here to see what the old boys where playing and what new things are they doing with the old material. Not much it seems.

I don't expect an "overall positive thread", just a little surprised it is as if not a single day have passed.

Maybe I was expecting the old player base to be playing something Heavy Gear related and only seeing the same snarky comments was kind of a downer. It have being what, 4 years already?

It's fine if you want to vent at every misstep of DP9 but is not what I was expecting, just a personal opinion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
About posting something positive, it is hard to say what may be considered positive, many in this forum don't like the direction the game is taking, so most of what may be considering positive will not be.

for example, I see more people playing the game and into demos than a few years ago (during the great exodus) and the way the Rooster guy is handling the new rules are very good. yes, many things are not 2ed equivalent but the current game play very well (I still miss the detection rules, though.).

What you think of the new version of the rules?

The newer plastic NuCoal and Peace River looks much better than South and North plastics, specially the south, the south really got the short stick in the past kickstarter, but Caprice is much better now thanks to it.

The new NuCoal look a lot better in the 3d models at least.
Still a little stiff the legs but with more and better joints so, maybe more varied possible poses.

Yes, the 2ed removed the VCS entirely, but it is complete in the Tech Manual, great book with lots of good info, a good read if you like technical stuff.

The current rules are the Living Rulebook, it is right now in a beta stage, and is being rewritten for clarity.

There is a draft in a .doc document that have the better written rules, downloadable through the forums. DP9 is in the layout process to make these rules available when the kickstarter NuCoal and Peace River plastic minis are released.

https://dp9forum.com/index.php?/topic/18681-most-recent-hgb-30-rules-alphabeta-version-available/

I would advise you to forget about the current Living Rulebook and go straight to the .doc draft, because it is easier to understand, even without any diagram, and many of the more complex rules are different (specially EWar), also the models and weapons have better game balance (probably).

I never though Heavy Gear was a complicated system, you always just had to roll in an odd way (take highest and add +1 for each 6n now for each die that's higher than skill) and compare with the target for a margin of success).

So it is not less complex, no less calculus than before. Maybe a little less calculus because you don't multiply the margin of success now, you just add it to damage and subtract armor.

It is a lot easier to make a list though.

I think EWar is better now, EWar models have a lot more to do in the game, multiple offensive and defensive options, also the new objectives make the game better.

I think the game is an improve from past versions, as a wargame. I still miss many of the terrain rules, though, movement and detection in particular, also the support options like off board artillery.

In my area we have more people playing and interested in the game than before, but I don't think the rules have much to do with it, more the way they are handling the rules development and the community (meaning I'm more interested in doing demos now ).

The page looks good.
It's nice to see it clean of all the old rules snippets mixed in with the new ones, it was confusing for new players. It is also more informative.

I think the latest Rooster rules. During the early living rules the EWar was more interesting than older blitz but needed a lot of work to make them clear.

The current rules, Rooster version, are very clean. I have being playing five turns (a complete game) in about 2 hours weekly while we learn the rules, mid sized games with 10 to 14 models per side. The latest was EWar intensive and still took us less than 2 hours to complete.

I really like this because the Iguana is probably my favorite model and I like the feeling of fielding recon or aggressive recon forces.

 Albertorius wrote:
I mean... about two hours for a 10 to 14 minis per side is not really that fast? I mean, I play Infinity at that size and on that time, and Infinity is... Infinity.

And also, we take much longer than we could because we don't play that often and we spend a lot of time looking up rules.

For me any serious wargame at 2 hours or less is fast. Infinity is quite fast when you know your army and your list, also about 2 hours a complete 3 turns game.

Serious, complex games take long. Number of models just make them more detailed (complex skirmishes) or more broad strokes rules (lots of models). I remember playing other skirmish games like Malifaux and 40k kill team taking about 2 to 3 hours.

For me a complex (and interesting) game will take a while (about 2 hours is a fast game for me). A 2 hours game is something you can play a three round tourney in a single evening, or play 2 or three games for fun. Or just arrive at the store at 8:00pm and finish before closing. All this with no hurry, just playing and talking, taking things calmly.


That is the current Heavy Gear so far in my experience, and it is a 5 turn game, not 3 turns like in infinity.

The game have the unseen!, I'm going in just to get a pack of those.

I'm a fan of old battletech, but I didn't like the after harmony gold problem designs, the new ones are much better, but still don't like the clans and all the new tech, I like the almost post apocalyptic feel of 3025 more.

I have a question about the RPG.

I think many here played 2ed...

I'm GMing Operation Jungle Drums and I'm curious if you used to play the combat parts as tactical scenarios with hexmaps or you preferred to keep things "simple" and just abstract the combat.

If you preferred the abstract way is there a reason (tactical rules made the game too boardgamey, is deadlier, is slower, etc.) or just because it keeps things simple and make for more role and less roll?

I got lots of input from the facebook group, thanks anyway, as your opinion agree with mostly of it; use the cardboard figures and maps as an aid at most and play everything more narrative and action focused.

