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.

You'll probably find the "newest" ones in the battle report subforum of the official forums. Given that my several years old blitz comic book style "Tales from Terra Nova!" report is still on their front page, it's not a particularly busy place. For living rulebook game report videos, you've pretty much just got Ash. The civilian gamer channel has a ton of old blitz ones but they seem to be waiting out what shakes out the other end just like the rest of us. Ease of play and popularity are two important things out of many that this multiyear project is supposed to address.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
... and a map!

Hopefully! If not, that would explain the "accuracy" of some of my FO's in the past.

And on a personal hobby note, my RAFM fire support squad is converted and complete (minus the bases and possibly a non-grizzly model depending on what I do with the Kodiak).



I have to say I thought the Kodiak would have been bigger than the others. I guess I'm used to the blitz era relative class sizes whereas the RAFM stuff is from the old RPG stats.

Firebreak wrote:Damn. I need to get me some RAFM.

JohnHwangDD wrote:They do look rather nice after all these years, but I'm going to stick with my 1/144 stuff.

It was definitely a nostalgia fueled spur of the moment (if you can call something that took two weeks to do that) purchase without much reason. You're probably better off with the current scale metals in any case fora variety of reasons. As I detailed on my blog and over on the dp9 forums, the QA on some of the rafm minis was pretty bad. The rabid grizzly had a variant armored hunter head because a USED old yellow superglued head is what was in the sealed blister instead of the proper grizzly head sprue. Also, the grizzly family (as well as cobras) were some of the best translated designs. The others look kind of squat TBH (see my ID these minis pic from a few weeks back). It is nice though that the variants were individually sculpted unlike alot of ones in current blitz. I thought I had a weird miscast for instance as the Kodiak Destroyer didn't have any chevrons on his waist/groin plates unlike most pics of Kodiaks I've seen as well as current blitz ones. When I took a look in the RPG compendium, they were specifically absent as well and the whole model was a complete resculpt and not just a weapon swap like currently.

Firebreak wrote:Just the mass of them. Those are some solid (-looking) damn minis!

That they are although they're not as big as my 15 year old memories made them out to be. The cheetahs and troopers are relatively huge though compared to their modern scale counterparts but also a bit too squat in appearance.

Albertorius wrote:Yeah, truth be told getting RAFM Gears is mostly a nostalgia-filled endeavour, as even though the stuff is cool, they are not really top quality.

OTOH, an actual Heavy Gear Skirmish game (Gear squad-on-squad, with combined arms support) on that scale or even a tad bigger could be really cool, and the RAFM stuff proves that well done they could be magnificent minis.

That's true. I'm curious to see if the new rules actually get folks to play with a bigger fig count on average or if they'll play with the same 6-12 on average figs and just actually finish the game in a reasonable time. If the model count doesn't bump, I might actually be able to use RAFM figs. I suppose I could use the RAFM figs with my existing DZC city terrain as well or alternately with anything 15mm (although they'll look big in both). The 15mm should be fine (even though the infantry is a bit closer when I measured them to 20mm to the top of the head, 18mm to the eyes) but the 10mm stuff will definitely make them look much more like mecha than the oversized power armor they are. It might be fine though to have the gears be titanfall videogame sized/scale rather than votom anime sized.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Speaking of combined arms and infantry (earlier), which of the various HG infantry flavors looks the most like current ~2016 US / Russian / German military troops?

I'm thinking I need to buy a platoon of HG infantry for my stuff. or maybe just regular 1/144 modern infantry.

Honestly, neither polar force looks particularly historical.





The larger scale rafm stuff looks even more scifi.

Grel are all angry and bald, Caprice have the big bug eye space helmets, and nucoal have a scifi video game look with a voltron helmet (but with a "beak" over the nose for the visor) in the art.. I don't know how much translated over to 12mm figs though. I can't comment about PRDF as I don't recall what they look like... but I'm sure they're better looking than everyone else and cost less for the faction to dress to keep with the their theme.

