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.

 Pointman wrote:
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.

While I don't doubt that they got better by a cost reduction and range increase, did anyone actually test the numbers that you know of or is everyone assuming again? Everyone assumed they were better due to a higher damage and the AP trait before years ago and they were wrong. I don't mean to single you out but I'm just curious.

edit: I found the exe file! If someone can provide the relative stats for the shooter and target models (arm, pil, gun, traits including what they do, etc) and weapons involved, I can check (assuming I remember how to enter the info) whether it is actually better now. I'd say that a hunter with an MBzk and MAC vs some sort of tank or heavy strider should be a good example to start with.

Mmmpi and a few others wanted more powerful/useful infantry,

No, we wanted infantry that was worth what was being charged. One specific unit was overpriced. We were asking for a weapon upgrade to make them viable at that price (the Pod had an issue with 'hordes'), instead we got a compromise weapon, a stat buff no one wanted, a points increase across the board, and a rules change that nerfed infantry in general.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 warboss wrote:

 Pointman wrote:
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.

While I don't doubt that they got better by a cost reduction and range increase, did anyone actually test the numbers that you know of or is everyone assuming again? Everyone assumed they were better due to a higher damage and the AP trait before years ago and they were wrong. I don't mean to single you out but I'm just curious.

edit: I found the exe file! If someone can provide the relative stats for the shooter and target models (arm, pil, gun, traits including what they do, etc) and weapons involved, I can check (assuming I remember how to enter the info) whether it is actually better now. I'd say that a hunter with an MBzk and MAC vs some sort of tank or heavy strider should be a good example to start with.

They are better. Against a very narrow range of targets. Think Allers and Visagoths. At least if I have it right.

 Mmmpi wrote:


They are better. Against a very narrow range of targets. Think Allers and Visagoths. At least if I have it right.

That's about as useful as having MACs better against only trooper gears on dates that are divisible by the number four. They should be better than the equivalent autocannons versus everything King Cobra/Kodiak and up in terms of armor. Could you copy paste some of the relevant weapon and gear/tank stats?

 warboss wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:


They are better. Against a very narrow range of targets. Think Allers and Visagoths. At least if I have it right.

That's about as useful as having MACs better against only trooper gears on dates that are divisible by the number four. They should be better than the equivalent autocannons versus everything King Cobra/Kodiak and up in terms of armor. Could you copy paste some of the relevant weapon and gear/tank stats?

I can link you the beta docs, particularly the model list and the weapons chart.

I think that would be more effective than snipping a few random pictures.

https://dp9forum.com/index.php?/topic/19078-heavy-gear-blitz-30-rulebook-beta-final-draft-files/
you have to be logged in to access them though.
If that's an issue I'll find another way.

In my experience with the new stats, against armor 10+, a LBZ is more likely to do more damage at a lower MoS. The Autocannon is far more likely to hit, but less likely to do anything meaningful. I mean, against armor 10 you need MoS:3 for an MAC to get a marginal hit. At the same MoS, a LBZ dose an automatic 2 damage (via it's AP stat). But the AC is a bit more likely to get that MoS:3 over.

I didn't run the math though, outside of some napkin math.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also I forgot to mention,
Though it's not much, the cheetah also got an Armor buff.

I think they were better the way they were before, and Ar:5 doesn't help that much against most weapons over Ar:4, but (?).

That sounds about the same although the AP part sounds buffed. I'll have to dig out my old login info and download it to check. I'd need the exact weapon stats entry as well as the relative stats of the firing and receiving models which is alot to compare it with the various L/M/H MAC and Bzk vs support gears, gears striders, striders, and tanks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mmmpi wrote:

Also I forgot to mention,
Though it's not much, the cheetah also got an Armor buff.

I think they were better the way they were before, and Ar:5 doesn't help that much against most weapons over Ar:4, but (?).

