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.

HudsonD, I read the TPS fluff myself... there were plenty of shades of grey in the city-states' fluff. The 'leader' wasn't exactly a leader, per se, just somebody who got them together.

The first video game was spoken of from a Northern perspective, giving the Southern Republic the look of a corrupt Republic (which is what they want, and what they are). But the Northies aren't innocent by a long shot. Of course, if they'd included that back fluff of that Ceritto character shooting a Jerusalemite girl execution-style, and provided it in the video game, I have no doubt tons of folks would have gone Southie.

As far as weapon sizes, I believe it's safe to say that the whole weapon size difference has to go. It worked for the RPG, but it doesn't work for a wargame, at all.

-Brandon F.

 doc1234 wrote:
I thought that too, with all the south gears being snakes, the video games/ even the old tv show the south being dang evil i'd thought they were always marketed as the bad guys?

To be pedantic, the TV show had the Southerners, with a Badlander kid, as the 'Good Guys.' It was still horrible, though.

On a slightly more positive note, anyone excited about the mod possibilities on PC for Titanfall? The mechs in that game are a bit bigger than gears but they have 3 "classes" (scout, trooper, heavy) and mod support may be possible (although not at launch). I don't know when or if HGA is coming out but Titanfall is due in about 3 months.

Another positive note is that they just announced they'll have the developer's blog up next week, as well as have the rest finished by the end of January.

As for HGA, it's being worked on.

I wouldn't know about Titanfall. It looks great, but since I don't have anything that can run it, I'll have to read everyone else's experience with it.

-Brandon F.

You left out the important words:
http://dp9forum.com/index.php?showtopic=15785&page=7#entry279436

Thanks everyone for your patience and excitement. We're putting the final touches on the alpha test rules and army list documents. In addition there will be some play tools such as a quick reference sheet and some printable templates.

Preparation to begin the developers blog to discuss the changes and be a hub for announcements will be live next week on the web site. I'll announce it here once it is ready and published.

All this is still on track to go live with the public alpha playtest by the 31st of this month.

-Dave McLeod

So, one way or the other, find out soon.

I picked it up in the beginning, it was creeping along... Then something happened and I couldn't find the models anywhere. Sold it all at a game store auction.

Played quite a bit while I had it, we had an RPG going along with our games. It was fun for a time.

 warboss wrote:
On a slightly more positive note, anyone excited about the mod possibilities on PC for Titanfall? The mechs in that game are a bit bigger than gears but they have 3 "classes" (scout, trooper, heavy) and mod support may be possible (although not at launch). I don't know when or if HGA is coming out but Titanfall is due in about 3 months.

I am very eagerly waiting for EA's take on Gears. If you've watched gameplay videos, they pretty much nailed it exactly; down to the skating part. Though they use big frigging rockets instead of tiny wheels. Hell, even the AI assistants are basically the NNets. If you watch the most recent gameplay videos infantry pose a serious threat to Titans, though they are very squishy. Sound familiar?

Overally, a reboot of HG with a more modern concept - as expressed through Titanfall - could revitalize the game. But I think they aren't thinking that big and are instead focused on rehashing 80s real robot tropes.

I'd be fine with simply adding mod support and trying to plug some gear models into there. The skeleton work is beyond my capabilities but I think someone out there with the skills might be enough of a HG fan to do it. I'd be more excited to play Titanfall with the HGA hunter model than I am to play an arena shooter.

First blog post for the development is out:

http://www.dp9.com/content/new-heavy-gear-development-curator-blog-introduction


-Brandon F.

BrandonKF wrote:
First blog post for the development is out:

http://www.dp9.com/content/new-heavy-gear-development-curator-blog-introduction


-Brandon F.

Thanks for the link. I do hope the following:

I will be the curator and the arbiter of the rules but I can’t do that without sober second thought from play testers. It is the community that will be the driving force that decides the future of the game. In future development blogs I’m going to detail about how the players can get involved in play testing, core rules development, and army development. We can’t do this without you, so Gear up!

doesn't end up actually being a situation where suggestions/comments/concerns are posted and then ignored completely for months. And by ignored I don't mean instantly adopted but rather completely ignored with silence from the powers that be for weeks/months.

Not thinking so.

-Brandon F.

I suspect there will be a big initial push, Brandon, with a big show of interacting with the community that will slowly sputter out halfway to Gencon and by then we'll be back to inactive feedback threads similar to the FAQ.

