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.

 Chemical Cutthroat wrote:

 Smilodon_UP wrote:
While it may have some points in it's favor, Infinity is set-up to allow those things.

The rules for Thunder Run aren't set up for 'hero' units. There isn't a named character in the bunch.

Skirmish scale gaming is specifically for often dissimilar individual models conducting small unit actions versus a comparable force, each model using whatever systems the controlling player desires them to have instead of being a largely homogeneous unit.
Duelists, Black Talons et al, or Airborne models that drop onto the table are likewise heroic, and they aren't ever going to be removed from HG.

Especially not at that scale.


I've read enough of Brandon's posts, threads, and fiction to know what he likes, and because of that I know the things he likes will be included as part of a HG ruleset based on his vision. That is reality.

 Chemical Cutthroat wrote:
The chap was just asking for a hand and/or your thoughts. I think a simple 'No thanks not interested' would have sufficed.

I have carefully never commented in his "update" thread, never commented on that very same idea in this thread beyond a single post, nor commented on his ruleset port anywhere else such as on DP9 or Google+, so it could not be construed that I had any interest.
What more could I not do.

 Chemical Cutthroat wrote:
If you don't like meter high multi-ton combat vehicles as exactly what they are built for then why do you even like Heavy Gear?

.... what perception then am I allowed to have, or supposed to have .... But yeah, you're right. No worries.

 warboss wrote:

 Smilodon_UP wrote:
I don't like mecha oriented gameplay.

Can you elaborate further on that part given the game genre we're talking about?

This still holds true.

 IceRaptor wrote:
I think the point is that Heavy Gear - as a setting - sees the Gears as effective combat vehicles only in specific niches. However, walkers are increasing having their effectiveness exaggerated beyond those niches due to the rule of cool. Brandon's rules covers vehicles to some extent, but primarily focuses on Gears because that's what most players find compelling. Ergo, what (I think) he dislikes is the spotlight on mecha, not necessarily the presence of mecha per se.

Pretty much. I see Gears as a legged equivalent of this or this, not a suit of mary-sue armor.

_
_

 Albertorius wrote:

[i]Buckshot ammo fills the air with heavy pellets instead of a single larger projectile. That makes them more effective against unprotected targets and diminishes the need to aim. That also reduces penetration capabilities, but it is still effective against joints, auxiliary systems and similarly unprotected equipment on armored units.

I love the description. I think you've nailed it in one on the description - but after going back to reading my tactical rules, I think the rules you've posted don't quite capture that effectively. In particular, allowing the buckshot to damage armor contradicts the 'reduces penetration capabilities' statement you made, without making it more likely to destroy AUX systems or the like. My personal stance is that I think buckshot should degrade your systems severely, but not necessarily damage your armor in the process - it's cracking the weak points on weapons, joints, etc. To that end, and after looking back through the rules a bit, I think you'd have to create your own damage table to accomplish the effects I think reconciles the weapon against the description you posted above.

What do you think about this?

In game terms, the attacker receives a +1 Acc bonus, halves the DM and adds the AI trait to the weapon. When attacking non-infantry targets, instead of the normal damage effects roll against the following systems damage table. Any system with a penalty of -6 is destroyed; re-roll any results against destroyed systems.

Roll --- Damaged System --- Light Damage ---------------- Heavy Damage ---------------- Overkill 1 Sensors -2 penalty to Sensors -4 penalty to Sensors Sensors Destroyed (-6 penalty) 2 Weapons 1 weapon destroyed 1D6 weapons destroyed 2D6 weapons destroyed 3 Fire Control -1 to all weapons -2 to all weapons -3 to all weapons 4 Movement -1 to maneuver -2 to maneuver -3 to maneuver 5 Communications -2 penalty to Comms -4 penalty to Comms Comms Destroyed (-6 penalty) 6 Other Auxiliary 0D6 Aux system destroyed 1D6 Aux systems destroyed 2D6 Aux systems destroyed

It's a rough draft, but I tend to think that would represent the buckshot damaging the more 'fragile' elements of a unit better than sandpapering armor. A single good shot can yield a mobility kill or
significantly reduce a unit's ability to respond to the attack. Thoughts?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Chemical Cutthroat wrote:

If you don't like meter high multi-ton combat vehicles as exactly what they are built for then why do you even like Heavy Gear? The whole appeal of the units is that they can mimic human movements on a larger scale. Kneeling, running, maneuvering, climbing, etc. They're still big heavy war machines, and 'more nimble' doesn't mean they're suddenly all ninjas.

I think the point is that Heavy Gear - as a setting - sees the Gears as effective combat vehicles only in specific niches. Specifically, rough terrain where conventional vehicles lack the mobility to traverse easily - broken badlands, swamps, urban settings, mountain ranges, etc. The rest of the time, conventional vehicles rule the day, and combat walkers are at a decided disadvantage. However, walkers are increasing having their effectiveness exaggerated beyond those niches due to the rule of cool. I think all that Smilodon is saying is that he prefer the combined arms approach, where infantry, vehicles and walker IFVs all have their place - but walkers aren't pushed to the front to appeal to a particular playerbase. Brandon's rules covers vehicles to some extent, but primarily focuses on Gears because that's what most players find compelling. Ergo, what (I think) he dislikes is the spotlight on mecha, not necessarily the presence of mecha per se.

But then, I could be mistaken.

 IceRaptor wrote:


I think the point is that Heavy Gear - as a setting - sees the Gears as effective combat vehicles only in specific niches. Specifically, rough terrain where conventional vehicles lack the mobility to traverse easily - broken badlands, swamps, urban settings, mountain ranges, etc. The rest of the time, conventional vehicles rule the day, and combat walkers are at a decided disadvantage. However, walkers are increasing having their effectiveness exaggerated beyond those niches due to the rule of cool. I think all that Smilodon is saying is that he prefer the combined arms approach, where infantry, vehicles and walker IFVs all have their place - but walkers aren't pushed to the front to appeal to a particular playerbase. Brandon's rules covers vehicles to some extent, but primarily focuses on Gears because that's what most players find compelling. Ergo, what (I think) he dislikes is the spotlight on mecha, not necessarily the presence of mecha per se.

But then, I could be mistaken.

Well, if you are mistaken, so am I.

