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.

Hey that Hunter doesn't look that bad. I can see why they re-did things, as the tabletop models would look terrible in motion, and may not even be possible to move, their proportions are exaggerated in ways that just wouldn't work. MWO had much of the same issue.

Though, ugh, the southern redesigns were really awful, they should at least be recognizable to the fans, even if different -- and I couldn't even tell what their strider was supposed to be!

I don't have a problem with them redesigning some of the gears. As much as I love the Ghislain art from the mid to late 1990s, it is effectively a 20 year old design for most of the gears that was closely inspired by a 30 year old anime (VOTOMS). It is due for a revamp as long as the stuff is recognizable and still pays tribute to the originals. I think the hunter succeeded in that regard but the Jager was IMO a complete fail. It looked like a gear version of an obese GWAR! music group fan.

The new Hunter (at least that 3D printed one) looks pretty sweet, but the arms have a little of that gorilla-arm syndrome some of the live-action Transformers get. Maybe they'll look better with a gun or in a different pose, but it just looks like there's something off about the length of the arms.

Still, though. Far and away better than the Iguamambager.

LOL, Iguamambager... is that the HG version of the manbearpig?

Manbearpig, it's Weird But Tasty!

Now they've got a poll up for feedback on the kickstarter.

Thanks for the update. I've responded there. Looks like it is a pretty popular topic already overnight.

Something like the KS idea might work for a company with a bigger following, down to earth expectations, and a realistic sense of what they can do as a team.

But in my opinion Dream Pod 9 is not that company - or at least they haven't been for the past (10) years, because as others have pointed out before the folks who brought HG to life with so much vibrancy are long gone.
Simply put, there is no staff anymore to do anything, and even when there kind of was the products had no coherency with other things being created at the same time.

Folks might say this or that in defense of the company to downplay what is being posted and has been posted in this thread, but in the end I don't think it will matter either way.
The Pod's Kickstarter attempt will in all likelihood fail primarily because of the mindset possessed by the tiny number of people "running" the company itself.


Case in point:

Dave 29 Aug 2014- 10:54 PM wrote:Dream pod 9 has almost 20 years experience bringing products to market.

There isn't ever any humility about trying to overcome past mistakes that everyone knows have been made, let alone never corrected.

That is not the way to try and entice anyone, existing or new, into backing a crowd-funded product, when any web search will return content filled with mention of every poor decision and repeated mistake made over the current Pod's history.
Saying otherwise is not going to change that - making it an approach that should not be used.


But most everyone reading here already knows how well that kind of reality-based argument would work on Robert and Dave.

Seems like things are beginning to get heated over there. Will be interesting to see how things shake out.

 Firebreak wrote:
Seems like things are beginning to get heated over there.

One of the biggest things I think is that there is essentially no room for an objective middle ground given how small a following DP9 has nowadays.
The company certainly hasn't been all that well known in the past but as Warboss keeps pointing out to them a decade of business as per usual hasn't done their gaming titles any favors.


When folks see nothing at all wrong with asking for things like this;

Vincent Alaric Crowely - August 27 at 8:51am wrote:Just got my first Scimitar yesterday, and I had a question. Can Gearstriders still be duelists? In the NuCoal book it says any model with arms, but beta says gear types. So is a gearstrider a gear type? There's a long tradition of ace pilots getting the fancy new superweapons to play with in anime, it'd be fun to carry that on to the tabletop.

... and the publisher response isn't a flat-out "No, it doesn't fit the setting we're trying to theme as [this] or [this] for our Anniversary total revamp," you either accept that lack of vision too or not play period, as not only is the community so small but preference is repeatedly given by Dream Pod 9 to individuals over the player-base as a whole.

Because yeah, that so totally fits into the "realistic" sci-fi combined arms thing the company lays claim to as a selling point. Just like "all melee weapons are now anti-tank weapons" does.


One kind of ignorant thing is that by now (from 2012, or even this past Spring) Dave should be able to figure out why he keeps torquing people off with his views on legacy model availability for existing players.
That he can't would seem to indicate not only a complete lack of competence, but also a lack of caring about products folks have already paid for only to keep seeing the company make the same list building mistakes time and again.

Or even just things like when people suggested changing the new ruleset's name to better differentiate from Blitz, Locked & Loaded, Field Manual, and etc etc in case the Pod does attract any new players.
But what did they actually put it out as? Heavy Gear Blitz!: Beta.