On somewhat related news, is it just me or can you no longer add Heavy Gear bags to your cart on the battlefoam website? I still haven't gotten mine from their November sale and wanted to double check the shipping but noticed the "add to the cart" buttons are gone from all the HG bags (and them only). While it's possible that they're simply out of stock, the sale at 50% off felt like a clearance sale to close out the existing stock. I'm curious if they're just done with the HG bags.

The UK side of the battlefoam website still has the bags available.

As for the new rules, I'll admit I'm genuinely curious to see it, but I'll believe the changes in design processes only when I see them.

That may be true but they're across an ocean (obviously) and were set up and operate separately in some fashion. To my knowledge (which may be wrong), they don't participate in the Black Friday "Christmas" sale like US Battlefoam . Just like with the Wayland and Miniature Market 50% off sales, we'll see if they end up restocking or if the big sale was just to get rid of dead stock.

I don't think our respective posts are contradicting. If you still want such bags now, they're available in the UK, for now.

As for whether they'll be made again, that's another topic. I don't think Wayland has restocked, and it's been months. That's seriously ominous.

Considering that Battlefoam's even late in delivering the bags that it promised for it's Wild West Exodus kickstarter, it's entirely likely Battlefoam is running behind on producing (or getting produced) enough embroidered bags.

 solkan wrote:
Considering that Battlefoam's even late in delivering the bags that it promised for it's Wild West Exodus kickstarter, it's entirely likely Battlefoam is running behind on producing (or getting produced) enough embroidered bags.

It's possible it is just a coincidence and nothing more. It's also possible that the exclusive distributor for Heavy Gear in the EU just hasn't gotten around to restocking what they sold 6 months ago at no profit during the sale. It's also possible that FRP's putting most of HG on permanent clearance with half the line being either out of stock or 1 left (limited/low stock in their parlance) is just a coincidence. It's also possible that Miniature Market, another big US online seller, dumping the line at cost without restocking is also a coincidence along with Coolstuffinc not bothering to carry much beyond the starters (and even those are half out of stock with the ones in stock at 1)... leaving only a single independent online distributor fully supporting purchases (warstore) in the two biggest markets (EU and US). It could just be a coincidence as well that the only paper product for the flagship blitz line was downgraded to a barebones PDF last minute by DP9 instead of the full paper and minis supported gencon release it was supposed to be. It's possibly an unlucky coincidence that the world championship for HG at the biggest North American gaming convention with tens of thousands of individual gamers only got two or three people to attend while at the same time DP9 didn't have minis and books to sell at the booth beyond Rally. It might be unrelated that the two back to back crowdfunding endeavors for the HG video game were not able to raise combined a quarter of the goal they set. The above may just all be an unfortunate series of unrelated events beyond the obviously anecdotal reports of not being able to find minis or players reported as the number one reason in the poll above.

"lots of promises from DP9 that things would improve, never any actual improvements.

"Oh, and I probably spent more time proof-reading my post than they take to proof-read their books.

To that, you can add that the current fluff reads like bad self-insert fan-fiction, that the current writers clearly don't care about the Heavy Gear universe (look at what happened to the poor Humanist alliance! Sacrificed to fluff up the designer self-insert new faction!), or even the genre of the universe/game (ugly Gundamish models do not belong in a somewhat realistic and gritty mecha combat"
_____________ _______________
This, along with poor game balance had me Bartertowning my first army box within a month.

A friend pointed out that in my comparison of previous 50% off sales and subsequent general lack of restocks comparison of battlefoam with FRP, Wayland, and Miniature market that I made a mistake. The battlefoam sale was actually at 75% off initial retail price as the prices listed on their site currently and just prior to the sale were already half of what they were when the bag premiered in 2011. For instance, the standard loadout bag during the sale was $20 but is now (unavailable) on battlefoam's site at $40.. but it $90 on DP9's site as well as around that price on the few other retailers that offer it. I apologize but the Battlefoam HG clearance was at 75% off the price you'd pay elsewhere. Make of that what you will in relation to the lack of restocks post sale but I'm starting to think that this will be the sink or swim edition for Heavy Gear. While I long ago retired my rose colored glasses along with fanboy status, I still encourage people who have minis laying around their basements or back in their closets to check out whatever they publish in a few weeks. It'll supposedly be free so the only cost is a bit of your time and frankly, from looking at the bleak outlook I've presented above, it may be the last hurrah. If the rules are indeed a big improvement and DP9 does make a basic change with how they approach the IP and the community, it deserves some attention. Hell, it's not like I can do much else with my $1500 worth of minis!