One of the biggest appeal of the HG setting is that the "mecha" aspects give it added flavor, but aren't critical to it. Could you have the setting working without the gears ? Easily.

Smilodon_UP wrote:

 Chemical Cutthroat wrote:

 Smilodon_UP wrote:
While it may have some points in it's favor, Infinity is set-up to allow those things.

The rules for Thunder Run aren't set up for 'hero' units. There isn't a named character in the bunch.

Skirmish scale gaming is specifically for often dissimilar individual models conducting small unit actions versus a comparable force, each model using whatever systems the controlling player desires them to have instead of being a largely homogeneous unit.
Duelists, Black Talons et al, or Airborne models that drop onto the table are likewise heroic, and they aren't ever going to be removed from HG. Especially not at that scale.

I've read enough of Brandon's posts, threads, and fiction to know what he likes, and because of that I know the things he likes will be included as part of a HG ruleset based on his vision. That is reality.

 Chemical Cutthroat wrote:
The chap was just asking for a hand and/or your thoughts. I think a simple 'No thanks not interested' would have sufficed.

I have carefully never commented in his "update" thread, never commented on that very same idea in this thread beyond a single post, nor commented on his ruleset port anywhere else such as on DP9 or Google+, so it could not be construed that I had any interest.
What more could I not do.

 Chemical Cutthroat wrote:
If you don't like meter high multi-ton combat vehicles as exactly what they are built for then why do you even like Heavy Gear?

.... what perception then am I allowed to have, or supposed to have .... But yeah, you're right. No worries.

 warboss wrote:

 Smilodon_UP wrote:
I don't like mecha oriented gameplay.

Can you elaborate further on that part given the game genre we're talking about?

This still holds true.

 IceRaptor wrote:
I think the point is that Heavy Gear - as a setting - sees the Gears as effective combat vehicles only in specific niches. However, walkers are increasing having their effectiveness exaggerated beyond those niches due to the rule of cool. Brandon's rules covers vehicles to some extent, but primarily focuses on Gears because that's what most players find compelling. Ergo, what (I think) he dislikes is the spotlight on mecha, not necessarily the presence of mecha per se.

Pretty much. I see Gears as a legged equivalent of this or this, not a suit of mary-sue armor.

_
_

HudsonD wrote:Well, if you are mistaken, so am I.

One of the biggest appeal of the HG setting is that the "mecha" aspects give it added flavor, but aren't critical to it. Could you have the setting working without the gears ? Easily.

You've all highlighted things very well.

Allow me to clear the air somewhat. In no way, shape or form was I attempting to cause a riff between anyone.

However, I do not deny my perceptions and my personal likes would color the Thunder Run rules. Hence why I made the request in the first place of you, Smilodon. And mrondeau, and HudsonD, and IceRaptor, and Albertorius, and pretty much anyone.

Because I'm not just interested in creating a ruleset that I think is cool. I want to create a truly fan-made rules sub-set that the majority of players would enjoy. I would like for Heavy Gears to remain in their niche, and to allow infantry and armored vehicles to remain very viable forces on the battlefield. Of course, my perception is also colored by my history.

With the recent additions I have been making to infantry and to vehicles, I would like for you to test them out and see how they play. To make them viable on their own.

I would also point out that skirmish scale rules, as you have described them, Smilodon, are not what I am looking for. I am looking to create a large skirmish/minor battle-sized game setting with these rules. Between 20-30 miniatures, if you go with pure Heavy Gear force. If you go with something else, this might fluctuate between 8-12 larger armored vehicles or many different cavalry vehicles and infantry.

My goals are as follows:

1. Allow everyone the weapon loadouts to make their old Heavy Gears lethal, even the Hunter and Jager.
2. Grant armored vehicles like tanks and striders the firepower, the armor, and the durability to remain in a fight and become a force to be reckoned with.
3. Grant infantry a niche as small, squishy, but nevertheless lethally-armed units.
4. Giving support assets a good focus.
5. Keeping play fluid, while allowing the players the ability to maneuver entire squadrons/cadres/platoons in a manner more conducive to armored warfare.
6. Make each league distinct in flavor by fluctuating the points costs and SWC costs of various specialized units within their force, and maintaining the feel of the leagues as they were originally presented in Tactical 2nd Edition Heavy Gear.
7. "Hero" mecha (ala MWO) are not to be found.

These rules can, of course, be tweaked to a more skirmish/roleplaying setting very easily, and that is certainly not any problem of mine. I welcome it, and have even begun thinking on certain possibilities for narrative campaigns and experience that would improve Gears, tanks and infantry the longer they survived the campaign. But I feel that slightly larger battles would grant more opportunities for tactics to be employed, and make it so that each unit would find its niche.

-Brandon F.

@Smilodon: While I (now) understand what you mean, I think you ascribe way too much meaning to a simple description using two words. I suspect most people who read "mecha oriented" will simply think focused on large robots which is exactly what HG always has been and IMO always should be. I'm not sure I have much in the way of suggestions for gritty, non-heroic combined arms scifi tabletop game rules as I haven't been to gencon in a while and haven't been trying the newer niche rulesets.

@Brandon: Again, I'm working with limited Infinity experience (read: none)... but that is a very ambitious set of goals. One of the things that makes infinity work it seems from reading various posts and blogs is that its level of detail is crunchy enough for the scale and model count of the game it is built for. I'm not sure it will scale well to games of double to triple the usual 10 model count. Usually when infinity has a higher model count from various reports I've seen, it is due to model spam of simple units via link teams and even they barely ever reach 15-20 from video reports I've seen. I'm not sure gears with their inherent complexity might work as well at 20-30 without major abstraction/simplification of the ruleset. If you want to look at an example of a ruleset that started with a small model count and grew too big for its own britches, you don't have to look any further than HG Blitz.

 warboss wrote:
I'm not sure I have much in the way of suggestions for gritty, non-heroic combined arms scifi tabletop game rules as I haven't been to gencon in a while and haven't been trying the newer niche rulesets.

To the best of my knowledge, such a ruleset does not exist, and in all probability never will.

People want stompy robots that do "mecha" things, and anything that doesn't cater to that in multiple ways isn't ever going to sell enough to be viable, meaning anyone not looking for that in a game simply doesn't matter when it comes to marketing.

Such is life; very little is ever truly new or all that differentiated because folks want what they want, and purchase what attracts their interest.
Quite often without realizing it's the same thing they might already own albeit in new packaging.


