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.

Watching a bit during lunch. That sure is alot of marginal MOS 0 "hits" and I'm glad the 4+ roll to do one damage is there. Hgb had the same issue of shots frequently doing nothing and it looks like it hasn't been fixed with the new rules either (although there is the band aid 4+ patch applied). Hrmmm.... Iirc that issue was a definite concern of IceRaptor, the original creator of the rules that ultimately became this.

I like the MoS rules in this edition. They can also proc additional effects like the blast damage for Grenade Launchers should they manage to hit.

Really enjoying the system so far. Hopefully I'll be able to get my hands on some plastics in the future to get the gamut of forces painted up.

I only watched the 1st turn so far and it seemed like every roll almost was a marginal mos0 hit. Hopefully it'll change in further turns when I watch tonight.

So... still no PT rifles for Jägers? ...alright then.

 warboss wrote:
I only watched the 1st turn so far and it seemed like every roll almost was a marginal mos0 hit. Hopefully it'll change in further turns when I watch tonight.

In HGB! you needed something like a +2 swing in your favor IIRC in order to cause damage, but I'm not sure how that could be accomplished in NuBlitz where so much of the target numbers seem based on the specific model stats and adding/removing dice instead of just straight modifiers.

 Albertorius wrote:
So... still no PT rifles for Jägers? ...alright then.

According to the pro-Pod folks, everyone is supposed to either accept the need to keep ripping bits off/magnetizing their existing modes, just play ''counts as'', or else play as they choose using their own models within a necessarily fixed circle of local like-minded players.

The demonstrably irrefutable fact that TPTB in Pod-land have consistently never, ever, managed to consistently get force construction accompanying a ruleset change compatible with previous models & variants, whether long-standing or not (you'll inevitably get some outliers, just due to messy option upgrade paths), apparently isn't supposed to matter at all.

Not to mention how many times they've done the same thing internally within a force construction book itself simply because no one checked, or else no one listened.



But yeah, just unreal on that one in particular.

_
_

Still, stupid as it might be, one would be expecting to be able to use the thing they were packing two or more of in their fething GP boxes...

 Albertorius wrote:
Still, stupid as it might be, one would be expecting to be able to use the thing they were packing two or more of in their fething GP boxes...

Indeed.
Especially when TPTB made such a point in the recent past about retaining (1) specific weapon in a squad already overfull of options, instead of understanding how the box of miniatures could also be assembled/configured for another type of combat group altogether that better used that swap option.


Their executive decisions are always so consistently inconsistent; which would seem is never going to be something they choose to stop doing, as amply illustrated by numerous examples throughout the past ten years.

_
_

 Smilodon_UP wrote:

 warboss wrote:
I only watched the 1st turn so far and it seemed like every roll almost was a marginal mos0 hit. Hopefully it'll change in further turns when I watch tonight.

In HGB! you needed something like a +2 swing in your favor IIRC in order to cause damage, but I'm not sure how that could be accomplished in NuBlitz where so much of the target numbers seem based on the specific model stats and adding/removing dice instead of just straight modifiers.

In theory, I'd expect more variability due to armor versus weapon power being less granular than before. In Blitz, the difference between a LAC and MAC only occasionally bumps up the damage by one point. In nublitz, it always does if it is a hit since it is iirc (and that may have changed so apply salt) one point higher. The actual weapon stats have a greater effect now in theory but none of that matters if people keep getting the same total number on their opposed rolls like in the 1st turn of the game video above. I'm rewatching the video now during dinner and so far in the first turn... Ash's first turn of 8 opposed rolls (including rerolls) resulted in a single solid hit that was negated by a reroll.. the rest were misses or glancing MOS0. The cooler's (forgot his real name) first unit activation didn't go much better but he may have gotten one solid hit in out of 4 or 5 opposed rolls. I won't do a blow by blow every turn but will check in after watching the full report.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Albertorius wrote:
Still, stupid as it might be, one would be expecting to be able to use the thing they were packing two or more of in their fething GP boxes...