I had the doubt but no more.

 warboss wrote:

It is hard to see the picture, why you can't play those cadres in the current rules? or are you referring to the forged in fire rules?
I think the current rules may lack some of the flavor restricted lists bring but they allow for a lot of freedom in making lists.

I agree with you on all accounts, the changes from L&L, Fied manual, FiF (and other big books) for army list building and the little and not so little detail changes where a complete mess and a big part of the reason many players simply left the game. I almost did, but like the models and setting too much.

The current rules may not be traditional silhouette but they are better for a wargame, that is why I'm still in and contributing to it. Otherwise I would be playing 2ed tactical. I play 2ed RPG so no big deal, just a smaller model count than the current rules.

Also agree the Mmmpi statement is way off, but everybody have an opinion I think, and that is his perception of the direction of the developers, justified or not it is his perception, he is being honest (even if a bit offensive in a pinch). One thing Dream Pod 9 keep failing at is making everyone happy . The new think they are catering to the old and the old think they are catering to the new.

The infantry thing was never about lists, it was because they had to cost more if they where made more powerful. I wanted them cheap and simple to have the simple role of objective holders (sometimes with a little bit of teeth) but in the end it got changed to have a bit more teeth and cost more, now they are a bit overpriced, still not terribly overpriced bot not the cheap objective holders they where before.

I understand the frustration when our ideas don't get much traction but saying it is because of favor to some player secret inner cadre is silly. No body get everything they want, not all ideas are workable and the guys making the game have to step down and make the game, we are just giving ideas and wishes, that's all, we are not their bosses.

Bazookas are better now, they are a valid weapon choice, instead of like the light autocannons in blitz, the most common worthless piece of gear in the universe. The cheetah lack of agility compared as before is a shame though, but the game mechanic don't handle extremes as good, but in hindsight, the older blitz didn't did it either, we just liked it had the same RPG/Tactics stats, but the character element was not there to balance them, so cheetahs where just a pain and needed speacia weapons to deal with them or better just ignore them. What I really miss is the Iguana sturdiness, but I don't lose faith, maybe in a future we can change that if enough people pull in that direction.

Infantry was just as worthless before (at least now they can open cheap objectives and hold them), not going to start with the infantry armor waste of TV.

By the way, that cobra can be fielded now as a command variant of the strike cobra, razorfang cobra, no ECM/ECCM nor improved defense or anything, just a command variant, but the model is good.

The bazookas got a range increase and a cost reduction (now they are auto cannon cost). They were bad because of lack of range and were not more damaging (due to accuracy) to everything but costed more than an autocannon. Now they are an alternative to autocannons, ACs are better against gears, nimble and soft skinned targets, bazookas are better at high armor targets. Not even in the RPG era the autocannon where as useful and comparable to bazookas, now the most common weapon make sense.

The cheetah lost of character is a shame, but giving them PI2+ didn't make them more nimble (not like +2 Piloting). On the other hand in blitz having +2 to defense was not a good game mechanic. But it looked like the RPG so we all were cool with it. I can't say I prefer it like it is now, but I understand the balance issue of giving such nimbleness to a model.

 HudsonD wrote:

Pointman wrote:I understand the frustration when our ideas don't get much traction but saying it is because of favor to some player secret inner cadre is silly. No body get everything they want, not all ideas are workable and the guys making the game have to step down and make the game, we are just giving ideas and wishes, that's all, we are not their bosses.

Not true at all.
The rest of your post can be argued one way or the other, but the above is plain wrong.
Being in "good standing" with DP9 will see your ideas being adopted a lot more than silly behaviour like actual mathematical analysis or a critical mindset, and the "old guard", for what's left of it, has a lot of power there.

Maybe before was like that (?) but currently I doubt anyone is in "good standing" with the developers, the guy dealing with the fans in the forums is doing a good job at stepping down and having a final say in each issue. Right now things are a bit more civil than in your time in the furums too. People just keep posting abut rules issues and sometimes you are in the side that get their vision other times you don't. There are different groups and sometimes more than one "band" in favor of a way of doing things but at the end it is the developers and their secret playtesting team to take a decision. For example, the Infantry issue, it is probably the hotter topic, Mmmpi and a few others wanted more powerful/useful infantry, others (me includded) just liked them as cheap objective holders. At the end the Mmmpi team "won" and infantry got changed, but in a way almost no one liked much (because powerful infantry can not be cheap), but that is the way it is. Now there is a group that want cheap infantry in favor of the current infantry and others that just roll with the blow and change tactics to account for higher TV cost infantry and thrust that DP9 knows what they are doing.

On other issues, on the other hand, ideas are sometimes taken almost literally and implemented in the game. Or modified slightly by other fans and a consensus reached. It help that there are fewer fans in the forums of course, but whatever is happening is a lot different than the "those in DP9 favor get all they want and we get nothing" or whatever. Realizing Infantry, the least relevant model in the entire history of the game, is the only case of strong disagreement seems like a big positive in the way tings are being handled.