Sounds like they turned it into the silver cat as the default which is only slightly less disappointing. It had it's niche and role (hint to dp9: the name was a dead giveaway). It doesn't look like anything else from a cursory glance has a PIL 2+. On a similar note, did they ever come out with the Harrier model with the recent crowdfunding? Seeing that one on the list reminded me of it's existence.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The bazooka stats are identical to the 2016 rules and the AP rules haven't changed other than the MOS0 addition. Autocannon and the burst trait are unchanged as well. I don't know how much the MOS0 part will throw off the numbers as the program doesn't take that into account but even in 2016 rules they seem to have fixed this particular issue and the *bzk will indeed do more damage to armored targets at least in optimal range (assuming the core rules on that didn't change). Apologies for the potential false alarm in regards to this as it looks like it was dealt with in the 2016 release and the issue was strictly during the alpha and/or beta the first time around.

Yeah, *BZ are still limited compared to *ACs against the stuff most players seem to bring. Only a few players seem to lake heavy tanks, striders, ect.
Most of the AP:x changes were in streamlining how AP worked to make it less of a nightmare to figure out.

The harrier had a render shown I believe (from memory), but it's not in the store and I don't believe it's in production yet. I think they're trying to get the KS delivered first.

I'm not sure about the cheetah because I don't remember the stats for the Silver Cat. I barely remember the name.

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.

Artillery hurts if it hits, but it has a harder time hitting. Frequently with only 1-2 dice, compared to the potential 5 you can get from an Autocannon.

But most artillery will wreck someone's day, even on a MoS:0

The DP9 boards have become "slightly more civil" as a result of being mostly dead.

Your justification of *BZKs changing their role with the new edition is exactly what I mean about the rules and balance invalidating whole previous army compositions, in addition to actual unit building restrictions. So, yeah.

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.

 HudsonD wrote:
The DP9 boards have become "slightly more civil" as a result of being mostly dead.

Your justification of *BZKs changing their role with the new edition is exactly what I mean about the rules and balance invalidating whole previous army compositions, in addition to actual unit building restrictions. So, yeah.

Just think of DP9 being ahead of the times and having their players socially distance themselves from each other both online and in real life. As for Bzks, if the role means that they actually have one as opposed to being the one size fits almost all that they were in Blitz/L&L/FM, then I'm ok with that despite them being my most common upgrade for all three of my armies. I'd have preferred if the various categories had progressively improving ranges (i.e. a Hbzk having a longer combat range than a Lbzk) but that's a general complaint with most weapons in NuBlitz. YMMV.

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.

I haven't met a single person in almost 10 years that has expressed an interest in learning about HG. Back when I was still trying, I did manage to arrange a few demo games (mainly as a trade with others for trying out something they wanted to demo/try) but no one wanted to go in any further even with me providing the painted minis and terrain. If the new nuBlitz rules change that organically in my local area, I'll certainly be up for trying it to see if I agree on whether the rules have improved.

From reading all of the above I may well actually try and play a game with the new rules. I mean, I heard good things about the revisions, but the old rules were difficult to learn.

If these are easier, and provide tactically complex games, then I'll be up for giving them a go.

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.

Looking at getting back into Heavy Gear, mostly honestly just to play games myself, I've got the 2016 rulebook, but it looks like there's a new one out soon but no immediate info on it, I found Gear Grinder and it looks like there's a bunch of changes looking at stats. For someone popping back in after several years, what's the current situation?

I'm actually really excited about the game coming from old Blitz, I like the (2016) rules relative to the old set (it all feels a whole lot more intuitive and clean, I really like the new MoS+Pen-ARM=DAM mechanic). A basic hunter with a LAC is actually capable of hurting something without needing 3 or 4 degrees of success just to scratch paint on an opposing Jaeger

You have to log into the forums and download the microsoft office raw prelim files if you want the info right now. At some point I'm assuming they'll edit/format it to Dp9 standards (yes, that's bait!) and have a pdf available on drivethru.

The 3.0 rules are a cleaned up version (mostly) of the 2016 set.

Plus with an expanded model list bring back some stuff that 2016 left out.

Still not everything though.

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.

Just got a shipping notice for my Kickstarter pledge.

Which kickstarter? I haven't been keeping up.