Has anyone fact checked this that para jagers don't have access to their combi weapons? It is possible he made a mistake. I'll buy/download the pdf after I finish watching the video and check.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I took a peek at the rules and it was a GP Jaeger (not a para like I previously said) that Ash thought wasn't allowed to access the para weapon. He's incorrect as it is there under GP listed under the Brawler Jager.

As for the damage done, the variety in damage did pick up in later turns. I'm not sure they're doing the damage calculation correctly though. From page 37 (assuming the Sept 30th pdf is the latest), you don't determine a marginal hit with just the attack and defense rolls like in the video but are instead supposed to include the pen and arm into the calculation.

 warboss wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:
Still, stupid as it might be, one would be expecting to be able to use the thing they were packing two or more of in their fething GP boxes...

Has anyone fact checked this that para jagers don't have access to their combi weapons? It is possible he made a mistake. I'll buy/download the pdf after I finish watching the video and check.

After trying to determine exactly which file to (re)download, I finally realized that the 30Sep15 pdf is apparently the actual last revision of the LRB - and the noted 12Oct15 ''update'' on the product page only refers to some supplemental files.

 warboss wrote:
I took a peek at the rules and it was a GP Jaeger (not a para like I previously said) that Ash thought wasn't allowed to access the para weapon. He's incorrect as it is there under GP listed under the Brawler Jager.

heh, sniped by Warboss.

But it does look like they can still be the ''Brawler'' variant in GP & Strike cadres;
Brawler Jager: TV[7] UA[GP, SK] MR[W:5" G:6"] AR[6] H/S[4 / 2] A[1] GU[4+] Pl[4+] EW[6+] Weaps[LAC (Arm), LGL (Arm), LRP, APGL, LVB (Arm)] Traits[Arms] Type/Height[Gear 1.5"]

Although whether or not players know what the designations mean anymore would seem to be at question; although the hash made of renaming/streamlining the models and their variants may play a not inconsiderable part in that situation.

Or else all of this (pg. 101: The Sidewinder and its variants may be represented by a Copperhead model, shown above.) going on in the LRB.
Because I thought there was an actual, non-Minimaniak, Sidewinder model still in production.....



edit: (Had to go look.)

Guess there is: Southern G.P. Squad; Sidewinder Single Pack; Sidewinder Two Pack.

.... and, seriously, W.T.F. - a plastic Sidewinder was Stretch Goal #16 of the 18 unlocked November before last!


/sigh

_
_

 warboss wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:
Still, stupid as it might be, one would be expecting to be able to use the thing they were packing two or more of in their fething GP boxes...

Has anyone fact checked this that para jagers don't have access to their combi weapons? It is possible he made a mistake. I'll buy/download the pdf after I finish watching the video and check.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
I took a peek at the rules and it was a GP Jaeger (not a para like I previously said) that Ash thought wasn't allowed to access the para weapon. He's incorrect as it is there under GP listed under the Brawler Jager.

Had to admit I didn't check (after so many revisions, I've decided to just wait until the're done). Good to know that is fixed, because it was beyond stupid. Do you still need to field the older southern stuff as Jägers, or have they also gotten time to actually stat them?

 Albertorius wrote:
Do you still need to field the older southern stuff as Jägers, or have they also gotten time to actually stat them?

Anolis ; pg. 106 - ''The Iguana and its variants may be represented by an Anolis model, shown above.'' But no stats, nor any way to include them in a force.
Basilisk ; an ESE army only option for any model with a GP, FS, or RC combat group UA, gaining a small move and sensor bonus for +1 TV.
Copperhead ; mentioned in (2) places. But no stats, nor any way to include them in a force.
Rattlesnake ; (1) mention only. But no stats, nor any way to include them in a force.
Recon ''Stripped-Down'' Jäger ; a MILICIA force only option for any model with a GP or RC combat group UA, gaining a move bonus at the cost of shifting a hull point (-) to structure (+).
Silverscale ; has stats on page 106.

The SD option however continues to ignore that the previous WYSIWYG version of those models for most of the past ten years specifically did not have a rocket pack.


Apparently the MILICIA eagle and globe emblem has been permanently removed to serve as the AST logo, which I think happened arbitrarily in late 2012 for the Forged in Fire field manual.
NuBlitz pretty well guts the MP cadre CG type as well, which in turn probably means a whole lot of needing to be fixed MDPK army lists.