As illustration, I recently finished a project idea I had started back in late 2011.
It got very little response then, and absolutely zero this time. It's just not what people want out of their setting.
I had posted the new version up online without a write-up because I was not completely satisfied with some of the tactical mapping symbols.
But given the lack of anything I dropped that idea and put back in the closet what few HG books I had out while working on the Northern PDF.

It happens when you're on the outside of a player-base, and as CC pointed out you have to question why you are still interested.
After being banned from the Pod forums, my discussion or griping about things HG pretty much only happens here, in a limited fashion as time goes by.

_
_

I agree that super detailed military insignia probably isn't what most people want out of their settings, especially from an unofficial source. It is just a fact of fan fiction that it won't in the majority of cases get accepted. I haven't gotten word of anyone trying out my blog house rules in any games where I wasn't an active participant no matter how much people complain about the existing blitz rules. Eh, so is life. I didn't comment on your insignias as it isn't a particular interest of mine and I don't paint squad markings on my heavy gear stuff. Heck, I don't even do it in 40k and the official game fluff has markings galore for space marines and has for decades.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 HudsonD wrote:

 IceRaptor wrote:


I think the point is that Heavy Gear - as a setting - sees the Gears as effective combat vehicles only in specific niches. Specifically, rough terrain where conventional vehicles lack the mobility to traverse easily - broken badlands, swamps, urban settings, mountain ranges, etc. The rest of the time, conventional vehicles rule the day, and combat walkers are at a decided disadvantage. However, walkers are increasing having their effectiveness exaggerated beyond those niches due to the rule of cool. I think all that Smilodon is saying is that he prefer the combined arms approach, where infantry, vehicles and walker IFVs all have their place - but walkers aren't pushed to the front to appeal to a particular playerbase. Brandon's rules covers vehicles to some extent, but primarily focuses on Gears because that's what most players find compelling. Ergo, what (I think) he dislikes is the spotlight on mecha, not necessarily the presence of mecha per se.

But then, I could be mistaken.

Well, if you are mistaken, so am I.

One of the biggest appeal of the HG setting is that the "mecha" aspects give it added flavor, but aren't critical to it. Could you have the setting working without the gears ? Easily.

While the combined arms appeal gets alot of vocal support, I don't think that it is very widespread and it's more a vocal minority than anything else. The appeal is for the majority of fans is in all likelihood the gears and striders. While I want tanks, artillery, infantry, etc in the game, there are much better rulesets for playing with them that you could just bolt on anthropomorphic robots into if that were really the focus. Maybe it is just my own bias as someone who got into Heavy Gear because of the gears but the focus for the first few years was almost entirely on gears and striders (see the old RAFM minis and the proportion of SKUs that are bipedal robots versus the ones that aren't to see what the priority was for Terra Novan factions). It was only in the late tactical era that non-robots got some limelight first with the CEF and then TN factions... which was expanded upon with more minis in the blitz era. I want players who like combined arms to at least have the option but I think that the moment Heavy GEAR moves the focus permanently away from GEARS is the moment we see the final nail in the coffin and we're not far away from that. It's already bad enough that the HG "flavor" of mecha combat is already being watered down with a shift in focus (both in the fluff and in production schedule) by Gundams EVERYWHERE for EVERYONE! that happened to also always have ridiculously oversized Final Fantasy JRPG weapons. I suspect in order to cater to even more people who couldn't ever care about the game world they built for 20 years, they'll likely incorporate cheesecake butt poses for Morgana grels and cutsie animal mascot upgrades for gears striders that provide even more bonuses.

warboss wrote:@Smilodon: While I (now) understand what you mean, I think you ascribe way too much meaning to a simple description using two words. I suspect most people who read "mecha oriented" will simply think focused on large robots which is exactly what HG always has been and IMO always should be. I'm not sure I have much in the way of suggestions for gritty, non-heroic combined arms scifi tabletop game rules as I haven't been to gencon in a while and haven't been trying the newer niche rulesets.

@Brandon: Again, I'm working with limited Infinity experience (read: none)... but that is a very ambitious set of goals. One of the things that makes infinity work it seems from reading various posts and blogs is that its level of detail is crunchy enough for the scale and model count of the game it is built for. I'm not sure it will scale well to games of double to triple the usual 10 model count. Usually when infinity has a higher model count from various reports I've seen, it is due to model spam of simple units via link teams and even they barely ever reach 15-20 from video reports I've seen. I'm not sure gears with their inherent complexity might work as well at 20-30 without major abstraction/simplification of the ruleset. If you want to look at an example of a ruleset that started with a small model count and grew too big for its own britches, you don't have to look any further than HG Blitz.

You are correct.

It is ambitious. But I believe it is doable.

One of the recent additions that I have made to certain command models and communications models is the capability to maneuver entire squadrons and cadres as if they were Link Teams. Smaller command models like the Headhunter and Jager can do this on a limited level for their individual squadrons and cadres, while those outfitted with heavy-duty communications systems (like the Weasel) are given the ability to assist in coordinating two separate squadrons and combining their Order pools.

As such, an entire squadron of 5 Hunters could take 2 Actions each to maneuver on a targeted Model with the Order pool.

Or, you could keep more than that number of Models in the rear and maneuver two or three models separately in a flanking maneuver on an entrenched opponent.

Using Dense terrain, I wanted to make it so players can split up the battlefield such that Heavy Gears are given their proper utility; they can maneuver through said Dense terrain in Walker mode without penalty. However, they cannot do so in Ground mode.

Likewise, Hover vehicles and regular tanks cannot pass through Dense terrain, they must either go around it, or jump over it. The only exceptions are Off-Road Beasts, but these again are special... see the Mammoth, Aller, Visigoth and Fire Dragon.

I have not touched the Hoppers, in particular because they are a recent addition. I wanted to focus on making air strikes (bombers and fighter-bombers) relatively lethal one-time uses that can have a very powerful impact on the battlefield, but not so overpowering that they completely destroy any opportunity for an opponent to make a come-back.

Smilodon_UP wrote:

 warboss wrote:
I'm not sure I have much in the way of suggestions for gritty, non-heroic combined arms scifi tabletop game rules as I haven't been to gencon in a while and haven't been trying the newer niche rulesets.