You gatchame, man! IIRC the nucoal ones ended at the nose but with a similar beak. At first I was going to compare them to silverhawks but then I googled the images and it didn't match (must be some other cartoon I'm thinking of). Those are close though but they need more gas grenade ammo belts on the chest.

The capricians look like 40k cadians.

@Albertorious as well as anyone else in the thread with Rafm gears:

Out of curiosity, does anyone have a bunch of jaguars handy to look at? I'm not sure if I got another mispack or what but every Jag blister I opened had a different head. The fire jag I expected thanks to Albertorious' earlier clarification but the jag predator had the more modern angular head whereas the stock Jag had a curvy hunter head (excctly a hunter head) with the hunter v-engine sprue in the pack (along with two bunny ears). Was that a cost saving measure by Rafm to reuse sculpted bits or is that yet another sealed blister mispack? I'll try and post some pics tomorrow of the parts in question.

Thanks. I took a look at my 1st ed core book as well as a few others and that's how I came to realize that angular head is probably the modern head but the curvy one is literally the same sprues in a tiny bag (same head, same engine, same bunny ears, same apgl) as I can see in my hunter blisters. The other two I have are fire jaguars which have their own unique head and aren't a great comparison.

I just don't know if that was a shortcut for the original stock jaguar to save RAFM some money originally or they mistakenly took a hunter plastic bits bag and put it in the jaguar mispack. If you (or anyone) have a stock jaguar (curvy head type) and almost any hunter and can compare the heads and engines, that should solve the question.

edit: I remembered about this image. I'm pretty sure I have yet another major mispack. So far, it's one issue with every 3 blisters. My head and smaller engine is definitely the hunter's and not the stock Jaguar's.



The angular head though is correct as it matches John Prin's pic from his predator Jaguar (the basis for my conversion).

Jaguars by John Prins, on Flickr

FWIW, the idea of shipping desert aircraft carriers through space made me cringe (but because it's expensive... didn't remember about the impossibility of using them outside TN) but the change/expansion of the fluff focusing on vectored thrust rather than just electromagnetic forces doesn't bother me. About the only way I could see that possibly working in the setting would be if the actual landship was also the spaceship as well (instead of being transported in it). I'm not too ingrained in the fluff but rather focused more on the gratuitous cool robot shooty porn and the rules back in the day.

True...but my comment was based on the mistaken premise that the fan lift stuff was in the original post by DP9 and you quoted it. I was wrong as you seem to have quoted older fluff. Sorry but I just skimmed the threads on my phone. I thought you were opposed to that older fluff of the vectored thrust/fan lift being used to steer the ship in addition to the main electromagnetic properties and instead you preferred pure electromagnetic propulsion. Is your issue that they're replacing that electromagnetic propulsion with grav tech? Ymmv but I don't take issue with that but rather the idea of shipping aircraft carriers through space in HG. Earth and its interstellar empire has a hard enough time doing that let alone a backwater like TN. I see the change in propulsion for a new environment more akin to a switch from props to jet engines in the early 1940s (ours...not the TN calendar).

Also, just for the record... Tzeentch has long filled the warp with rainbows and I'd be more shocked if Slaneeshi followers didn't populate the aether with unicorns for various twisted carnal purposes than if they did.

Edit: stupid autocorrect...Which just turned the word autocorrect into WordPerfect and incorrect sequentially for the ultimate irony!

Congrats on the purchase, Sqir666. As for your suprise connection with John, awkward!

I had something similar a few years back when I got into HG blitz again with a massive ebay purchase of southern minis after missing out on the north. When I started my P&M blog, the guy who won the north lot I wanted messaged me to gloat. Dirty Northern Dog!

 Albertorius wrote:
I have issues with both, TBH. The shipping landships through space is completely bonkers and would drive insane all their logistics people, but the grav tech is unobtanium in a setting that up to this point tried to be somewhat believable. At least the electromags were plausibly explained: they use them just for lift and they actually move via ground effect and vectored thrust, and it's only possible due to the particular magnetic properties of Terra Nova.