The Peace River/Nucoal/Utopia one.

 John Prins wrote:
The Peace River/Nucoal/Utopia one.

Ok. Congrats! Let us know what you think. There is a PR gear that I was interested in but IIRC it didn't fund (or might not have even been offered)... the Harrier (i.e. the hover cheetah).

 warboss wrote:

 John Prins wrote:
The Peace River/Nucoal/Utopia one.

Ok. Congrats! Let us know what you think. There is a PR gear that I was interested in but IIRC it didn't fund (or might not have even been offered)... the Harrier (i.e. the hover cheetah).

Allright, so I mostly backed the KS to get the new strider and some of the newer metal gears. I've got metal PR gears for days, but let's see how the new plastic Warrior sculpt stands up.



Okay so I only had one of the newer metal Warriors built but you can see the prominent differences - no shoulder buttons, torso sensors got super tiny, knees are smaller, antennae got much, much longer, rocket pods are smaller (everything is smaller in general) and there's a general loss of detail everywhere. And those terrible, terrible thumbs



Except the butt plate! That got way longer but narrower. The grab rails on the shoulders are gone. The engine vent is shallow - probably to avoid the casting issue they had on the Jagers in the first KS run.

Now I don't want to be too harsh on DP9 for these issues - they're not a big company and did these Kickstarters on relative shoestring budgets, but there's a big difference between their metals/resins and their plastics. The thing I dislike the most is the shrinkage of an already small model. This is really important in the assembly, as there's a lot of tiny pieces to put together on the waists and making the model even smaller doesn't help. If anything, they should have gone a bit bigger, which would have allowed them to put in more detail and made assembly easier.

Basically if you hated the plastics from the first Kickstarter, it's more of the same.

Well, that looks very disappointing, in this day and age.

It looks like an improvement from the Polar plastics but still clearly inferior to the 2005ish metals. I fully admit there are forces (literally) at work in the casting process that may limit the design details to make it feasible to pop out the sprues in 2-3 seconds from simple two piece moulds... but I can't help but think that alot of those details should be bigger/deeper to compensate for the softness and shrinkage. In an apples to oranges comparison, I'm consistently surprised over and over how much things need to be accentuated to go from a good looking 3d model with "realistic" proportions to a good looking scale tabletop figure via home resin printing. They don't seem to be valuing that part as much as I do. YMMV. I do like the buttplate incorporating the Peace River symbol though and thought it was a nice touch. Gotta market the brand for Paxton to make the next sale!


edit: The static/stiff posing still leaves alot to be desired as well. Did the bigger models like striders turn out better? The caprice stuff was the clear winner IMO from the first round so hopefully they're better this time as well. How is the reception on other venues like the official forums and facebook? Is everything still rose colored?

I know hindsight is 20/20 but I can't help but feel that they'd have been better served by making a multiple sprue kit for the basic trooper gears with better detail/options via multiple sprues (a squad of them in vastly different poses via multiple sprues similar to the new GW 40k SOB) and leaving the rest to resin unless they massively overfunded the campaign (which didn't happen). Make a kick ass multisprue kit for the standard trooper gear of each faction as well as a skirmish game to support it and leave the rest in the superior if fiddly resin/metal for advanced play and hobbyists.

 warboss wrote:
It looks like an improvement from the Polar plastics but still clearly inferior to the 2005ish metals. I fully admit there are forces (literally) at work in the casting process that may limit the design details to make it feasible to pop out the sprues in 2-3 seconds from simple two piece moulds... but I can't help but think that alot of those details should be bigger/deeper to compensate for the softness and shrinkage.

That's why I think they should have made them a bit bigger than the metals, so that they could have that deeper detail. You can see the difference that experience makes in GW's product, where they use clever cuts to keep shape/detail. For example, the torso could have been a 2 piece hollow. But people complained about there being too many parts on the last KS, so what can you do?

edit: The static/stiff posing still leaves alot to be desired as well. Did the bigger models like striders turn out better? The caprice stuff was the clear winner IMO from the first round so hopefully they're better this time as well. How is the reception on other venues like the official forums and facebook? Is everything still rose colored?