I've honestly been interested in it. Seems like a faster paced Battletech. I've never seen it played however and my FLGS doesn't stock it.

 Coldhatred wrote:
I've honestly been interested in it. Seems like a faster paced Battletech. I've never seen it played however and my FLGS doesn't stock it.

It is faster. I don't play battletech but from the demo games I've been given over the past two decades it plays about two to three times faster... the problem is that you field two to three times as many models in the defacto 600-800TV game size so there isn't a net benefit. The new rules are supposed to be much faster paced.

Well, after much prodding, I'm compelled to post here (and over at DP9 apparently xD)

I don't play anymore for a lot of reasons. There's the fact that I basically need to make new players to be able to play, or that the minis and the books are both GW-level expensive and almost impossible to get over here (I've lost count of the times a prospective player has ran away after seeing the prices). There's also the fact that the current rules have a lot of holes, and there's no rules support whatsoever. And the power creep between "armies the designer play/like" and "armies that don't", which can get ridiculous. Or the fact that the new southern book basically broke all my southern armies (and no, I didn't do 4-gear cadres). Or the "improved" army creation rules that are even more convoluted and leads to... weird lists (as most games tend to go PL3, the best way to do gear lists tend to be with armor regiments, and viceversa, for example). Or the variant names that mean different things all the time...

Well, you get the idea.

I actually stopped paying attention to the game during the release of the southern book, but to be honest, the breaking point was the NuCoal book and the new fluff.

See, I'm a HG setting nerd. And the NuCoal fluff makes no sense whatsoever. None at all. Worse, to buff it up, they basically killed off another faction, for no net gain I can think of, and adding convolute migration and stupid ball tossing all over Terra Nova, clearly demonstrating that the writer didn't have a working understanding of what distances and surface means at all.

One of the things HG needs is to have two universes. It needs a rpg setting and a very distinct wargame setting. They did it once, with Lightning Strike. But they apparently can't anymore (yes, yes, this is assuming the rpg is not dead, which it is :( ).

Anyways, maybe THIS TIME it will be the time. Maybe THIS TIME they'll do a good job with the core system. Maybe THIS TIME, they'll give rules support that doesn't fiddle out in two weeks after the uproar. Maybe THIS TIME they actually make a wargame.

...yeah, well. Once fooled and all that.

Albertorius wrote:
Well, after much prodding, I'm compelled to post here (and over at DP9 apparently xD)

*snip* And the power creep between "armies the designer play/like" and "armies that don't", which can get ridiculous.

Welcome, Albertorius! (CrouchingGrizzly, HiddenCheetah here) Yeah, that part became painfully obvious to me with the Paxton release. I don't have access to the super secret revised VCS so the only squad I can compare with any certaintly is the bazooka GP with LBzk Jagers for the South and RFB Warriors for the PRDF and it's obvious which one the lead playtester collects. If you try to bump up the Southern GP to the same starting level as the Paxton one (and add a few MACs on the stock units), the south gets a squad that is WORSE in multiple ways despite costing 20TV more and needing a vet slot. Even if the TV difference between RFB and LBZk is 5tv for the pair, the south pays 15tv more for a squad with NO ecm, WORSE Detect, sucks up a vet slot, and has NO immunity to crossfire like the PRDF squad gets for free.. I can't compare the other squads since the units are so different (the Jaeger and Warrior are almost identical except that the Warriors are better in two ways). Don't get me wrong... I have no problem with Paxton getting those benefits but rather if there is a supposedly overriding system for calculating everything then everything should have a cost if it gives you a benefit but that idea was thrown out the window with Paxton. It happened before with Nucoal and took DP9 half a year to address the differences with the revised "beta" threat values (not sure why it was released months later as optional along with the post 1940 updates... which were included automatically with no "option" in nucoal). The southern book had a lot of issues (the chief one being the inability to use your previously legal minis as we both experienced.. you moreso than me) but at least the TV were on par with Nucoal largerly (except for maybe the drake). PRDF though definitely has a "favorite son" threat value adjustment throughout. Luckily, it's only valid for the the next few days as the updated rules are significantly different.

