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.

Full files are up. There is a separate link to just the rules PDF but this zip has the army building and model stat files as well.

http://www.dp9.com/content/heavy-gear-alpha-test-army-list-files

edit: LOL.. to go with my earlier topic of conversation... adding an MAC to a Hunter bumps it up by two points in cost but adding an MAC to a much better warrior (ecm, better EW augment, 50% more sensors, one extra damage box for some reason for only 1TV more) only increases it by 1 so the better warrior costs the same as the hunter with an MAC. Sigh.. at least Dp9 is consistent.

http://www.dp9.com/content/more-traits-and-cataphract-review-plus-what-you-need-play

Is the link for the curious. For the most part, it's all decent stuff. I see no mention of Top Speed or Stationary yet, which makes me wonder if they have been cut from the game. Which I'm not sure if I care overly much if they're gone, it certainly streamlines things quite a bit.

 warboss wrote:
Full files are up. There is a separate link to just the rules PDF but this zip has the army building and model stat files as well.

http://www.dp9.com/content/heavy-gear-alpha-test-army-list-files

edit: LOL.. to go with my earlier topic of conversation... adding an MAC to a Hunter bumps it up by two points in cost but adding an MAC to a much better warrior (ecm, better EW augment, one extra damage box for some reason for only 1TV more) only increases it by 1 so the better warrior costs the same as the hunter with an MAC. Sigh.. at least Dp9 is consistent.

Well, I guess I can't expect anything else, now can I...

At least I can actually read the whole rules now.

EDIT: Oh, nice, I see they absolutely want to add the term "mecha" to the game, however they can.

 warboss wrote:

edit: LOL.. to go with my earlier topic of conversation... adding an MAC to a Hunter bumps it up by two points in cost but adding an MAC to a much better warrior (ecm, better EW augment, one extra damage box for some reason for only 1TV more) only increases it by 1 so the better warrior costs the same as the hunter with an MAC. Sigh.. at least Dp9 is consistent.

I need a bucket of Advil.

 IceRaptor wrote:

 warboss wrote:

edit: LOL.. to go with my earlier topic of conversation... adding an MAC to a Hunter bumps it up by two points in cost but adding an MAC to a much better warrior (ecm, better EW augment, one extra damage box for some reason for only 1TV more) only increases it by 1 so the better warrior costs the same as the hunter with an MAC. Sigh.. at least Dp9 is consistent.

I need a bucket of Advil.

I feel your pain >_>

 IceRaptor wrote:

 warboss wrote:

edit: LOL.. to go with my earlier topic of conversation... adding an MAC to a Hunter bumps it up by two points in cost but adding an MAC to a much better warrior (ecm, better EW augment, one extra damage box for some reason for only 1TV more) only increases it by 1 so the better warrior costs the same as the hunter with an MAC. Sigh.. at least Dp9 is consistent.

I need a bucket of Advil.

I edited in after your post that the Warrior also has 50% longer ranged sensors. I don't have any problem with any of that as long as (again... just like before) they charge for it. That just happens to be a particular pet peeve of mine since the paxton pdf came out and it was literally the first thing I looked at (since as a play tester I had some access to this stuff before).

I also see that the cheetah is still no more maneuverable than any other recon or elite gear (3+ pilot, agile trait) but still has less armor. It's now much easier to kill a cheetah than pretty much any other "modern" recon gear. That one I brought up several times to no avail. :(

Albertorius wrote:
...it would appear that the 6d6 max limitation has been revoked.

I knew of ways to get up to 8D6 or so in really extreme cases, but I wasn't aware of a 15D6 scenario (from the point of the rules around August timeframe). At least, not on a check (rolls are another kettle of fish). The intent was that most rolls would be in the 2D6-4D6 range, with 6D6 as an outlier (shot from directly behind, from an autocannon (or other +D6 weapon), in optimal range). Higher rolls you could get from command style actions, but only +1D or +2D.