To the best of my knowledge, such a ruleset does not exist, but in all probability never will.

People want stompy robots that do "mecha" things, and anything that doesn't cater to that in multiple ways isn't ever going to sell enough to be viable, meaning anyone not looking for that in a game simply doesn't matter when it comes to marketing.

I think that the term 'mecha' should be replaced more often with 'Gundaaaaaaam', since that's really what many people think of. And of course, with Gundam you see a lot more of 'angst' than in other settings. This is in my experience, of course.

I am trying to avoid that with these rules, and also trying to make it so that while the newer Gearstriders are powerful, they are only as powerful as a light tank respectively.

-Brandon F.

 warboss wrote:
While the combined arms appeal gets alot of vocal support, I don't think that it is very widespread and it's more a vocal minority than anything else. The appeal is for the majority of fans is in all likelihood the gears and striders. While I want tanks, artillery, infantry, etc in the game, there are much better rulesets for playing with them that you could just bolt on anthropomorphic robots into if that were really the focus.
...
I want players who like combined arms to at least have the option but I think that the moment Heavy GEAR moves the focus permanently away from GEARS is the moment we see the final nail in the coffin and we're not far away from that.

Right on the first try, in my opinion. I've preached for a while that people buy into the game because of the giant robots. The combined arms is really nice - and should be preserved! - but it's not the focus of the game, or the production. Which is where Smilodon's frustration comes from, he's intensely creative but has an interest in the combined arm aspect more than the Gear aspect. So, there is a mismatch between what's profitable and what is interesting.

Thanks. I'd probably say what is interesting IS profitable when you don't put clunky rules mechanics and piss poor regard for players as evidenced by biennial edition changes that invalidate books. I don't think HG was ever going to knock out warhammer from the top spot but if they didn't go out of their way to repeatedly screw over stores, distributors, and players for 20 years then they could have been the Warmachine of today. YMMV.

Out of curiosity, is LCM related to Robert of DP9 or is the last name just a coincidence?

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Desolation-Designs-Artwork-and-Figure-Painting-by-Mikel-Dubois/130149943725736

 warboss wrote:
Out of curiosity, is LCM related to Robert of DP9 or is the last name just a coincidence?

No clue, but I would suspect a coincidence.

 Chemical Cutthroat wrote:
The whole appeal of the units is that they can mimic human movements on a larger scale. Kneeling, running, maneuvering, climbing, etc. They're still big heavy war machines, and 'more nimble' doesn't mean they're suddenly all ninjas.

I agree with the necessity of the former, because otherwise they wouldn't be viable in the field as a combat vehicle intended for close terrain, and would likewise make zero sense given the kind of technology the setting is supposed to utilize on an everyday basis.

Unfortunately, the latter is exactly the kind of thing that the majority of players want from their stompy robot gaming, and they're quite often the folks that drive how sales get structured.

I can suspend a lot of disbelief when it comes to gaming a setting that interests me, but I find the thought that a bipedal vehicle massing five to twenty-five metric tons can somehow muffle every sound it generates internally or externally while it also compacts anything but hardened terrain with every step it takes due to simple ground pressure considerations patently absurd. Oh, and it's apparently also utterly invisible to every conceivable type of sensor system to boot.

And when the setting caters to that, you either like it too or you're SOL.
Because in my experience trying to talk over anything being discussed here with the ninja folks inevitably ends up in a "love it or leave it" impasse, which also seems to be not too uncommon with any wargaming ruleset over time really.

 warboss wrote:
It's already bad enough that the HG "flavor" of mecha combat is already being watered down with a shift in focus (both in the fluff and in production schedule) by Gundams EVERYWHERE for EVERYONE! that happened to also always have ridiculously oversized Final Fantasy JRPG weapons. I suspect in order to cater to even more people who couldn't ever care about the game world they built for 20 years, they'll likely incorporate cheesecake butt poses for Morgana grels and cutsie animal mascot upgrades for gears striders that provide even more bonuses.

heh, Didn't they already do that in Arena and the Gear-Up articles for same?

 IceRaptor wrote:
I've preached for a while that people buy into the game because of the giant robots. The combined arms is really nice - and should be preserved! - but it's not the focus of the game, or the production.

I do agree with you on this point, but I don't think it'd be asking too much of the Pod to have gotten a batch of new (not just resculpted) conventional vehicles for the non-hover factions instead of the GS and hopper models, or the other silly BS that didn't all get dropped from the field guides, like the Ontos (dropped) and Mameluke (included) light AFVs.

Except of course for the subsequent fact that almost no one would be able to afford to use those vehicle models even as a one-off centerpiece in a force anyways.

Factions are also having to share far too expensive ATV/ORV models, yet somehow the setting keeps getting different but no less costly sculpts of beast riding cavalry.
Plus, given that the Alpha/Beta doesn't seem to have settled on how infantry are to be based, I can't imagine a whole lot of players who own full platoons or more of infantry are all that happy with the situation.

_
_

Can someone explain what the heck is a Gearstrider? Is it just a bigger Gear with heavier weapons? Isn't that what normal Striders are for?

You mean like resculpts of the small and large southern tanks and their variants? The southern gear transport getting a model? Additions to the camels to make that ABM truck just this week? The verder getting a new sculpt? Paxton getting a new apc? While those aren't completely new vehicles, I think it is a bit inaccurate to say that they've ignored conventional vehicles for nonhover factions. I give credit where credit is due and they've done IMO a good job of updating the conventional vehicles with each release since the FM came out. Heck, they're even adding "chopper" style on table air support via the hoppers. I may not like the designs but my dislike stems from not liking the original RPG versions either. What conventional vehicles would you like to see, Smilodon?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Redeemer31 wrote:
Can someone explain what the heck is a Gearstrider? Is it just a bigger Gear with heavier weapons? Isn't that what normal Striders are for?

And better armor and better tech. It was originally supposed to be a 1-up on the "large" gears like Kodiaks and King Cobras for forces that don't have the manpower to spare for multiple crew. They're in essence human shaped (two arms, two legs) striders with a single crew member and advanced tech that grants them the extra actions they normally get. In the old RPG, the number of actions a vehicle got was linked directly to the number of crew (2 crew = 2 actions in general). They're basically gundams in a scifi universe that said they shouldn't exist and already had unique alternatives to fill those niches. IIRC the explanation and introduction of gear striders was in the original Blitz PRDF "Shields of Freedom" book as it debuted the first gear strider both inside and on the cover.

http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product/51391/Heavy-Gear-Blitz-Shields-of-Freedom?filters=910_44489_0_0_0

 warboss wrote:
What conventional vehicles would you like to see, Smilodon?