Taking the decisions of a game developer company about their game as a personal attack or neglect is ridiculous. Anyone is entitled to get all personal but it is plain silly.

Bazookas are not better than AC's, they are an option, no longer have to pay extra and now they are usable due to the range.

They have a purpose, but if you cram a bazooka in each trooper or elite gear you are doing it wrong. In previous versions of the game using AC's was a mistake (maybe only VHAC's where worth it) and bazookas where the "default" trooper weapon of choice (in the south at least).

Same with many other AT weapons. In previous versions AT missiles where death weapons, now they are better used against high armor targets. They still kill anything if guided with target designators but are better used for high armor targets instead of wasting them in trooper gears that are better dealt with auto cannon fire.

Artillery is also not the superweapon of previous eras. It is still dangerous but now you have to work a bit more to make it devastating and a big improvement is that you don't win just by killing things. Infantry have won me a few games just by sitting in their designated objectives.

As a player of multiple versions of the game I compare them and the current version is the one I find best as a wargame. For RPG 2ed is great, and for small scale/model count, with internal componen damage and other detailed actions. While I enjoy old blitz and arena I find them the least well done and the more abusable (stealth or artillery anyone') of the bunch.

And you need someone with reasonable EWAr capabilities to FO the target (unless your opponent decided to skimp EWar completely), and can get shot in reaction, so not as point an click as before.

Still, having some massed artillery fire can ruin someones day. The big artillery units like Spitting cobra rockets and grizzly mortars still rock.

Yes, the new rules screwed most old optimal lists. In it's defense it is because as Hudson says, the game had lots of options but only a few good ones. I still have 6 jagers with bazookas but only have bazookas on jagers now (cheap anti tank platforms).

Now I feel it compares better to the RPG, in the sense that it does better service to traditional cannon (yes, Drakes and all the rest, not in that way), in the sense that the game mechanics favor the RPG era squad composition better. AC's as main weapons, mixing of recon and support elements (in the old books I have it is common to have an Iguana/cheetah in a cadre with spitting cobras/grizzlies for example) and other simple freedoms.

On the other hand it is a completely different game in every respect. And is simplified in multiple ways, like the lack of range improvement for weapons (maybe because it will make some weapons compete with too many others if allowed to be better in range and damage; weapons have a kind of niche protection) and other multiple cases (super simplified movement, cover and terrain for example). Still a better wargame than old blitz hands down.

If you have the chance you should give it a try. You already have the models and that is the hardest part, don't break them until you test them, there are multiple ways of playing the game now, objective selection based in your force is more important than making "invincible" lists or "killer combos", so a weird mix of models may work just fine.

Easier is a bit of a stretch maybe, Better, more clearly written is more accurate.

They do provide more tactical complexity. EWar in particular is a dimension that usually get abstracted in wargames, in current blitz it is more active and represent real choices.

You make your list according to the mission you are intending to do, and the mission is not always kill everything in the table. You will need hardcore killers but not everything is killing. Cheap objective holders, recon elements, fast movers to reach far of places or get somewhere in the last turns are all part of your options.

And then balance, there is a real effort in doing everything useful, no more trap choices or sub optimal choices. Of course it is hardly perfect but the effort shows. Great balance means every model have a purpose, not that every model is got at everything though; don't expect an Asp stand toe to toe with a jager, but a few Asps with grenades or panzerfausts can wreck someone day if positioned and maneuvered correctly and you can sacrifice them with abandon as as your neighbors MILITIA commander would.

Does anybody here still have a copy of the old tactical datacards?

I just read about them in an old BGG forum thread and didn't knew they existed.

I'm using the full letter sized page for everything and it will be easier to handle tactical games/encounters with the cards and use the full pages for the players and other important NPCs probably.

I'm a bit disappointed with these plastics, I'm expecting mine will arrive in a week or two and will have a better feel for them, but seems they still are way below the metal model in detail and pose.

Still, nothing beat their price I suppose.

I understand the limits of the medium and the lack of experience, and the need for cheap models, but they do look inferior to the metal models and smaller, so making a mixed force will be awkward.

On the other hand I doubt I would have purchased a peace river and a nucoal army if I had to do it in metal, so I think it is a fair tradeoff somehow. Now I can field a badlands force with north, south, peace river and nucoal models cheaply.

These ones seems a lot better than the polar ones, Caprice is still the best served by lower price and good quality compared to the metals, tough.

Still, a big difference in quality between the plastic and the metals, and a equivalent price difference.

are you not bored of the "true fans" thing?
You are stuck in your own age man.

The plastics are cheap miniatures, that's it. I buy Zvezda miniatures for medieval and modern too, because they are cheap not because they are as good as pewter miniatures like Specter for example. Would you say Zvezda makes mediocre products that only fans like?

Cheap is a good trait in itself. And they are not bad at the price they are tagged.I just expected better but that's it.