But then, I'm behind the curve, so I don't know for sure anymore. My knowledge is know nearly 6 months old, to make of it what you will.

 IceRaptor wrote:

Albertorius wrote:
...it would appear that the 6d6 max limitation has been revoked.

I knew of ways to get up to 8D6 or so in really extreme cases, but I wasn't aware of a 15D6 scenario (from the point of the rules around August timeframe). At least, not on a check (rolls are another kettle of fish). The intent was that most rolls would be in the 2D6-4D6 range, with 6D6 as an outlier (shot from directly behind, from an autocannon (or other +D6 weapon), in optimal range). Higher rolls you could get from command style actions, but only +1D or +2D.

But then, I'm behind the curve, so I don't know for sure anymore. My knowledge is know nearly 6 months old, to make of it what you will.

If it's any consolation, the files are attributed as such:

Author: David McLeod (DP9 Staff) with special thanks and recognition to IceRaptor (it spells your name, but I don't know if you want it posted anywhere, so...).

So, its his fault!

 warboss wrote:
I edited in after your post that the Warrior also has 50% longer ranged sensors. I don't have any problem with any of that as long as (again... just like before) they charge for it. That just happens to be a particular pet peeve of mine since the paxton pdf came out and it was literally the first thing I looked at (since as a play tester I had some access to this stuff before).

I don't want to get into too many specifics here... but generally speaking, more granular point costs would tend to 'mask' many of those as a single point. You can't just say 'X is worth +1' point anymore; you have to consider the model as the total package. So a MAC might be worth +0 points, and need another upgrade mechanism to keep balanced. It's largely (IMO) a preference call, as to how granular you make things, but one major problem with HG has always been the 'VCS' thinking.

I'll agree that in your case, there's an obvious disparity. I just think the +2 for the MAC (even at +1) is probably too high. But that depends on the other models so...

I should probably shutup and read the rules like everybody else

 IceRaptor wrote:

But then, I'm behind the curve, so I don't know for sure anymore. My knowledge is know nearly 6 months old, to make of it what you will.

It's ok. You didn't miss much on the official playtesting mailing lists. The number of responses since May when you handed over the reigns can be counted up on one hand (and could have been counted on a single finger if not for my rather annoying requests for updates).

Albertorius wrote:

Author: David McLeod (DP9 Staff) with special thanks and recognition to IceRaptor (it spells your name, but I don't know if you want it posted anywhere, so...).

So, its his fault!

I don't mind being attributed in the least. And yeah, the flaws are probably my fault.

I just can't tell you as much as you probably want to know, without making Dave's job harder. So... I'm trying to walk a fine line and talk about something I put alot of time into (cause I enjoyed it). But Dave is the game's god, and deserves the credit for the hard work he's done for nearly a year now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 warboss wrote:

I also see that the cheetah is still no more maneuverable than any other recon or elite gear (3+ pilot, agile trait) but still has less armor. It's now much easier to kill a cheetah than pretty much any other "modern" recon gear. That one I brought up several times to no avail. :(

To be fair, it's an open alpha - so hopefully this gets addressed now that it's opened up to a larger audience. Just keep plugging on the point, because yeah - Cheetahs should have something special (+1D6 to Pilot in the open, or 2+ Pilot against reaction fire would be nice).

 IceRaptor wrote:

 warboss wrote:
I edited in after your post that the Warrior also has 50% longer ranged sensors. I don't have any problem with any of that as long as (again... just like before) they charge for it. That just happens to be a particular pet peeve of mine since the paxton pdf came out and it was literally the first thing I looked at (since as a play tester I had some access to this stuff before).

I don't want to get into too many specifics here... but generally speaking, more granular point costs would tend to 'mask' many of those as a single point. You can't just say 'X is worth +1' point anymore; you have to consider the model as the total package. So a MAC might be worth +0 points, and need another upgrade mechanism to keep balanced. It's largely (IMO) a preference call, as to how granular you make things, but one major problem with HG has always been the 'VCS' thinking.