Something new that fits the setting and is viable in game without being just updated bits for existing models or a $$$ grab "rule of cool" sale... But no worries man, it's a moot point.

It's probably a surprise, but I do like the looks of the 2e Caprician "Bug" mounts and the Raccoon prototype from NVC 1, as they seem both reasonably workable and distinctive from a mechanical standpoint.

 warboss wrote:

Redeemer31 wrote:
Can someone explain what the heck is a Gearstrider? Is it just a bigger Gear with heavier weapons? Isn't that what normal Striders are for?

And better armor and better tech. They're basically gundams in a scifi universe that said they shouldn't exist and already had unique alternatives to fill those niches.

HG then (95/97):
"Developing the mechanical designs for the game was one of the first tasks we tackled, especially with regard to Gears (for obvious reasons). They had to look good, but they also had to make sense. Rather than just start dropping ideas on paper, we established a set of guidelines and requirements to help frame our efforts. The machines had to carry one crewman; it had to be roughly humanoid; it had to be as small as possible, to avoid presenting a large battlefield silhouette; and, most of all, it had to use believable (and, for many systems, existing) technologies."

"The Armored Hunter was one attempt at a more powerful Gear design. One look at the design, however, immediately told us that it would be way too slow with all that heavy plating, so we made it an ineffective Gear in the story."

"This manual is a must-have reference for all Heavy Gear readers and players, and will please all fans of serious, well-developed science fiction." - The Making of a Universe, Heavy Gear Design Works


HG now (05-14):
"In the beta rules that stub cannon is officially a NSC (Naval Snub Cannon), officially one step bigger than a heavy snub cannon." - Dave, DP9 Game Designer

"I'm also going to rename or remove completely the Lion gear and use the name on the New Lion Gear Strider that's being designed now, Reason I'm doing this is the name of the ebook is Lion's Wrath and I want the Lion to be kickass,"

"The big idea for this is to have a close assault Gear Strider with a SC that has 0 Acc instead of -1 and is Snipered and that gear strider will have a turret on the top with AMS, MAAC, APGL, and then a plate with either AGM, ATM or twin linked HGLCs, for different variants, it will also have climbing equipment on each arm, the will look like claw grappling hooks, launching tube and cable winches they are the HSKGs on the datacard, lastly they will have a Heavy Staff (HST) with a +2" to Melee range reach."

"The new staff looks less like an axe and more like a staff, with a big armor crushing blade at one end." - Robert Dubois, el presidente, DP9

_
_

 Smilodon_UP wrote:

 warboss wrote:
What conventional vehicles would you like to see, Smilodon?

Something new that fits the setting and is viable in game without being just updated bits for existing models or a $$$ grab "rule of cool" sale... But no worries man, it's a moot point.

It's probably a surprise, but I do like the looks of the 2e Caprician "Bug" mounts and the Raccoon prototype from NVC 1, as they seem both reasonably workable and distinctive.

 warboss wrote:

Redeemer31 wrote:
Can someone explain what the heck is a Gearstrider? Is it just a bigger Gear with heavier weapons? Isn't that what normal Striders are for?

And better armor and better tech. They're basically gundams in a scifi universe that said they shouldn't exist and already had unique alternatives to fill those niches.

HG then (95/97):
"The Armored Hunter was one attempt at a more powerful Gear design. One look at the design, however, immediately told us that it would be way too slow with all that heavy plating, so we made it an ineffective Gear in the story."

"This manual is a must-have reference for all Heavy Gear readers and players, and will please all fans of serious, well-developed science fiction." - The Making of a Universe, Heavy Gear Design Works

The raccoon might have been nice as a limited one off resin piece but I can't see a use for it in numbers in a wargame (even a scifi one). If DP9 had instead come out with a prepainted collectible version of HG (models and game), I could definitely see a use for it as a rare. I figured you were talking about some other unmodelled tanks, refueling vehicles, transport, etc that might be practical in an army (albeit a scifi one) but not very appealing as a model to a player. I'm actually good with how their updating the vehicles to a more "blitz" look as opposed to the decidedly "tactical" style they used to have with one noticeable exception (the ridiculous verder and it's "i'm not overcompensating for anything" gun that would make a WW1 german paris gun jealous of its girth).

As a side note, the armored hunter was one of my favorite RAFM models back in the day. I always thought they looked really cool with that extra bolted on armor!

 IceRaptor wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:

[i]Buckshot ammo fills the air with heavy pellets instead of a single larger projectile. That makes them more effective against unprotected targets and diminishes the need to aim. That also reduces penetration capabilities, but it is still effective against joints, auxiliary systems and similarly unprotected equipment on armored units.

I love the description. I think you've nailed it in one on the description - but after going back to reading my tactical rules, I think the rules you've posted don't quite capture that effectively. In particular, allowing the buckshot to damage armor contradicts the 'reduces penetration capabilities' statement you made, without making it more likely to destroy AUX systems or the like. My personal stance is that I think buckshot should degrade your systems severely, but not necessarily damage your armor in the process - it's cracking the weak points on weapons, joints, etc. To that end, and after looking back through the rules a bit, I think you'd have to create your own damage table to accomplish the effects I think reconciles the weapon against the description you posted above.

What do you think about this?

In game terms, the attacker receives a +1 Acc bonus, halves the DM and adds the AI trait to the weapon. When attacking non-infantry targets, instead of the normal damage effects roll against the following systems damage table. Any system with a penalty of -6 is destroyed; re-roll any results against destroyed systems.

Roll --- Damaged System --- Light Damage ---------------- Heavy Damage ---------------- Overkill 1 Sensors -2 penalty to Sensors -4 penalty to Sensors Sensors Destroyed (-6 penalty) 2 Weapons 1 weapon destroyed 1D6 weapons destroyed 2D6 weapons destroyed 3 Fire Control -1 to all weapons -2 to all weapons -3 to all weapons 4 Movement -1 to maneuver -2 to maneuver -3 to maneuver 5 Communications -2 penalty to Comms -4 penalty to Comms Comms Destroyed (-6 penalty) 6 Other Auxiliary 0D6 Aux system destroyed 1D6 Aux systems destroyed 2D6 Aux systems destroyed

It's a rough draft, but I tend to think that would represent the buckshot damaging the more 'fragile' elements of a unit better than sandpapering armor. A single good shot can yield a mobility kill or
significantly reduce a unit's ability to respond to the attack. Thoughts?