I took another quick glance to see what Southern models got altered or removed in NuBlitz Alpha/Beta/LRB:


I didn't bother noting all of the naming goofs that remain unchanged two years after they were first pointed out to TPTB within the Alpha material.

_
_

It might be better to move that discussion over to the general HG thread since it doesn't really pertain to the video report. I'll post my reply there.

 warboss wrote:
That sure is alot of marginal MOS 0 "hits" and I'm glad the 4+ roll to do one damage is there. Hgb had the same issue of shots frequently doing nothing and it looks like it hasn't been fixed with the new rules either (although there is the band aid 4+ patch applied). Hrmmm.... Iirc that issue was a definite concern of IceRaptor, the original creator of the rules that ultimately became this.

I'll have to check the new rules myself, but the math is setup so that MoS 0 hits around 60% of the time in an even situation. The base Hunter/Jager was setup to have a strength 7 AC versus armor 6, which meant on MoS 0 you did... 1 damage. So you should see most shots do something, most of the time since that was the 'bottom of the barrel', so to speak. A scout Gear might have a lower strength AC, and thus less damage in a common situation, but you wouldn't expect them to be fighting on the front-lines as much.

And yes, these rules directly grew out of my frustration with how often you had a swing and miss in HGB. Needing a MoS 2 for damage on many weapons meant you were only doing something like 18% of the time in a equal setup, and you really had to stack modifiers to swing it back in your favor.

I believe the 4+ thing started on blast weapons, but I don't exactly recall. That was just after I transitioned off the project, and I've not followed it since.

Thanks for the historical footnotes (and sorry for making you sound ancient with that!). After a few versions of your proof of concept rules and a release or two of the alpha (let alone what came out since after I stopped dissecting it), it all just melds together into one 3 year long slow burning project.

The video does seem to muddy the waters a bit as I noticed after my initial posts that Ash seems to have gotten the rules wrong as he was counting hits without the ARM vs PEN interaction included. While conceptually it is a bit odd that the sheer destructiveness of non-explosive projectile weapons makes them more likely to hit (http://bulk2.destructoid.com/ul/172316-HardMarioLevelsMainImage.jpg), it's a by product of maintaining the one step damage resolution that HG is known for. It also varies the roles a bit and a few of those MOS0 marginal hits in the video would have been regular hits if ARM and PEN were included. We'll have to see if that is corrected in the next (if any) video in the series.

 warboss wrote:
Thanks for the historical footnotes (and sorry for making you sound ancient with that!). After a few versions of your proof of concept rules and a release or two of the alpha (let alone what came out since after I stopped dissecting it), it all just melds together into one 3 year long slow burning project.

No worries, I am ancient. I have the grey hair to prove it. But seeing you write that... 3 year project... damn. It's been a while.

 warboss wrote:

The video does seem to muddy the waters a bit as I noticed after my initial posts that Ash seems to have gotten the rules wrong as he was counting hits without the ARM vs PEN interaction included.
...
It also varies the roles a bit and a few of those MOS0 marginal hits in the video would have been regular hits if ARM and PEN were included. We'll have to see if that is corrected in the next (if any) video in the series.

Yeah, I'd be really surprised if something that central to the rules was changed. I think I heard them refer to it on occasion, but perhaps they were skipping it? If the values are close to what I originally had, the matchup they had should have ARM and PEN values that only differ by a bit, so I could see how you could skip it on accident. But I thought I saw some Cheetah paras in there, which should have a fairly low ARM. Granted I only skipped through it quickly, so I might have mistaken some models.

 IceRaptor wrote:
No worries, I am ancient. I have the grey hair to prove it. But seeing you write that... 3 year project... damn. It's been a while.

I'm right there with you. I had a shocking haircut last summer when I noticed the first few tufts on both sides around my ears.

Yeah, I'd be really surprised if something that central to the rules was changed. I think I heard them refer to it on occasion, but perhaps they were skipping it? If the values are close to what I originally had, the matchup they had should have ARM and PEN values that only differ by a bit, so I could see how you could skip it on accident. But I thought I saw some Cheetah paras in there, which should have a fairly low ARM. Granted I only skipped through it quickly, so I might have mistaken some models.