I'll agree that in your case, there's an obvious disparity. I just think the +2 for the MAC (even at +1) is probably too high. But that depends on the other models so...

I should probably shutup and read the rules like everybody else

I agree (not with the last part but the earlier) and even posted that over on the official thread (first time logging in for weeks). I understand it's less granular and it wouldn't be as big of a deal if the warrior was only better marginally in one or two ways (like 0d6 ecm with a better EW augment) but the addition of multiple other benefits pushes it over the limit of reasonable for me. I fully admit though that the mary sue-ish Paxton release and my interactions with the person responsible for it has me sensitized to that particular faction getting multiple things at once gratis. 1tv seems like a fair boost for 4 separate buffs (especially with the added and expanded role EW now plays in the rules). With the range of stats decreasing and the rules NOT being compatible, it seems like the perfect time to decide whether the warrior NEEDS to be that different from the hunter/jaeger and, if it does, to charge for that. 1tv is a fair price for all those abilities IMO and it disappears as soon as you upgrade.

For those more knowledgable with the RPG, is there anything there to justify why the warrior has more damage boxes?

 warboss wrote:
1tv is a fair price for all those abilities IMO and it disappears as soon as you upgrade.

I agree? I was saying the +2 MAC upgrade on the Hunter smells wrong. I could (almost) buy +1 for it, with the Warrior being +1 and +2 (with the MAC) over the Hunter.

 warboss wrote:
For those more knowledgable with the RPG, is there anything there to justify why the warrior has more damage boxes?

No.

Yeah, I know.. I just had to get that off my chest. I'll be good for a few hours now.

Another thing to note for readers is the army selection as it is VASTLY different now. Models are broadly classified as a squad type(s) and you can mix/match whatever you want with that type to form a squad with a few limits. There basically, for instance, is no reason for you to ever field the stock Warrior as you can field every one with an MAC as long as you have the 1tv each (but that exacerbates TV issues like the one above). Albert, that should help significantly though with your FIF issues.

 IceRaptor wrote:

I just can't tell you as much as you probably want to know, without making Dave's job harder. So... I'm trying to walk a fine line and talk about something I put alot of time into (cause I enjoyed it). But Dave is the game's god, and deserves the credit for the hard work he's done for nearly a year now.

Oh, I understand completely, don't worry . You're already sharing more than enough.

 warboss wrote:

I also see that the cheetah is still no more maneuverable than any other recon or elite gear (3+ pilot, agile trait) but still has less armor. It's now much easier to kill a cheetah than pretty much any other "modern" recon gear. That one I brought up several times to no avail. :(

To be fair, it's an open alpha - so hopefully this gets addressed now that it's opened up to a larger audience. Just keep plugging on the point, because yeah - Cheetahs should have something special (+1D6 to Pilot in the open, or 2+ Pilot against reaction fire would be nice).

According to the files, the Cheetah is Acrobatic (reroll attacks and defenses in melee) and Agile (+1D6 to defend against attacks if not in Cover). So there's that, I guess.

Albertorius wrote:

According to the files, the Cheetah is Acrobatic (reroll attacks and defenses in melee) and Agile (+1D6 to defend against attacks if not in Cover). So there's that, I guess.

Yup.. most every recon and elite gear is agile and half are acrobatic. Acrobatic only helps though in close combat and agile is only out of cover. In any case, a leagueless cheetah standing next to a leagueless iggy in the same squad being hit by lets say an area effect MAC spray will *ALWAYS* take more damage and not avoid the shot any more than the iggy or Jaguar. They kept the paper thin armor and low damage boxes compared with all other gears but got rid of the boost to avoiding the shots. Don't get me wrong.. it's still agile but it's no more agile than half the other stuff out there which is a fundamental change to everything about the cheetah since the 1st edition RPG release. Pilot ratings go from 2 to 6 but no gear (at least earlier in the playtest.. haven't had the chance to check every file this time) has a 2+. If there ever was a gear that should, it would be the cheetah. I'm aware of the old L&L and original blitz issues of unhittable cheetahs but the idea of a cheetah (which is still as fragile as a wet tissue) being no more maneuverable in ranged combat as a jaguar strikes me as odd when there is an unused mechanic that fits the fluff perfectly. To my knowledge, it was never attempted (as opposed to attempted and then abandoned due to issues).

 warboss wrote:

For those more knowledgable with the RPG, is there anything there to justify why the warrior has more damage boxes?