I hate to say those words, and I have not looked at the details of the squads involved, but:

ECM, on a Warrior, is worth essentially 0: they have neither the skill nor the rating required to do anything with it, and PRDF is too Action starved to waste an action. On the Chieftain, that's something else.

The higher Detect is likewise not worth much. Usually, the -2 Cover modifier is what will prevent the shot, not the Concealment

LBJZ are significantly better than RFB, by a large margin.

Of course, the first two might not be worth more, but they are still worth more than 0. Despite that, with 2+ bazookas, the Southern CG should costs more.

That being said, the designer thinks that a shorter range weapon, like the 6" RFB, is better that a longer range weapon, like the 12" LBZK, so it's still obvious which faction he collects.

EDIT: It should go without saying, but all that is dependent on the current rules. New rules, new point system.

mrondeau wrote:
I hate to say those words, and I have not looked at the details of the squads involved, but:

ECM, on a Warrior, is worth essentially 0: they have neither the skill nor the rating required to do anything with it, and PRDF is too Action starved to waste an action. On the Chieftain, that's something else.

The higher Detect is likewise not worth much. Usually, the -2 Cover modifier is what will prevent the shot, not the Concealment

LBJZ are significantly better than RFB, by a large margin.

Of course, the first two might not be worth more, but they are still worth more than 0. Despite that, with 2+ bazookas, the Southern CG should costs more.

That being said, the designer thinks that a shorter range weapon, like the 6" RFB, is better that a longer range weapon, like the 12" LBZK, so it's still obvious which faction he collects.

Detect 3 is a huge difference versus detect 2 as it usually on a properly terrained table makes or breaks a direct fire shot... and a bump of 1 only costs 1tv. Think of it this way... two gears (one jaeger and one warrior) are on opposite ends of a 2" wide hill. They've gotten most of the way around but there is still a 2" low part (providing "some cover" less than knee height and two concealment) is still between them. The Warrior has a direct fire shot whereas the Jaeger doesn't and the cover modifier is only "some". Most shots with a Detect2 unit that I've had disallowed because of concealment were at some cover (so NO modifier). It's not an issue of disallowing a -2 shot but in most cases I've encountered a flat modifier shot. The difference between detect 8 and 9 is functionally negligible but 2 to 3 is a huge boost in practical terms and generally allows a shot when it matters (optimal to low suboptimal range depending on the weapon and terrain). ECM I agree isn't very useful (especially on a GP unit) but it is useful in certain situations, especially when you effectively get a rebate for having it (DP9 is paying YOU threat value to have it in the GP!). The official answer I got is that the warrior is calculated at 2tv higher (basically you pay 1 tv for each benefit of detect and ecm) but that doesn't seem to fit in with the GP squad (and I question whether other squads got the same hidden discount but are much harder to detect, pun intended). I'm not saying that they should be charged a 5tv premium per gear but if people don't think that those benefits are worth it (like yourself), then you should have the option of removing them for 10tv for the squad (-2tv per gear) and not simply getting them for free (on top of free LD and EW skill upgrades on your CGL because of fluff... the actual reason I was given). I have a simple metric that I use in HG... does it provide a benefit even occasionally? If so, then it should cost something. The PRDF squad sees further, has added situational tactical options via ECM, doesn't require a vet slot for commonly used CGL upgrades, has FULL immunity to crossfire and costs significantly less than the southern equivalent. I agree that the LBzk is marginally better but only by 1-2TV each comparatively and that doesn't account for the 20TV difference when the squads are equalized as much as possible. That is no bueno in my book and I shudder to think what other rebates were shoehorned into squads that are harder to find.

Anyways... back to to the recent blog post about Nublitz... I find it a bit odd that the post is dedicated to describing what a gear is instead of previewing portions of the Nublitz rules that changed. While I'm not opposed to the post, I suspect that around 99% of people that are left in HG fandom that will bother to read the blog will already be familiar enough with the universe to know what a gear is and are more interested in getting a preview of an upcoming rule. Since the rules are described as "significantly different", IMO blog posts this week would be better spent easing players into the new ruleset instead of just throwing them into the deep end on Jan 31st.

First, I have played on well terrained table. One of the issues with the game is that terrain affects gameplay in a lot of ways.
For example, I'm used to terrain that provide Concealment and Cover. Small hills were not usual on our table. So, fair enough for Detect 3 vs 2, with the caveat than on some terrain, the difference does not actually exist.
Crossfire is similarly very variable depending on terrain. I'm not used to see much happening, so for me that was also worthless. You'll notice I did not mention it before, because I know that this was not typical. Since I'm not used to it, I cannot evaluate its worth that well.

