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.

 warboss wrote:
If this new rules writer, the Rooster, is a long time fan, was he/she just not active on the forums? It the most likely answers and it looks like it's a completely new account with the first post in the thread. I suppose it could be a more well known account from back in the day but, in that case, why not use the original account? Regardless, I wish Rooster luck in trying to right the ship.

Maybe he was a controversial figure, and maybe they're looking to give him/her a fresh start?
Or maybe this is Robert's Chris Gaines moment...

The controversial posters like smilodon and albertorius are mostly banned already and the majority of the top 10 posters in terms of post count and/or upvotes don't bother posting regardless of whether they're supportive or not. I don't see any reason for someone who is vocally supportive to worry about their past posting history. It's probably a long time customer previously inactive but willing to work for free or next to nothing.

The real news is that rules for banished Gears are coming back, and DP9 is finally going to make some of the models that never saw the light of day. Headhunters? Hell yes. Will my (two!) HAC SD Jagers be legal again? Who knows?

Good to hear. I haven't kept up with what is or isn't allowed in the past couple of rules revisions going back a few years at this point but it was a big sticking point for me back when the alpha/beta rules came out initially.

I have to admit I am almost completely out of touch with the current ruleset, so I don't think I could evaluate any of the proposed/upcoming changes... has anyone fluent with the current rules taken a look at them? Any thoughts?

I mean, it's not JUST us thirty-odd people that like this game. It COULD be someone who's loved the game since the 90s and never really posted.

Although my thought was also that it's ONE OF US, ONE OF US ONE OF - you get the idea. Regardless, it's nice to see things progressing again.

 Albertorius wrote:
I have to admit I am almost completely out of touch with the current ruleset, so I don't think I could evaluate any of the proposed/upcoming changes... has anyone fluent with the current rules taken a look at them? Any thoughts?

While much of the discussion has been on revising UA's, the forum player base seems to want the focus to be on revising and cleaning up the rules. Maybe not less complex ones (complexity isn't inherently bad), but clearer ones.

After that revising UA's EW, and sublists

And re-adding missing variants.

As always, late to the thread on both here and DP9 site.

As a newbie to HG, really I'm an old BattleTech grognard, I really want to love and play HG.

I for one welcome a set of rules that are easier to learn to play. If only so I might have a chance of getting others to play with me.

 Paint it Pink wrote:
As a newbie to HG, really I'm an old BattleTech grognard, I really want to love and play HG.

I for one welcome a set of rules that are easier to learn to play. If only so I might have a chance of getting others to play with me.

Hi, Ashley! Have you looked at KOG light? It's the ultralight beginner-friendly version of HG. If you have questions, I'm happy to help.

 Paint it Pink wrote:
As always, late to the thread on both here and DP9 site.

As a newbie to HG, really I'm an old BattleTech grognard, I really want to love and play HG.

I for one welcome a set of rules that are easier to learn to play. If only so I might have a chance of getting others to play with me.

Definitely chime in on the official forums. You're the type of new blood that they're hoping for.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Hi, Ashley! Have you looked at KOG light? It's the ultralight beginner-friendly version of HG. If you have questions, I'm happy to help.

I have, very slick, but it has two problems for me. The first is that it's a niche variant of an already niche genre, where BattleTech is the 800lbs gorilla. Second,the I-go U-go won't float the boat of my fellow BattleTech grognards as it will feel like a step backwards.

Realistically, I have to pitch HGB to BattleTech players as an alternative to playing classic or Alpha Strike. And any HG game has to compete with other games like SW X-wing or Infinity, both of which feel more modern from their play sequences.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 warboss wrote:
Definitely chime in on the official forums. You're the type of new blood that they're hoping for.

Gosh, the game is in real trouble if I'm the new blood they're hoping for. ;-)

 Paint it Pink wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Hi, Ashley! Have you looked at KOG light? It's the ultralight beginner-friendly version of HG. If you have questions, I'm happy to help.

I have, very slick, but it has two problems for me. The first is that it's a niche variant of an already niche genre, where BattleTech is the 800lbs gorilla. Second,the I-go U-go won't float the boat of my fellow BattleTech grognards as it will feel like a step backwards.

Realistically, I have to pitch HGB to BattleTech players as an alternative to playing classic or Alpha Strike. And any HG game has to compete with other games like SW X-wing or Infinity, both of which feel more modern from their play sequences.

OK, no worries. If it won't work for your group, that's OK - it's more for newbies to the genre, along with people who can't/won't get into the full complexity of something like HG or CBT. Thanks for giving it a look.

 Paint it Pink wrote:

 warboss wrote:
Definitely chime in on the official forums. You're the type of new blood that they're hoping for.

Gosh, the game is in real trouble if I'm the new blood they're hoping for. ;-)

Obviously I know you're joking but, in all seriousness, don't sell yourself short. You've demonstrated proven interest in HG by pledging for the kickstarter yet don't have enough figs from that purchase to flesh out any one faction with options so you're likely to get additional purchases if hooked (even though you have some metals already). Additionally, you're not saddled with old forum drama and/or a history of being screwed over by DP9.

Well, doing my part...! ;-)

Quoting one of my favourite cheesy SF movies.

I found it plays a bit like "mecha" infinity. While I was still at my FLGS I was able to hook some people with demos with that.