None whatsoever. In the RPG, the only things that made the Warrior slightly different were 50 km more of range, marginally better range (not quality) on the sensors and comms suite, and ECM 1. Well, and a price tag substantially higher due to being in limited production instead of mass production.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 warboss wrote:

Albertorius wrote:

According to the files, the Cheetah is Acrobatic (reroll attacks and defenses in melee) and Agile (+1D6 to defend against attacks if not in Cover). So there's that, I guess.

Yup.. most every recon and elite gear is agile and half are acrobatic. Acrobatic only helps though in close combat and agile is only out of cover. In any case, a leagueless cheetah standing next to a leagueless iggy in the same squad being hit by lets say an area effect MAC spray will *ALWAYS* take more damage and not avoid the shot any more than the iggy or Jaguar. They kept the paper thin armor and low damage boxes compared with all other gears but got rid of the boost to avoiding the shots. Don't get me wrong.. it's still agile but it's no more agile than half the other stuff out there which is a fundamental change to everything about the cheetah since the 1st edition RPG release.

Ah, yeah. Cheetahs should be the most unhittable unit in the game. That said, Maybe the problem is that +1 Man units shouldn't be Agile. I mean, if an Iggy is Agile, why aren't agiles the Jaguar and BM too?

EDIT: oh, wait, they are too. Gah.

 warboss wrote:
Acrobatic only helps though in close combat and agile is only out of cover.

Agile was only supposed to apply to the Cheetah & Raven, I thought? The Iggy's 3+ DEF was already enough of a benefit, with the better armor. C'est la vie.

 warboss wrote:
In any case, a leagueless cheetah standing next to a leagueless iggy in the same squad being hit by lets say an area effect MAC spray will *ALWAYS* take more damage and not avoid the shot any more than the iggy or Jaguar.

MAC spray? I feel like I need the Gandalf meme right now. WTF is a MAC spray? We got rid of sprays... right?

 IceRaptor wrote:

 warboss wrote:
Acrobatic only helps though in close combat and agile is only out of cover.

Agile was only supposed to apply to the Cheetah & Raven, I thought? The Iggy's 3+ DEF was already enough of a benefit, with the better armor. C'est la vie.

 warboss wrote:
In any case, a leagueless cheetah standing next to a leagueless iggy in the same squad being hit by lets say an area effect MAC spray will *ALWAYS* take more damage and not avoid the shot any more than the iggy or Jaguar.

MAC spray? I feel like I need the Gandalf meme right now. WTF is a MAC spray? We got rid of sprays... right?

From a quick look, the mamba, jaguar, gila, and iguana and their variants (except MP) are all agile. The Warrior IV is apparently of the pre-elite upgrade variety as it is not and the Fer de Lance missed out (that should make AL13N happy). I didn't check nucoal yet.

You know what I mean by spray! Burst.

edit: Just took a peek at the grog forum since I haven't logged in for a few weeks. It's practically a ghost town with the last post on Jan 6. Wow... Also, I was hoping that there would be news somewhere about the Northern PDF release but no such luck. I had thought DP9 would have put that out first to make some money.

http://dp9.com.s3.amazonaws.com/downloads/HGBv5-AlphaRulesUpdatedJan31_final.pdf

Heh, lots of typos, also a DP9 staple. Still reading, some stuff I'm sad to see go, like scattered AE attacks. I would've preferred just simplifying them greatly (via a template or scatter die), but oh well.