I'd much prefer if they simply switched to tracks: at leasts the mobile bases from Deserts of Kharak looked cool.

If they switched to tracks or, even worse, rails then I'd probably be the one who is livid. I'm fine with one quasi science being replaced with another even if the latter is even further away from the practical into the theoretical.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:


For a while, I was thinking to maybe pick up a 4-frame CEF Interdiction Squad on the cheap. The extra bulk would even out the numbers at a baker's dozen per faction. But I'm already roughly equal on points, so I don't need more stuff at the half-dozen to a dozen minis I'm going to play.

For me, I'm just going to hold at what I've got.

Remember that even Earth scum like yourself don't have to get the full minimum squad size of four (assuming they're one action each) as you can just get one or two to fill out existing squads or just add as a support unit. I'm considering that type of addition to my squads in order to add a single model recon element to squads of big guns (so it can TD/FO or do some ECM as neeed).

On an unrelated note, now that I'm at least temporarily done with my Northern RAFM gears, I might move onto my southern RAFM ones. Recently, I've been considering building them as a squad or two of dark series southern variant Black Talons instead of just the usual SRA.

The gearstridering of the setting continues. So be it. Just don't bother posting constructive anything, Albertorius, including typos and obvious mistakes. If they don't want your feedback, then don't give it. It's why I left their forums completely for two years until just a few weeks ago. Ironically, in coming back, I noticed some (obvious) suggestionss I made both privately and publicly through the appropriate channels were apparently proven right as they were taken up or being taken up. The most recent was a thread where Dave talked about lowering the number of different squad types, something I suggested with the very first document release.

ps. I also wouldn't have minded a complete reboot of the setting ala Battlestar as well instead of the having their cake and eating it too approach. If they wanted to allow crazy gak that shouldn't exist according to the in-universe rules, then they should have done a reboot. Instead, they want that refresh while at the same time still not risking missing out on the money from long time fans of the in-universe ruels (at least initially until they notice but it'll be too late by then).

When I last checked, there were almost 20 different gear squads for the various factions that used gears... with the core ones you listed repeated in each faction leading to about 30 "different" squads. Too much... When I looked again to try and figure out a force for my Rafm Gears, it hadn't changed. Dave posted that the next update would get some sort of UA number reduction/simplification. We just don't know how many unnecessary special snowflakes will be culled. For instance, there isn't really any reason for the Talons to have 4-6 different gear squads that are unique to them when they could just use the strike/fire support/recon/strider templates instead with one or two unique ones.

I actually asked Robert about the next update of the rules which should be the print version sent out with KS and retail starter sets and he said he's working on it and it should hopefully be up last week. Not so....

 Albertorius wrote:

Nomeny wrote:
There's better ways of registering your disagreement Albertorius. You could have said the same thing without being so rude, and you probably would have got a much better response from Robert. If you'd like you can post what you're planning on post here, and I'll show you the edited version you should post to get a positive response.

Been there, done that, also got PMed by him and accused of trolling, and personally got quite fed up of tippy toeing around him for fear of hurting his ego. So no. He can do whatever the feth he wants, and time will tell if it ever gets out of his walled community.

Just be glad he threaten to shame you (again!) for pledging $1.00 to the kickstarter... after you had already stated it publicly yourself.

On an unrelated note, Stompy Bot is now in the final countdown (queue the song!) towards their possible delisting from the Canadian Stock Exchange. They've got less than a week before the two month deadline is up to publish their 2015 financials. I'm curious to see how many folks signed up during their premiere year.

Nah, they're still around scrounging for new money however they can (besides of course coming out with a game that fans actually want like a smaller turn based strategy title!). On their official forums, a company rep (owner?) said they'd just delist from the stock exchange and continue business as usual if they had to. The dozen or so fanboys of course applauded the situation. Eh, whatever. I didn't even throw in $1.00 to follow that so no risk for me at all no matter what happens.