Creating a new damage table just for it was the one thing I wanted to avoid, TBH. I understand that it would better help me to depict the particular type of damage, but... quite honestly, it would be going down a complicated path. What makes buckshot different enough from a frag area to warrant that? (also, there's no need to state that systems with -6 are destroyed: the regular rules already state that they get destroyed at -5).

I mean, obviously that would map better the exact damage, but... it will also divert a bit too much from the general rules, I think. There is the fact that the buckshot will still be able to kill normally trucks, jeeps and the like, which use the regular vehicle rules in Tac, and that table would preclude that.

I'm not too married with the armor reduction (same as in the case of AP ammo, the actual effect on armor would be nelligible, I agree), but I think that the weapon should be able to overkill, or at least destroy a unit through other means than mobility kills: if area effects can, the buckshot should too (even with less capacity, due to the higher DM of areas).

I'm thinking more along the lines of considering "crew" hits as "aux" hits, right now...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 warboss wrote:
As a side note, the armored hunter was one of my favorite RAFM models back in the day. I always thought they looked really cool with that extra bolted on armor!

The Armored Hunter is actually a really cool unit, partly due to it being so bad. It also gave us the Bearhunter, which is a great idea ("Hey, let's put this Bear's engine in the Armored Hunter: at the very least it will give it more horsepower!").

The "bad" units are usually the most characterful ones, all told. Then again, most armies should really use more standarized designs than the current army lists...

 warboss wrote:
The raccoon might have been nice as a limited one off resin piece but I can't see a use for it in numbers in a wargame (even a scifi one).

I don't think the point was to reproduce the Raccoon or Snake directly, and make them models available to their respective factions. I think the point instead was that models that shared aesthetics with the Raccoon, Snake or Caprican mounts would be a nice way to introduce 'variety' without straying too far from the hard sci-fi roots. But I could be mistaken.

 warboss wrote:

 Smilodon_UP wrote:

 warboss wrote:
What conventional vehicles would you like to see, Smilodon?

Something new that fits the setting and is viable in game without being just updated bits for existing models or a $$$ grab "rule of cool" sale... But no worries man, it's a moot point.

I'm actually good with how their updating the vehicles to a more "blitz" look as opposed to the decidedly "tactical" style they used to have with one noticeable exception (the ridiculous verder and it's "i'm not overcompensating for anything" gun that would make a WW1 german paris gun jealous of its girth).

I can live with the resculpts, but it's more the lack of variety for the primary factions that hasn't changed since the setting's inception.
Because when compared with NuCoal it seems to really make players and potential players question why things are that way:
"This faction can create this, this, and this along with Gear-Striders and/or Tank-Striders, yet can't manage to create a viable conventional OTV, combat scout, or smaller battle tank...." [/shatter disbelief] Oh, really?.

And then for some inscrutable reason the Pod throws questionable decisions like [Defective Fire Control] onto the Artemis Visigoth after going through all the trouble to test it, add it to the book, and sculpt the bits.
In effect basically ensuring pretty much no one would every actually use it in game when it's already a variant of the only heavy tank model available to an original faction. Yet all the while TPTB kept claiming they were adding "variety" to that faction.

Except, every time I proposed adding a new vehicle or two to South, North, or Paxton to add in that lacking variety over two years of testing and then editing the idea either fell into a black hole or was outright rejected, even while the last developer fully intended to keep his Ontos reboot ( 18 [2-0-0-3] [G; 10/19; -2/0/1] [1/0/-1] [12/36; 1; 5; LHC] [(2x) 2x HMG (F, Reloads, Link, Sniper), RAM] [Weak Facing (Top)] ) in the Northern ebook through release.

Most anything said about the changes to existing conventional vehicles was likewise ignored, which is nothing new really for the Pod just from reading through this thread.

 Albertorius wrote:

 warboss wrote:
As a side note, the armored hunter was one of my favorite RAFM models back in the day.

The Armored Hunter is actually a really cool unit, partly due to it being so bad. It also gave us the Bearhunter, which is a great idea ("Hey, let's put this Bear's engine in the Armored Hunter: at the very least it will give it more horsepower!").
The "bad" units are usually the most characterful ones, all told. Then again, most armies should really use more standarized designs than the current army lists...

It's like that kind of flavor isn't allowed anymore, in anything to do with Heavy Gear. I tried to make a case for updating the Bearhunter, Zerstorer, and Spearhead to be usable in HGB! during the early part of 2013 since they could basically just use new bits on the existing Hunter sculpt where most players weren't using it as the basic model in their lists anyways when purchased as part of a squad box.

But it became clear pretty quickly that the Northern book was going to be all about the Hunter XMG and Juggernaut, both designed by Saleem in concert with AL13N, plus a heavy Paxton vibe alongside copycatting of FiF, so I lost interest until the Fall.
That some factions having the ability to totally replace the standard Hunter in it's own GP combat group would end up being a bad thing was just me conversing with the black.


Regarding standardized, everything in the revamp seems specifically intended to allow even more of a hodge-podge than L&L-era play, and the few vocal folks driving the new ruleset along with Dave are perfectly fine with that situation.

A variety of (2-3) loadouts per combat group is probably reasonable, with some kind of attachments onto (1-2) types of main models. Every model using a different loadout, or being another model altogether, is obviously not.
Actually, IME it's a good example of skirmish scale gaming, where everything is allowed to be completely different from one another to boost sales from current players while trying to attract a larger number of customers.

But then again the setting itself clearly doesn't matter at all to the people making the rules nowadays for the company. It's what happened with Fasa & Battletech, or [insert setting here], all over again.

 IceRaptor wrote:

 warboss wrote:
The raccoon might have been nice as a limited one off resin piece but I can't see a use for it in numbers in a wargame (even a scifi one).

I think the point instead was that models that shared aesthetics with the Raccoon, Snake or Caprican mounts would be a nice way to introduce 'variety' without straying too far from the hard sci-fi roots.