ECM: yes, it should be worth something, but really not much. I think I have actually used it twice. Ever. Most of the time, shooting is better. In fact, when given the choice, I immediately removed it from all Warriors, except the Chieftains. I would say that adding ECM (and the skill to use it...) should be an option. If so, it should have a good rating, so that it's actually useful, and, of course, should have the appropriate cost.
In all case, except for the RFB vs LBZK thing, those are definitively not negative, and are not worth negative points.

The LBZK has 12", vs 6". That's a +1 in the key range. It's also capable of beating the armour of basic gears without risking to go Out-of-Ammunition. That's not a marginal improvement, that's a boost on expected damage at 12". Kinda important, in my experience.
Of course, the stupid insistence on +5 TV increments is harmful here: a RFB is worth something, so +5. A LBZK is better than a RFB (+5) but worse than a MBZK (+10)... oops, can't price things correctly.

That being said, I'm not defending DP9. In fact, I'm condemning them: I'm not joking when I say that the designer thinks that RFB > LBZK, and that the ECM, Detect and Crossfire immunity are significant bonuses. I disagree, but from that point-of-view, the PRDF squad should indeed cost way more than the southern one.
I, personally, think that they should cost about the same when you have 1 LBZK and 1 RFB, and the Southern one costing a little bit more as you add more LBZK and RFBs. In all cases, I cannot justify 20TV and a Veterant slot. The last one is rather puzzling, in fact. It's just a bunch of decent anti-gear weapons. GP are supposed to have a bunch of decent anti-gear weapons.

I'm not commenting on the blogs because there's not actually content to comment on. Kinda disappointing. Since I wanted to comment on HG, I had to resort to correcting someone on the Internet. (please imagine that's a smiling ALEPH. The choice of emoticon is rather restricted.)

mrondeau wrote:

In all case, except for the RFB vs LBZK thing, those are definitively not negative, and are not worth negative points.

The LBZK has 12", vs 6". That's a +1 in the key range. It's also capable of beating the armour of basic gears without risking to go Out-of-Ammunition. That's not a marginal improvement, that's a boost on expected damage at 12". Kinda important, in my experience.
Of course, the stupid insistence on +5 TV increments is harmful here: a RFB is worth something, so +5. A LBZK is better than a RFB (+5) but worse than a MBZK (+10)... oops, can't price things correctly.

Just a side note in case you don't have the pdf. The Lbzk does have an optimal range of 12 which does initially on paper make it better for some ranges than an RFB. In essence, the stock RFB is better at 0-3 due to the paxton only melee trait, the same at 3-6, worse at 6-12, and the same at 12-24, and worse at 24-48. I don't know about you but I rarely shoot much further than 24" with a Lbzk due to cover modifiers so I generally consider the first 24" to be the most imporant with direct fire weapons. The lbzk in terms of bonuses/penalties definitely comes out a bit ahead... but the new pdf gives you the 0TV option of adding the "assault" template to your RFB warriors which gives them sniper at the cost of 1 detect and sensor dependent. When you factor that 0Tv swap in, the RFB is better in terms of shot modifiers at 0-3 and better at 12-24 and the same at 3-12. The RFB also has the possibility of getting to damage 16 with ROF which puts some elite and upgraded trooper gears into a 1:1 damage/roll category that the LBzk doesn't have a possiblity of doing.. and the RFB has the option of possibly damaging multiple light trooper/scout/infantry models due to ROF as well which is an option that the LBzk doesn't have at the cost of running out of ammo (but with a reload possible). I find the RFB to be a very tactically viable option previously (but admiteddly worse than a LBzk overall) but that distinction in paxton is largely gone as it is (of course) much better than the same option available elsewhere. In the end, I console myself that the Mary Sue nepotism will be largely moot in a few days.

 warboss wrote:

Just a side note in case you don't have the pdf. The Lbzk does have an optimal range of 12 which does initially on paper make it better for some ranges than an RFB. In essence, the stock RFB is better at 0-3 due to the paxton only melee trait, the same at 3-6, worse at 6-12, and the same at 12-24, and worse at 24-48. I don't know about you but I rarely shoot much further than 24" with a Lbzk due to cover modifiers so I generally consider the first 24" to be the most imporant with direct fire weapons. The lbzk in terms of bonuses/penalties definitely comes out a bit ahead... but the new pdf gives you the 0TV option of adding the "assault" template to your RFB warriors which gives them sniper at the cost of 1 detect and sensor dependent. When you factor that 0Tv swap in, the RFB is better in terms of shot modifiers at 0-3 and better at 12-24 and the same at 3-12. The RFB also has the possibility of getting to damage 16 with ROF which puts some elite and upgraded trooper gears into a 1:1 damage/roll category that the LBzk doesn't have a possiblity of doing.. and the RFB has the option of possibly damaging multiple light trooper/scout/infantry models due to ROF as well which is an option that the LBzk doesn't have at the cost of running out of ammo (but with a reload possible). I find the RFB to be a very tactically viable option previously (but admiteddly worse than a LBzk overall) but that distinction in paxton is largely gone as it is (of course) much better than the same option available elsewhere. In the end, I console myself that the Mary Sue nepotism will be largely moot in a few days.

Ok, yes, that unassaultish assault package turns things around completely. That should not cost 0 TV. That should very much not cost 0 TV! The drawback was the 6-12" range, which is important. This removes the drawback completely and boost up to 24".

warboss wrote:[Welcome, Albertorius! (CrouchingGrizzly, HiddenCheetah here)

Hiya, CGHC. Nice to see you

Yeah, that part became painfully obvious to me with the Paxton release. I don't have access to the super secret revised VCS so the only squad I can compare with any certaintly is the bazooka GP with LBzk Jagers for the South and RFB Warriors for the PRDF and it's obvious which one the lead playtester collects. If you try to bump up the Southern GP to the same starting level as the Paxton one (and add a few MACs on the stock units), the south gets a squad that is WORSE in multiple ways despite costing 20TV more and needing a vet slot. Even if the TV difference between RFB and LBZk is 5tv for the pair, the south pays 15tv more for a squad with NO ecm, WORSE Detect, sucks up a vet slot, and has NO immunity to crossfire like the PRDF squad gets for free.. I can't compare the other squads since the units are so different (the Jaeger and Warrior are almost identical except that the Warriors are better in two ways). Don't get me wrong... I have no problem with Paxton getting those benefits but rather if there is a supposedly overriding system for calculating everything then everything should have a cost if it gives you a benefit but that idea was thrown out the window with Paxton. It happened before with Nucoal and took DP9 half a year to address the differences with the revised "beta" threat values (not sure why it was released months later as optional along with the post 1940 updates... which were included automatically with no "option" in nucoal). The southern book had a lot of issues (the chief one being the inability to use your previously legal minis as we both experienced.. you moreso than me) but at least the TV were on par with Nucoal largerly (except for maybe the drake). PRDF though definitely has a "favorite son" threat value adjustment throughout. Luckily, it's only valid for the the next few days as the updated rules are significantly different.

I haven't paid too much attention to the PRDF list, but AFAIK, it has not changed significantly from the playtest list I bailed on, back in last february.
As for the southern armies, well... yes and no. The TVs were mostly correct, I think, or at least in the ballpark, but there were lots of problems, one of those legacy stats. Things like Gears with Detect 14, keeping the only Gears in the game with -1 Man for no reason whatsoever, weapon payloads not optimized the way the NuCoal ones were... those thing tend to mount and add to a lot. And that not talking about moving around options for the heck of it, and well meaning upgrades that didn't take into account the big picture (Caiman with +0 FC and less man penalties? Great! For an APC. But in the one hand the infantry is still dead [no big doors], and on the other... Crocodiles suddenly are beasts, for no increase in points :( ).

So yeah, mixed bag. And it inherited the craptacular new army list creation system.

mrondeau wrote:EDIT: It should go without saying, but all that is dependent on the current rules. New rules, new point system.

I was going to answer, but... yeah, mostly this. The problem are mostly the rules, there. That said: yes, currently ECM 1 does basically nothing, but Detect is quite nice, or at least it has been in most of my games. And a bump from 2 to 3 is significant.

warboss wrote:
Anyways... back to to the recent blog post about Nublitz... I find it a bit odd that the post is dedicated to describing what a gear is instead of previewing portions of the Nublitz rules that changed. While I'm not opposed to the post, I suspect that around 99% of people that are left in HG fandom that will bother to read the blog will already be familiar enough with the universe to know what a gear is and are more interested in getting a preview of an upcoming rule. Since the rules are described as "significantly different", IMO blog posts this week would be better spent easing players into the new ruleset instead of just throwing them into the deep end on Jan 31st.