Does anyone btw who reads this thread happen to own a pic of the Northern Gearstrider, the Scimitar? I'm trying to see if I can use my Rafm Kodiak as a stand in for it but am not sure of the size differences. The original preview said it's 68mm tall but I don't know if they're measuring that to the tippytop of the turret or the engines, whether that includes the base or not, etc.

Thanks! A comparison pic of the two side by side (or even next to a ruler) would be great. Strictly speaking, it doesn't matter if they're not exactly the same with the profile LOS system they're using. You can use a walnut glued to the top of a milk gallon jug cap since the rules mandate the use of the profile the model whenever an opponent asks similar to infinity. I'm just hoping that visually the Rafm Kodiak conveys the greater sense of size of a gearstrider compared to gears.

As for that last part, I think almost everyone here is a collector by necessity as opposed to a player. I can't recall the last time I heard someone say in the thread they were actually playing the game outside of vassal. You're definitely not alone in that regard.

Same here.. at least for the initial macross stuff. I'm not too big of a fan of the later series both in terms of stories as well as visuals.

Does anyone here know much about the Antelope northern ORVs? A while ago I bought a painted northern lot and the guy built one with the camper and turret on the back and two with the flat bed truck showing. I don't know if he was trying to show which one was the heavy weapon base since in the old rules they were just infantry upgrades or if there is/was a difference in camper and flatbed ORVs in the old RPG fluff. I don't have the second vehicle compendiums.

 Albertorius wrote:

Back in 2nd edition, the flat bed one was the regular Antelope, whereas the closed one was the Antelope Spotter, which was better armored, changed Exposed Crew Compartment for Reinforced Crew Compartment and HEP: Desert, and had a whole lot of electronics upgrades: better comms, sensors and a Target Designator.

Cool, thanks. If they actually had a TD, I might actually use them but they don't. They're a hybrid with improved comms and an mmg which I can't really find a good use for.

Don't forget to add "Schlecht Hund Uber Alles!".

The Heavy Gear Assault video game company's financials were posting on the last day before risking delisting from the Canadian Stock Exchange. I'm reading this in common English with no formal financial training to see the likelihood of getting a final finished release HG game I'd actually buy myself as a consumer as well as the progress of the franchise in general so feel free to correct any misconceptions/mistakes with references as needed.

http://thecse.com/en/listings/technology/stompy-bot-corporation

http://thecse.com/sites/default/files/Stompy-FS-Annuals.pdf



Does anyone with more financial accumen than me know where the info on actual sales of games like HGA are? Is it the $34k "testing revenue" on page 17? Or the zero/dash empty field on revenue on page 3 with a note referencing the 34k? Or the numbers in a table below from the second file linked below? In any case, it looks like their license is up for renewal in 2017 so that'll likely be the first chance we'll get as customers for a possible real time indy/mobile/smaller strategy game if they don't renew.

From the management's discussion of the above independent accountant's report:
http://thecse.com/sites/default/files/Stompy-MDA-Annuals.pdf pg. 7

Revenue before adjustment
1,811
6,062
21,991
19,363

Divided up by quarters for the 2015 inaugural release year of HGA (admittedly in an alpha unfinished state) and I think from the whole company (and not just HGA revenue). With a minimum buy in of $40 CAD for just a hunter/jaeger, does that mean that at most (assuming no higher cost pack sales or dlc sales if they have any) roughly 45 people max bought into the game during the last quarter (aka Xmas season) of 2015? edit: If the "testing revenue" is the same thing on their q1 2016 file, it dropped down to $1,566. Again, if that is sales then does it mean approx 39 new players max in the first 3 months of 2016?

Then there are these bits about the big new game they announced last year... First what looks to be the management's view on the matter... then the accountant's numbers...



The above is from the end of year 2015 pair of documents posted by them and linked above. It looks like there are some other documents from the first quarter of this year as well.