No more Some Cover (for the best), detection is greatly simplified, as is trying to get an Active Lock. There is a lot of good so far, though obviously by playing some weaknesses may be revealed. The "Some stuff gets to not spend an action to go top speed under varying sets of circumstances but still has the Top Speed penalty" rule should just get cut, it doesn't seem worth the complexity. Ramming looks like it could be nutty at first glance, but I didn't look that deeply.

Thank the lords, melee range has been reduced!

Sweet, they took the Fast turret / Turret changes I posted about. Though that could've just been convergent thinking (AKA great minds think alike).

Not sure I like the new Crossfire rule, just seems to compound a flanking attack, as opposed to rewarding the player for positioning their units for a crossfire.

Offboard support is clunky and unnecessary, and should be axed IMHO.

I'm glad to see the JetPack rule, but why, why make it so complicated, just do what GW does. X movement, up to X height. So much easier.


Ugh, Recovery Vehicle trait does not belong in the game. gak should not be getting repaired mid battle. (oh nm, its for persistent effects like haywire, and fire, slightly better)

I'm glad they added intentional ramming as it was something that was missing and I commented on earlier. Just note though that the mislabeled Fragile/Exposed Movement System trait on hovertanks combined with the lack of anything like the ram plate and no melee weapons makes them particularly vulnerable to ramming.

And onto the army lists. First CEF.

Yay, it looks like F6-16s might be useful, though possibly too expensive? Though it's weird that they have been given Pulse Lasers, that was always traditionally a Terra Novan weapon. I am happy, however to see them with an LPA as an option.

Also, it looks like no GREL skill/perk/trait differentiation? So GREL pilots are basically indistinguishable, which is a shame. On the other hand FLAIL ANN is now decent. The BF2-21 Support option is armed wtih a PL-7, whatever that is. That supposed to be a LPL?


As an aside, I really hate the formatting style of (Pen-5), a colon would look better IMHO (Pen:5), as it's not a modifier.

I couldn't find a definition for Exposed Movement anywhere? EDIT: In the FAQ, it' Fragile, I guess they didn't do a find/replace =)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Or Precise, what the heck does that mean? -- EDIT: Found it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And on to the South.

I dislike that the Hetaroi gets the same armor as a HT72. The Het, to me, was always supposed to be a hybrid of a LHT and a HT, a MHT basically.

(And on a side note, no improved rear defense trait? That's gonna hurt the HT-7X series...)

Interesting. This is a substantial departure, and will require quite a bit of study before a judgement is made. A few things certainly make sense when just glancing over what a profile looks like now. Won't make any judgements quite yet.

One thing to note regarding 'Mecha'. It probably is there now to also classify TN Gears as the same class as stuff like Frames and Armigers.

ferrous wrote:


I dislike that the Hetaroi gets the same armor as a HT72. The Het, to me, was always supposed to be a hybrid of a LHT and a HT, a MHT basically.

(And on a side note, no improved rear defense trait? That's gonna hurt the HT-7X series...)

In a way, they actually have it. The earlier tanks have flank 2d6 when the "standard" is 1d6, making flanking more dangerous. The fact that the more advanced earth tanks lack that disadvantage makes them less vulnerable (or at least not extra vulnerable like most non-gears).

Good Point.

Well, first things first, I'm glad the system has moved all the way to being a low-sum point system. It is far easier to playtest and tweak when you aren't arguing whether something feels better at 31, 32 or 33 points (but definitely not 34, way too high damn it!). It makes weird imbalances like the Vanguard Warrior vs. the Hunter/Jäger Gunner stand out a lot and also gets you to take a good look at the upgrade itself.

My gut is that the base Warrior looks mostly fine but should become 5/1 or 4/2 (the latter justifiable by all that fancy tech in it). The improved EW, better sensors and ECM would be fine for the +1 point above the Hunter/Jäger.