I... have issues with how they are redefining stuff, if that is from where I think it is.

mrondeau wrote:I'm not commenting on the blogs because there's not actually content to comment on. Kinda disappointing. Since I wanted to comment on HG, I had to resort to correcting someone on the Internet. (please imagine that's a smiling ALEPH. The choice of emoticon is rather restricted.)

I have commented on the last one, actually ^_^. They really should man up and say they're going to redo the setting from the ground up to fit their view, and be done with it. And excise all the legacy RPG rules from the wargame.

mrondeau wrote:Ok, yes, that unassaultish assault package turns things around completely. That should not cost 0 TV. That should very much not cost 0 TV! The drawback was the 6-12" range, which is important. This removes the drawback completely and boost up to 24".

Well, let's not forget that PRDF have spesh mareens (powered armor infantry... which makes the gears baffling, really), super duper training and even ECCMs they can shoot people with now! On top of I don't know how many new Gear chassises and a new gearstrider for no reason whatsoever.

Albertorius wrote:

warboss wrote:[Welcome, Albertorius! (CrouchingGrizzly, HiddenCheetah here)

Hiya, CGHC. Nice to see you

mrondeau wrote:I'm not commenting on the blogs because there's not actually content to comment on. Kinda disappointing. Since I wanted to comment on HG, I had to resort to correcting someone on the Internet. (please imagine that's a smiling ALEPH. The choice of emoticon is rather restricted.)

I have commented on the last one, actually ^_^. They really should man up and say they're going to redo the setting from the ground up to fit their view, and be done with it. And excise all the legacy RPG rules from the wargame.

mrondeau wrote:Ok, yes, that unassaultish assault package turns things around completely. That should not cost 0 TV. That should very much not cost 0 TV! The drawback was the 6-12" range, which is important. This removes the drawback completely and boost up to 24".

Well, let's not forget that PRDF have spesh mareens (powered armor infantry... which makes the gears baffling, really), super duper training and even ECCMs they can shoot people with now! On top of I don't know how many new Gear chassises and a new gearstrider for no reason whatsoever.

Thanks! Ditto! I saw some posts of yours over on RPG.net about Ogre but I haven't been following the official forums of late. I will likely pop in once both nublitz and the north pdf come out and I see the final fruits of both HG labors.

I'd actually be fine with them resetting the universe completely in a Battlestar Galactica fashion. I can't speak for others but the WOTA and to a lesser extent Interpolar war are my favorite settings and I'd be fine with them rebooting the universe to the years around WOTA (pre, during, and after) as an optional campaign setting. Basically, it would be North versus South versus CEF just like in the RPG 1st edition. I don't think it would be a good idea for the basic setting as they'd invalidate a ton of models (all of nucoal, most of paxton, etc) but I'd like the option to play in that time period. That said... when the core universe and rules are such a mess, an offshoot alternate campaign is a very low priority. Still.. in the imaginary alternate reality where I've won the Powerball Lottery and bought the Heavy Gear IP, an alternate campaign setting with some expanded northern/southern/CEF units (like stealth gears and upgraded hovertanks) with a Battlestar Galactica rebooted storyline would be happening. Heck, I'd even get Brandon to write some steamy intros to the various chapters!

As for PRDF, I'm fine with them having all the stuff you said AS LONG AS THEY ACTUALLY PAY FOR IT. I can't stress that enough but it doesn't seem to matter. The whole point of the VCS is to quantify benefits and charge for them. I fully admit that the VCS has flaws (like undercharging for detect which IMO is the third most important combat stat) but if they insist on using it for some armies then other armies should use them as well. If something needs to be changed (like MAC upgrades going to 0tv cost with PRDF), then they should be changed for EVERYONE via the existing FAQ/errata system and not just added to some favored factions only. If the RFB gets melee with the Paxton upgrade, it should cost more OR be retroactively applied backwards to other armies as it is better in some and not others. The VCS may be flawed but I fear that Heavy Gear has turned into some mecha parody of animal farm where all gears are created equal (under the VCS) but some gears (Paxton) are more equal than others (free or undercosted stuff!).