Yeah. I did an edit to make that more clear.

The Raccoon always bought to mind those never created Strider designs always being mentioned here and there for the Humanist Alliance.

I think the 2e Caprician mounts would probably have been a good starting point for the Utopian Armigers instead of whatever the hell did serve as a guide.

_
_

 Smilodon_UP wrote:
It's like that kind of flavor isn't allowed anymore, in anything to do with Heavy Gear. I tried to make a case for updating the Bearhunter, Zerstorer, and Spearhead to be usable in HGB! during the early part of 2013 since they could basically just use new bits on the existing Hunter sculpt where most players weren't using it as the basic model in their lists anyways when purchased as part of a squad box.

But it became clear pretty quickly that the Northern book was going to be all about the Hunter XMG and Juggernaut, both designed by Saleem in concert with AL13N, plus a heavy Paxton vibe alongside copycatting of FiF, so I lost interest until the Fall.
That some factions having the ability to totally replace the standard Hunter in it's own GP combat group would end up being a bad thing was just me conversing with the black.

Well, actually my last comment was more about the fact that, to me, the proliferation of Gear chassis that the current army lists have tend to break a lot my suspension of disbelief. I mean, armies are very big in standarization, and having scores of different Gear designs in the field usually feel a lot like the "Battletech sindrome" to me (and also a logistical nightmare, of course).

There's also the fact that a lot of the designs (Bear, Anolis, Bobcat, Mad Dog... you name them) are, plain and simple, obsolete designs that frankly shouldn't be in most regular armies and rather relegated to militias, reserve units and the like.

Personally, right now I believe that most of the armies' gear lists, were we shooting for "realism", should be made up of the "main 4" chassis of each faction (Hunter/Jaguar/Cheetah/Grizzly, Jäger/Black Mamba/Iguana/Spitting Cobra) and their variants (around 80%, probably), plus a limited number of "special purpose" designs, like the Razorback or Black Adder, and some ability to swap some of those "regular" gears with other contemporary ones (Ferret Mk II and the like).

The rest of the designs (along with healthy doses of Hunters/Jägers, IMHO, because those have been there forever) should probably be relegated to reserve/militia units, and probably disgraced MILITIA units and underfunded WFPA regiments. Well, and rovers, mercs, badlands marshals, KADA duellists... you know, the fun stuff.

Heh, there is the issue that it's a miniature game, and so needs to sell minis. So they end up needing to add new stuff to survive and make profit. Sure, they could do it in a 'realistic' way, by forcing more changes to make entire armies to be homogenous. Ie, if a squad takes a bassie in a swap, then all the models are swapped to bassies, or something of that sort.

I do agree that allowing every model in a squad to have it's own custom weapons loadout is also a bit much. I think it's a holdover from trying to compete with battletech, where everyone used to make their own custom mechs.

I would add though that allowing every model in a squad to have its own custom weapons loadout is only a bit much in a platoon sized game like they're trying to force feed us despite the pricing and the rules that don't go with it. If they had just kept to skirmish level gaming as the intent with combat groups of 1-3 instead of 3-5 to start with, upgrading each one is just fine. Unfortunately, they're doubling down on that with the alpha. The rules might ostensibly try to make that easier (don't know.. didn't try the last two versions and they've gotten more complicated since I did) but it doesn't make the $$ cost any better.

Yeah... though I would amend that 1 combat group games are a bit terrible. I think to really get things to shine, you need at least 2 combat groups apiece.

And yeah, they're simplifying, but then adding some fairly complex and slow stuff on, so, in the end, I think the game will end up playing best, yet again, at about 3 combat groups.

ferrous wrote:
Yeah... though I would amend that 1 combat group games are a bit terrible. I think to really get things to shine, you need at least 2 combat groups apiece.

And yeah, they're simplifying, but then adding some fairly complex and slow stuff on, so, in the end, I think the game will end up playing best, yet again, at about 3 combat groups.

I agree. With smaller combat groups as the standard, you end up with two combat groups for the "price" both in dollars and in TV. One of the first things I did with my blog house rules is post those variant combat groups up. A strike squad is split up into two fireteam combat groups. The first one is the mandatory one and consists of the CGL plus any two models of your choice. If you want to take more strike squad models, you have to "finish" off the blitz squad by taking a second fireteam of the remaining two models before you can start another squad. With the smaller model count combat groups, you pretty much end up with the CGL and two upgraded weapon models as gear squads but it's not like most people were using "stock" models anyways so I don't feel like you're losing much. You can fit skirmish style gaming in with the existing blitz rules without much fuss to get a higher number of combat groups. At the risk of armchair QBing again, blitz I feel works fine if sold, marketed, and catered to as a skirmish game without needing to completely abandon the existing mechanics. The last demo I did a few weeks back consisted of 9 models in 3 combat groups on each side and felt like a full game and (more importantly) reached a natural conclusion in slightly less than two hours while completely explaining the rules to a new player slowing things down.

I won't speculate on the alpha rules till the beta ones are out but since those will be semipermanent likely for a year or so then I'll peek at them. I doubt though that I'll ever get in a test game of it though as my local opponent has pretty much given up on HG with the alpha and being fed up with LCM for keeping his minis going on a year and a half... and my vassal opponents were mainly IceRaptor and Smilodon who both are disenchanted with minis gaming overall and HG specifically at the moment.

Yeah, if they really want more models on the table, they'd almost need to move to the w40k model, where you have a squad, but it only performs maybe 1 or 2 actions for the whole squad, and moves as a clump, sort of like infantry in Blitz.

Granted, that would seem like a fairly naked cash grab at this point. Though it would allow for the homogenous model nature that others crave, as you could simply go make a Squad 1 CGL + 3 normals + 1 weapons specialist, like 40k marine squads.

lol, I really have to try and stop talking to y'all after flipping through The Making of a Universe, because ideas start bubbling up again as I can't take that booklet out without reading through it again each time.

 Albertorius wrote:
Well, actually my last comment was more about the fact that, to me, the proliferation of Gear chassis that the current army lists have tend to break a lot my suspension of disbelief. I mean, armies are very big in standardization, and having scores of different Gear designs in the field usually feel a lot like the "Battletech syndrome" to me (and also a logistical nightmare, of course).