The LAC->MAC upgradge itself feels almost right. Part of me is thinking that it works well as a point filler and a Pen7 Burst 1 weapon is fairly nice to have for a trooper. But I'm not sure if that change alone is worth it.

But at the very least a 7 point Warrior without the weird survivability bump and 7 point Gunner variants for the Hunter/Jäger make sense.

I'm liking the CEF changes. A lot of useless point sinks have disappeared and made them easier to build for. You can make F6-16 squads again without spending points on any BF-series Frames. Mission packs are also gone, so no automatic points bumps just for taking frames in the first place. And looking at the F6-16 for 8 points, you get something that it a competent sniper for a reasonable price. Its combination of long-range main gun and Fast should allow it to play the range game quite nicely. The introduction of light guided weapons meshes better with our force's style than the omni-present rocket packs we used to carry.

That said, unless I am misreading it, it appears Hover Tanks are back to being a minimum unit of 2 (still need to read deeper but our minimum ACT total for a squad is 4 and they only have 3 each). This will definitely make them hard to fit in smaller games again if true (again, not sure if their is an exception that I'm missing).

But overall, a lot of CEF's "cheap" units got more affordable by not having to pay various taxes. So low-point games should be quite do-able for us. And a quick glance at Frames has me thinking they aren't too bad. Definitely a force that relies on mutual support and range control, but the amount of long range and guided weaponry in there should help things out.

Still need to play it, but I am cautiously positive that they are headed in the right direction there.

Edit - Oh, and it looks like Haywire actually does something now! Particle Accelerators may not be pariah-weapons anymore. A decent hit from an HPA will cause something telling at the very least. Most lighter units will probably be shut down by even an MOS1 attack. And testing against EW means that a lot of units have a weaker defense against it than normal. It actually plays in to the mutual support angle as well. Pop a shot of at a unit and pin it in place for a round and let the rest of your forces pick it apart. Interesting, and a lot better than being a low-damage weapon with a small chance of causing very little extra.

First Impressions on a skim:
Movement is surprisingly refreshing. Much simpler. I like having full speed be just 'two movement actions'. Terrain is MUCH more sensible, same with cover.

Thank god also for the 'standard LoS model'. It makes the game so much more playable for weird shaped models or dynamically posed ones.

Active Detection and the concealment/stealth model are WAY better. I particularly like that 'Going Active' merely extends your normal sight, but also makes you very visible

Edit: Interesting that they changed some names and designations to reduce confusion. For example, a Northern 'Destroyer' Gear is one with a bazooka. So now the old 'Strike Jaguar' is a 'Destroyer Jaguar', since that configuration is equipped with a bazooka.
Likewise, the Terran Heavy Hovertanks (HT-68 and HT-72) are now designated (MHT-68 and MHT-72), to differentiate them from the HHT-90. Incidentally, the words 'Naval Destroyer Landship' appear in a passage regarding large units.

Oh wait, I think solo MHT's are available via Regimental Support. I probably shouldn't be reading all of this out of order.

Nice way off balancing that out actually. Solo hovertanks were a great way of getting an extra activation. We can still grab 'em, but now they are attached to another unit.

Not a bad trade off. I'll have to make a few ultra-low point lists now to see if I like the variety. A 50 point list with a bit of unit variety should be quite do-able without having to bend over backwards (well outside of likely being Frame-heavy). Man, it will be a brand new experience not needing 5 books to make a CEF list.

Yeah, overall, its mostly good, especially for CEF, Caprice also looks playable now. Someone pointed out on the forum that they moved Blazing Mambas to SnakeEyes. Which is a weird choice.

It's funny that they have yet again mucked up the point costs, and stock Sidewinders now cost the same as a Jager with a MAC upgrade. Oops =) I think they could get away with just having the MAC upgrade cost 1 for troopers to fix it. (Though I'm hazarding a guess that it might've started at that and gotten bumped in a recent revision)

Eh, just take a warrior with an MAC instead for the same price. You get added survivability and some free EW to boot!