The new striders are proper resin and the same quality as the other resin striders. I didn't get any Utopia stuff, just PR/NuCoal. There hasn't been any posts yet about people getting their stuff, but that's hardly surprising given how low volume the posting is over there.

I know hindsight is 20/20 but I can't help but feel that they'd have been better served by making a multiple sprue kit for the basic trooper gears with better detail/options via multiple sprues (a squad of them in vastly different poses via multiple sprues similar to the new GW 40k SOB) and leaving the rest to resin unless they massively overfunded the campaign (which didn't happen). Make a kick ass multisprue kit for the standard trooper gear of each faction as well as a skirmish game to support it and leave the rest in the superior if fiddly resin/metal for advanced play and hobbyists.

I don't think it would have been possible. GW has so much experience doing this sort of thing and we sort of take for granted that it's possible, just not how difficult it really is. There's extra legs and arms on the sprues to give some variety; I just assembled it in a very bog standard way because I didn't have any experience with these minis yet - I mostly built the Caprice stuff from the last KS because I had polar forces already.

 John Prins wrote:

That's why I think they should have made them a bit bigger than the metals, so that they could have that deeper detail. You can see the difference that experience makes in GW's product, where they use clever cuts to keep shape/detail. For example, the torso could have been a 2 piece hollow. But people complained about there being too many parts on the last KS, so what can you do?

Filter both the good and feedback to hone in on what you can change for the better? I don't mean to come off as sarcastic to you as it's directed at the ether/dp9 instead... but it seems that's a long standing decades old issue with DP9 where they don't see the forest for the trees and only listen instead to what they want to hear when they choose to listen at all. I don't recall what the parts split was in the 1st kickstarter (and honestly I don't care enough to search it out either) but I'd never advocate for 4 piece limb split or a small weapon split like Palladium did with Robotech... but I think most gamers/modellers would be fine with a 2 piece torso in order to get better detail.

The new striders are proper resin and the same quality as the other resin striders. I didn't get any Utopia stuff, just PR/NuCoal. There hasn't been any posts yet about people getting their stuff, but that's hardly surprising given how low volume the posting is over there.

I'm curious to see if the cups of kool aid will be pre-emptively passed around this time again. The release of the 1st kickstarter plastics was the pretty much the end of my active participation on the dp9 forums as too many fly by night fanatics of the cults of DP9candonowrong were posting at the time for me to continue. Funny how their devotion only lasts for a few months to one year max...

I don't think it would have been possible. GW has so much experience doing this sort of thing and we sort of take for granted that it's possible, just not how difficult it really is. There's extra legs and arms on the sprues to give some variety; I just assembled it in a very bog standard way because I didn't have any experience with these minis yet - I mostly built the Caprice stuff from the last KS because I had polar forces already.

Glad to hear that they put in extra limb poses this time around at least. Thanks for the details btw.

 warboss wrote:

 John Prins wrote:

That's why I think they should have made them a bit bigger than the metals, so that they could have that deeper detail. You can see the difference that experience makes in GW's product, where they use clever cuts to keep shape/detail. For example, the torso could have been a 2 piece hollow. But people complained about there being too many parts on the last KS, so what can you do?

Filter both the good and feedback to hone in on what you can change for the better? I don't mean to come off as sarcastic to you as it's directed at the ether/dp9 instead... but it seems that's a long standing decades old issue with DP9 where they don't see the forest for the trees and only listen instead to what they want to hear when they choose to listen at all. I don't recall what the parts split was in the 1st kickstarter (and honestly I don't care enough to search it out either) but I'd never advocate for 4 piece limb split or a small weapon split like Palladium did with Robotech... but I think most gamers/modellers would be fine with a 2 piece torso in order to get better detail.

Having seen what some companies are doing with 3D printing and resin these days, I think going with plastic was a mistake, and going to resin might have been the better option. I think most people would rather deal with resin rather than metal, and HG is so niche that you kind of have to expect a premium price as long as you're getting a premium product.

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.