There's also the fact that a lot of the designs [..] frankly shouldn't be in most regular armies and rather relegated to militias, reserve units and the like.

Personally, right now I believe that most of the armies' gear lists, were we shooting for "realism", should be made up of the "main 4" chassis of each faction (Hunter/Jaguar/Cheetah/Grizzly, Jäger/Black Mamba/Iguana/Spitting Cobra) and their variants (around 80%, probably), plus a limited number of "special purpose" designs, like the Razorback or Black Adder, and some ability to swap some of those "regular" gears with other contemporary ones (Ferret Mk II and the like).

The rest of the designs should probably be relegated to reserve/militia units, and [..]

I could see three "tiers" of units [Frontline - Reserve - Territorial / Militia(s)] for each sub-faction using models along those lines being better than [Choose this CG type, choose a sub-type, swap faction models, choose options, etc etc].
And that the major restriction of using that new kind of construction is 2/3 of a force, by combat group total, must be from the tier the player intends to use as the base.
So a smaller force isn't going to be allowed to have the add-ons of another tier compared with a larger army list.


Another thing I think would be crucial is fewer equipment swap "variants" that at the same time are more coherent across the sub-factions of each primary faction, and actually share one name per each type of package.
Because the mass of names (variants/loadouts) now is just that, a mass of mess, and is just plain stupid when some swap for the same damn equipment or systems.

I like the setting fluff, but carrying on a possible error made by a previous writer need not be something set in stone where clarity is desired.

ferrous wrote:
Heh, there is the issue that it's a miniature game, and so needs to sell minis. So they end up needing to add new stuff to survive and make profit.

Yeah, the "curse" of stompy robot or fantasy wargaming compared with historical rulesets having it somewhat easier in that respect.



Warning - real-world and/or RPG oriented material follows:

ferrous wrote:
Yeah, if they really want more models on the table, they'd almost need to move to the w40k model, where you have a squad, but it only performs maybe 1 or 2 actions for the whole squad, and moves as a clump, sort of like infantry in Blitz.
Granted, that would seem like a fairly naked cash grab at this point. Though it would allow for the homogenous model nature that others crave, as you could simply go make a Squad 1 CGL + 3 normals + 1 weapons specialist, like 40k marine squads.

I think (?) I posted on Google that one old idea I had for a "combat command" level game was for up to three models to represent the details of a single combat group, differentiated by RoF and damage absorption for the number of vehicles each "counts as."
I have no idea how workable that would be for Heavy Gear, but one benefit I hoped might happen is that an existing collection could be spread out and mixed as desired to create various forces without requiring any new purchases.

But yeah, the clump idea seems more likely to be how the Pod would implement something like that using another ruleset change.
I don't think the current table sizes could support it though, as even with three combat groups per side there already isn't much any room to maneuver very well if at all.

Plus, IME $$$ grab is exactly what DP9 did by setting the v5 primary combat groups to be a minimum of (4) actions when it comes to non-Gear models instead of (3) actions, while likewise ensuring any squad boxes wouldn't go very far towards creating a multiple combat group force.

_
_

ferrous wrote:Heh, there is the issue that it's a miniature game, and so needs to sell minis. So they end up needing to add new stuff to survive and make profit. Sure, they could do it in a 'realistic' way, by forcing more changes to make entire armies to be homogenous. Ie, if a squad takes a bassie in a swap, then all the models are swapped to bassies, or something of that sort.

Yeah, I do understand that they are a minis manufacturer and that they need minis to survive. But there's also the facct that the Pod is actively discontinuing minis anyway, so...

I do agree that allowing every model in a squad to have it's own custom weapons loadout is also a bit much. I think it's a holdover from trying to compete with battletech, where everyone used to make their own custom mechs.

As has been said afterwards, custom loadouts is only too much in the kind of game the Pod is trying to convert HG into. At skirmish level, it works.

ferrous wrote:Yeah... though I would amend that 1 combat group games are a bit terrible. I think to really get things to shine, you need at least 2 combat groups apiece.

That's because the current rules don't really allow for it. But it wasn't the case with 2nd edition. The added detail made skirmishes quite engaging.

And yeah, they're simplifying, but then adding some fairly complex and slow stuff on, so, in the end, I think the game will end up playing best, yet again, at about 3 combat groups.

There's that, too... the development is being quite... un-homogeneous, all told, and I feel that the end result will proably not be any faster than the current game.

Smilodon_UP wrote:lol, I really have to try and stop talking to y'all after flipping through The Making of a Universe, because ideas start bubbling up again as I can't take that booklet out without reading through it again each time.

It is a really great little book, yes

I could see three "tiers" of units [Frontline - Reserve - Territorial / Militia(s)] for each sub-faction using models along those lines being better than [Choose this CG type, choose a sub-type, swap faction models, choose options, etc etc]. And that the major restriction of using that new kind of construction is 2/3 of a force, by combat group total, must be from the tier the player intends to use as the base. So a smaller force isn't going to be allowed to have the add-ons of another tier compared with a larger army list.

I think I would like something along those lines, TBH.

Another thing I think would be crucial is fewer equipment swap "variants" that at the same time are more coherent across the sub-factions of each primary faction, and actually share one name per each type of package.
Because the mass of names (variants/loadouts) now is just that, a mass of mess, and is just plain stupid when some swap for the same damn equipment or systems.

Coherent loadout names would be great, yes. It's a gripe I've been having since TPS. To me, having the same name for different loadouts feels nuts.

@Smilodon: The real world comparisons are nice but sometimes they don't work on the tabletop and aren't fun. Robotech RPG in the current incarnation tried to emulate current real world military structure and the only thing they ended up with is a minis game that doesn't let you field the iconic anime small squadron because it was 3 fighters instead of the modern flight of 4. I don't obviously (given my blog rules) have any issues with what you presented above outside of the separate "command" combat groups as I'm not sure a separate command entity activation would add anything mechanically to the game.

 warboss wrote:
IceRaptor and Smilodon who both are disenchanted with minis gaming overall and HG specifically at the moment.

I'm not dead yet! Just... hibernating

 IceRaptor wrote:

 warboss wrote:
IceRaptor and Smilodon who both are disenchanted with minis gaming overall and HG specifically at the moment.

I'm not dead yet! Just... hibernating

How on Earth are you hibernating in this weather!

You're like a reverse-bear.