I meant to comment about the PEN vs ARM differences you mentioned but forgot (again... middle age!). That subtle difference swaying the results towards some effect rather than a whiff is gone. The easiest ways of directly influencing the "whiff" percentage in this game in a mirror image fight would be to either change the weapon stats (ARM vs PEN) or the model stats (PIL vs GUN). Unfortunately, they're all identical for the prototypical Jager vs Hunter matchup. The LAC is equal to the armor and the hit chance stat is equal to the dodge change stat... a veritable stalemate that puts things strictly up to luck and/or situational modifiers. Now, I could see someone coming up with the conclusion that it is a feature not a bug (LERN 2 PLAY, N00b!) but that was the situation we were in with Blitz and frankly it didn't turn out well. I'm unabashadly a fan of the X-wing game mechanics and consider them to be the most elegant solution I've seen in years to a specific game's scope and theme. In that game, if you actually LOOK at the dice and count up the sides you'll notice that beyond a superficial level that the game is weighted towards the attacker in identical mirror stat rolls. The red attack die compared with the green defense die has one blank replaced with a "critical" hit that does an added effect up to an including 2 damage.

While it would result in a more brutal game with less damaged models and more destroyed ones, I think HG would benefit from the above (both changes in the weapon stats AND gear stats) if they truly want a higher model count game as standard. Maybe that'll be the basis of my NuBlitz Flash house rules!

Edit: I forgot to include the effect of burst in the example above which does sway the odds slightly in the attackers favor. I'm not sure if it enough though. I'll have to do some number crunching tonight and will post it in the general thread.

 warboss wrote:
The LAC is equal to the armor and the hit chance stat is equal to the dodge change stat... a veritable stalemate that puts things strictly up to luck and/or situational modifiers.

I know that there were several groups who were... upset... by the changes that my prototype wrought. Specifically, that Gears were easily downed and no longer could simply stand in the open without getting popped. In particular, some people had gotten used to being able to have their elites (Jaguars, Black Mambas) in the open at top speed without any real fear of dying until they got within 6-12" or so. Apparently the feedback from the first few games was unkind, and started to tip the balance back in the other direction again. It was about that time that they added the extra dice to the elites all over the place, instead of it being a rarity. So there's likely a conscious push away from quick damage to dead style resolution that would let the game play at larger scales.

I'm not in Dave's shoes and I don't know what they are pushing for anymore. But from the outside (and I think I can claim to be on the outside after almost 2 years!) it seems like they are heading back into the 'bad' territory that Blitz occupied. I'll be interested to see feedback from it as time goes on.

 IceRaptor wrote:

I'm not in Dave's shoes and I don't know what they are pushing for anymore. But from the outside (and I think I can claim to be on the outside after almost 2 years!) it seems like they are heading back into the 'bad' territory that Blitz occupied. I'll be interested to see feedback from it as time goes on.

Same here.. I'm strictly on the sidelines... but the typical game size is 100-500tv and Ash's videos (bringing the topic back onto the rails!) both are the bare minimum. I could see maybe 200tv played (with 15-20 models per side) comfortably in a timeframe equal to a typical 40k game (1500-2000pts) but I think going beyond would strain the system too much. As I've said before, that's still an improvement over blitz but not as much as I'd have hoped given the design goals and switch to plastics. I don't think that I need to tell you but you rarely get accurate and honest feedback with HG in the year after release as players are still on the "honeymoon" with the rules. It's only after a while that they open up about the cracks. We saw it multiple times with HG and then biennial rules revamps and the same folks who previously praised them to the high heavens calling for change just in time for the only slightly tweaked revamp that they'd soon come to love in order to start the cycle again.

 warboss wrote:
We saw it multiple times with HG and then biennial rules revamps and the same folks who previously praised them to the high heavens calling for change just in time for the only slightly tweaked revamp that they'd soon come to love in order to start the cycle again.

Heavy Gear is the abusive spouse of wargames, isn't it?

That's a great battle report! Keep 'em coming!