It was launched in some fashion in 2015 as it's available to purchase by the general public. On the plus side, DP9 stands to potentially make some quick and easy cash next year either from Stompy renewing or someone else picking up the license to make another style of game.

The canadian people are living up to their reputation as kind folk as they generously gave Stompy $300,000 CAD from their media grant fund. And in the words of Stompy, a rising tide lifts all boats! Your Canuck tax dollars at work.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Firebreak wrote:
Oh, I suppose that's true. I've just never though of it as anything other than beta. I hate early access and pre-orders. XD

If they're charging for it, I consider it a release.. even if it is still a WIP. YMMV. I agree though about the early access and pay to demo preorders. The only beta I participated in was the World of Tanks console one and it was a very well done beta. They didn't charge anything and actually worked on the game with steady progress for about a year while we were testing (which basically amounted to just playing and occasionally commenting on their forums). They'd wipe your progress, introduce a new country or set of tiers (it started only 1-6), change maps, do balance tweaks on existing tanks, and start farming that new data. It wasn't one of those BS month before retail launch "betas" that are just glorified demos after the game has already gone gold and no significant changes can be made in time even if they find massive game breaking bugs.

Are you sure it isnt a spitting cobra? I have that blister and I don't recall any bazookas in it that the striking cobra would need. The arena blisters are cool but dont always give you the standard load out iirc but make up for it in extra bits. Id love another strike cheetah but sadly dont have any tact era stuff.

Do you mean scheduled games or that DP9 isn't even going i.e. no booth in the dealer's hall? I thought nublitz was supposed to premiere there this summer. As for scheduled fan run games, you need fans to run them and HG has long been short of those. Even the gencon get together games that have months to prepare and organize with multiple participants confirming don't happen.

But.. destroying the a populous city in a badlands nation has been proven in the HGverse to just stimulate massive growth heretofore impossible for the remaining population despite the loss of that central powerbase! In 10 years, Port Arthur would be sending invasion fleets TO earth instead of just fighting them off! The puny Banner rule applies in the HGverse. The quickest way to exponentially grow an army overnight is to destroy its manufacturing and recruiting base.

The difference is that Japan was then rebuilt thanks to the country that nuked it which also provided for its protection allowing the Japan to spend very little of its GDP on defense unlike the US... and it still took 20+ years for that electronics and automotive juggernaut to *start* happening. The equivalent from Heavy Gear would be more like if the US had nuked almost every major city and industrial area in Japan on Dec 8th, 1941 and Japan ended up winning the Pacific war decisively anyways by becoming a military and industrial juggernaut with all new advanced tech despite that.

As for Gencon, judging from a thread earlier this year when the events were due and then released, there aren't any official events outside of demos in the dealer's hall nor are there any fan run scheduled game events either. There was the usual half hearted talk of a get together unofficial game but that has consistently fallen apart in years prior.

In all seriousness, I don't recall if they made that pledge. If they didn't, IMO they're free legally and morally to do so but it obviously may not be in their best long term financial interests (a concern that never particularly bothered them in the past).

So, for those going with access to the games, are there no fan run or official run Robotech or HG events at all at gencon beyond dealer hall mini-demos? That's a sad statement for the mech tabletop genre. I guess folks can get their fix with Battletech/Alpha Strike instead.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
On an unrelated note, has anyone here played a good amount or tried to play a good amount of arena? Why did that game fail specifically? (beyond the usual bugbears inherent with using the blitz silhouette system) They gave away a free copy of the rules a few years ago in some contest or promo (for HGA on facebook?) that I downloaded but I must not have kept it on more than one hard drive as I can't find it anymore.

Nah. A Pacrim game, even if released in conjunction with the sequel for a boost, would IMO be a flash in the pan less impressive than the already forgotten about MonPoc. I would offer though that HG might make a turn around. Yes, it's optimistic and plenty of screw ups can happen but it's floundering LESS than it was a year, two years, or three years ago. Baby steps...