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.

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).

Do I still need calculus to figure out if I hit someone or not? Never seen more complex rules for a game before, and that's coming from someone that played a ton of Star Fleet Battles and Full Thrust.

Not that I know of. It's still the Roll XD, keep the highest, and add one for every other die that exceeds the stat.

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.

 Pointman wrote:
What you think of the new version of the rules?

I only skimmed the rules, but the choice to introduce Skill modifiers I found to be odd. I get why doing so is desirable, but its exacerbating roll complexity rather than reducing it, IMO. I would have hoped they would hav removed the unopposed rolls being different than opposed checks (which I hated even when I designed it) and kept only +/- D6s rather than +/- D6s and augment ratings. Even a -1 augment will have a large shift in outcome, but you only really have 5 augments to work with [ 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ] and 6 is basically worthless, leaving you 4 'real' values. The system gives very similar outcomes when there are very similar dice pool / values, which IMO means that allowing too much variation will make it very difficult to match outcomes to design expectations.

Most of the other changes seem to be fairly conservative (dropping active sensor lock, refining EW to be less useful) instead of bold strokes. Maybe that's the desired outcome, but the rules are still reminiscent of the my draft Dave started working from back in Aug. 2013. I have hoped there would be more change since then, and undoubtably there are good changes that I can't see because of my history, biases, and lack of engagement with the community since that point.

I've moved heavily into modding the BattleTech video game instead of wargames, in large part because of burn out from the MechaAssault/HG design process.

 IceRaptor wrote:

I've moved heavily into modding the BattleTech video game instead of wargames, in large part because of burn out from the MechaAssault/HG design process.

Have you now?

I know we shouldn't talk too much about the other mecha in this particular thread but, are you part of the RogueTech group or are you doing other things?

 Firebreak wrote:
I know we shouldn't talk too much about the other mecha in this particular thread but, are you part of the RogueTech group or are you doing other things?

Yes, I am part of the Rogue Tech group. Shouldn't be too hard to figure out which are mine if you are familiar with RT.

I should also add that the above post comes off as more criticism then I intended. I wish all of the best to the rooster and hope they are able to make a really fun game.

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

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

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

Web site sucks less now.

That's good to hear. Hopefully my first go won't be a screeching death alarm about viruses.

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

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

Do you mean since the legacy Blitz, or since the Rooster came onboard? I'm not clear if you're referring to the Living Rulebook in general, or specifically since the Rooster has taken over.

Cheers!

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm impressed. It takes me two hours to cross-reference the unit names with what they can do (in Infinity)! But yeah, if that's 3-4 squads it's a reasonable amount of time, and faster than old Blitz perhaps. But I tend to think of 45-75m as being 'fast' anymore, as other games keep pushing the envelope downward.

Thanks for the clarification on the ruleset Pointman. EWar was certainly an expansion that needed gardening to make it flow smoothly, so I'm glad to hear the Rooster has made it better than my original ramshackle version!

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

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

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

 Pointman wrote:

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

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

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

It really depends. I'd consider Bolt Action a serious wargame myself, for example, and the game you can play in two hours is quite a big one. The size of the forces you're stating fits more with skirmish games, which mostly (with the glaring exception ther being the aforementioned Infinity), tend to be quite a bit faster.

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

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


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

Playing Infinity scenarios you might go for three turns, but casual games are usually not so, and are played until one side is destroyed.

IME, most games tend to be the second kind, and are the ones I've usually played. Those could easily go from 2 to 10 rounds. Any mention made above was with that in mind.

Now, if you're talking scenario play and ITS, then those usually have a hard time limit of an hour and a half, and those are three turns games most of the time.

About time...

Heavy Gear Assault –Heavy Gear Assault was first published by Dream Pod 9 (“DP9”), a Montreal-based games publisher, in 1994.On August 1, 2012, Stompy Bot Productions Limited licensed the Heavy Gear video game from Dream Pod 9.Heavy Gear Assault is a fast paced first person simulator where the player controls war machines called Gears via their in-game pilot characters.Heavy Gear Assault was launched on Steam, a digital distribution platform, on February 10, 2017.Revenue for the fiscal year-ended 2017 and year-ended 2018 since the release of Heavy Gear Assault were $15,500 and $1,403, respectively. The Company recently received notice that the license with DP9 has been terminated. Management believes that there is a potential to monetize the current asset in the future through a re-license sale and/or royalty transaction.

They're supposed to be paying yearly for the license according to the other posted documents but HG only made them $1,400 approximately in calendar 2018 so maybe they didn't pay for next year's royalty. That's just speculation on my part as I don't have the financial background to read through and pick out the pertinent parts of the half dozen documents but regardless it's good news for fans of the IP. Gamers who bought the game were screwed regardless as they haven't been able to log in supposedly for over a year anyways (some since 2017) so nothing changes for them. Feel free to share the news on facebook and the official forums as I don't post in either. Here's a link to the source document on their (late) Canadian stock exchange filing.

https://webfiles.thecse.com/sedar_filings/00036950/1906281216270762.pdf

At least DP9 didn't get sued over this.

In other mech-news, I guess people like Battletech.

Their Clan Kickstarter is sitting at like 10x the goal after just a few hours. Suck it, Inner Sphere!

Wow... Six of the ten initially available $5k pledge levels are already claimed. I always preferred HG to BT back in the day but I'm happy for the fans/backers and hope it goes significantly better than Robotech Tactics did. Just in case, here is the link.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/450703636/battletech-clan-invasion

It seems like a big difference between boardgamers and wargamers is that the wargamers are willing to play games that have so few turns and take more than an hour.

Nurglitch wrote:
It seems like a big difference between boardgamers and wargamers is that the wargamers are willing to play games that have so few turns and take more than an hour.

Funny, then, that Europa Universalis is supposed to be a boardgame, given that each turn takes a full afternoon...

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

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

I 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?

It's been over 25 years but IIRC when I played it prior to release at Gencon unknowingly as a playtest I think we did the combat as a tactical scenario. I haven't played it since though and don't personally have a strong preference. If forced to choose, I'd probably go with slightly abstracted and not use the actual maps/minis due to the complexity.

 Pointman wrote:
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?

Every time I've played it I've used the general RPG rules with maybe drawn ad hoc maps and general positioning. The main reason is that players tend to go out of the rails and do their thing, so GMing it that way gives me more options. It's also usually faster, and isn't as harmful for the less tactically minded players.

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

I had the doubt but no more.