Mmmpi wrote:I found it plays a bit like "mecha" infinity. While I was still at my FLGS I was able to hook some people with demos with that.

John's KOG or NuBlitz?

Paint it Pink wrote:Well, doing my part...! ;-)

Quoting one of my favourite cheesy SF movies.

I *would* like to know more!

NuBlitz. It's a clunkier system, but has several rules that have a similar feel.

Ok, thanks. I haven't played either enough to have a familiarity with their respective rulesets and possible similarities.

Having just had a quick skim through the rules there's a lot to like.

But, for me, I found the size of the text, its leading (space between lines), and use of sans-serif font for the body text, too hard to read. Pages are too tightly composed with not enough white space in the right places.

Rant mode on:

Units, models and other terms that appear to be equivalents or used to mean similar things. IMNSHO terms need to be used consistently and clearly.

I would do away with units and call groups of models, squads (cadres for faction flavour). Models are models, not units. A players army is made up of squads; squads have four to six models depending on function (for example).

Do away with abbreviations GP, AS, FS etc., etc. At best it's flavour, at worst it's an impenetrable wall of jargon.

A squads function emerges from the selection of models assembled in said squad. YMMV.

Rant mode off.

 Paint it Pink wrote:
Having just had a quick skim through the rules

All of those are legitimate issues in terms of trying to learn HGB. Mechanically, it's just a lot of work to learn the game.

I had an idle thought earlier... How long has it been since DP9 started having a beta ruleset instead of a ruleset?

It feels like it's been a long while since last they had a regular rulebook, digital or otherwise.

Well, they're back to an Alpha at the moment.

 Albertorius wrote:
I had an idle thought earlier... How long has it been since DP9 started having a beta ruleset instead of a ruleset?

It feels like it's been a long while since last they had a regular rulebook, digital or otherwise.

Didn't they have a final version that came out after the plastic North vs. South vs CEF plastic starter? I'm out of date by a few years but I thought I downloaded at some point a rulebook that didn't have a greek numeric disclaimer but I could be mistaken as I didn't actually read through it let alone play with it.

 warboss wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:
I had an idle thought earlier... How long has it been since DP9 started having a beta ruleset instead of a ruleset?

It feels like it's been a long while since last they had a regular rulebook, digital or otherwise.

Didn't they have a final version that came out after the plastic North vs. South vs CEF plastic starter? I'm out of date by a few years but I thought I downloaded at some point a rulebook that didn't have a greek numeric disclaimer but I could be mistaken as I didn't actually read through it let alone play with it.

I honestly have no idea. AFAIK, they just sent the latest beta printed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mmmpi wrote:
Well, they're back to an Alpha at the moment.

That's clearly better ^_^

So, it looks like they're working on the store issue. Where people would be redirected to spam sites.

 Albertorius wrote:

I honestly have no idea. AFAIK, they just sent the latest beta printed.

I did end up finding out that my version of the PDF was from 2016 (luckily it's in the name of the download file) so I'm definitely out of date.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mmmpi wrote:
So, it looks like they're working on the store issue. Where people would be redirected to spam sites.

I've been getting that problem on and off for years when I go to the dp9.com domain (but not to the forum). I haven't been there for a while though so can't comment on any recent changes.

The 2016 one is the current one.

The new Alpha is replacing it.

 Mmmpi wrote:
The 2016 one is the current one.

The new Alpha is replacing it.

Thanks for the clarification. I'm not sure how I feel about that TBH. I've been a vocal critic of Dp9's rinse and repeat almost biennial edition cycle but the "living" ruleset was supposed to fix that with free updates instead of the previous full price for minimal changes strategy. I'd have expected it to have been update at a minimum yearly and I'm a bit surprised/disappointed that it wasn't touched for years but on the other hand (for better or worse) customers had a stable ruleset for almost three years. I'd put it more on life support rather than call it "living" with over two years without a change but I suppose losing the half of the company (Dave) that focused on that part would put a wrench in the works.

 warboss wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:
The 2016 one is the current one.

The new Alpha is replacing it.

Thanks for the clarification. I'm not sure how I feel about that TBH. I've been a vocal critic of Dp9's rinse and repeat almost biennial edition cycle but the "living" ruleset was supposed to fix that with free updates instead of the previous full price for minimal changes strategy. I'd have expected it to have been update at a minimum yearly and I'm a bit surprised/disappointed that it wasn't touched for years but on the other hand (for better or worse) customers had a stable ruleset for almost three years. I'd put it more on life support rather than call it "living" with over two years without a change but I suppose losing the half of the company (Dave) that focused on that part would put a wrench in the works.

It had been updated, but the changes they made were poorly thought out, so the 2018 change got rolled back to the 2016 version. The current alpha is geared at bringing back older variants, clarifying the overly complicated rules, and making the Sub-lists both relevant and balanced.

They did bring in a person to work on coordinating play testing, rewrites, and suggestions, so while I'm assuming Rob has been behind the scenes, he hasn't done much up front.

Not trying to say everything is light, sugar, and happiness, but it does look like positive progress over the 2016 set. As for future updates, and how often, who know?

So, you’ve got two people who’ve always been intrigued by heavy gear and are looking for something to fill the ‘complex game’ itch.

Let’s talk about how they start. That two-player starter box looks good. Any reason you wouldn’t recommend that? If not, how else would you start?