Wow - just, so, differentiated.
Because hey, the cover of the temporary book was easier for Robert to create that way, right.

_
_

That's one thing GW has always done right, simple, easy to understand naming scheme.

First Edition
Second Edition
Third Edition
Fourth Edition
Fifth Edition
Sixth Edition

Gee, I'm a new player, I wonder which one I should pick up?

As opposed to:
Heavy Gear Tactical
Heavy Gear Blitz
Heavy Gear Blitz Locked and Loaded
Heavy Gear Blitz Field Manual

 Smilodon_UP wrote:
not only is the community so small but preference is repeatedly given by Dream Pod 9 to individuals over the player-base as a whole.

High school music class all over again. If you weren't in the band, you weren't worth the teacher's time.


I don't understand the hate for old models etc. (From the company, not the players.) I get that, in reality, there's no reason an Asp should be in a professional army. But who cares about the professional armies? The SRA, the UMFA, and Paxton aren't interesting. The MILICIA is! WFP armies and Badlands are! Squads of weird, useless Gears have always been part of the attraction for me. And, I can't lie, I like the one-on-one duelist aspect. But I also liked how it was presented as "This is a martial tradition of honour, not a serious aspect of warfare." ....until NuCoal. I really considered the Drake the death knell of a lot of my favourite parts of Heavy Gear, but it really did start with NuCoal, didn't it?

You're getting pretty close to the mark...

I forget, was the Nucoal book the one that added duelist skills? That was the one that really had me groan.

Especially when they already had, or had already announced Arena, and it's rules ended up being utter gak. Like completely unplayable, and it was also completely left to twist in the wind. I don't think they ever answered a single rules question about that game. (And there were loads)

EDIT: I also don't mind outdated gears, and odd mixes and matches of different gears, but they never did a very good job of balancing them. It was more of a way to handicap yourself by taking the wrong gear. So terrible.

ferrous wrote:
I forget, was the Nucoal book the one that added duelist skills? That was the one that really had me groan.

Never bought the NuCoal book, so I can't answer that. But it wouldn't surprise me.

Especially when they already had, or had already announced Arena, and it's rules ended up being utter gak. Like completely unplayable, and it was also completely left to twist in the wind. I don't think they ever answered a single rules question about that game. (And there were loads)

a
NuCoal was released after Arena was. And there were supposed to be some Arena tie-ins in the NuCoal book so that you could run a team with NuCoal sponsors. I don't know how much of that made it in, though. As for Arena, an FAQ was eventually released, iirc. But it ignored most of the important questions.

ferrous wrote:
I forget, was the Nucoal book the one that added duelist skills? That was the one that really had me groan.

Especially when they already had, or had already announced Arena, and it's rules ended up being utter gak. Like completely unplayable, and it was also completely left to twist in the wind. I don't think they ever answered a single rules question about that game. (And there were loads)

EDIT: I also don't mind outdated gears, and odd mixes and matches of different gears, but they never did a very good job of balancing them. It was more of a way to handicap yourself by taking the wrong gear. So terrible.

FYI, and IIRC, Dave was happy with the Duellist rules in the NuCoal book. I don't think he was properly disgusted by Arena, but I don't remember him defending it or trying to push it.

The outdated gears were never balanced, but the problem was often in the "does not cost enough" side. A single Asp is a joke. 800 TV of Asps is a steam-roller.
Those gears are supposed to be useless, and should be worthless... except that each one has the two most precious things of all: an Action and an activation.
Even worse, it takes at least on Action to kill one.
If you cost them for their individual contribution (i.e. as a replacement for another gear), the cost should be low.
If you cost them taking into account their impact on the Action economy and on the activation sequence, especially taking into account that they don't actually replace another gear...
They were a gift to min-maxers.

Of course, how relevant outdated gears that are not used even by the MILICIA since they are more than 40 years olds are is another question. Their inclusion is a good example of the "single fan" approach of DP9: someone liked them, so they must be in the main game; it does not matter that they don't fit, or that they cannot be both true to the setting or balanced.

Didn't the grand employee pubah of fluff have "president of the save the asp society" in his sig?

Yes, he did. He also wrote self-insert fan fiction as the fluff for NuCoal, so overall, I'm not exactly positively predisposed towards him.

In defence of myself, not a fan of the Asp, or the save the Asp stuff, it was just the first thing to come to mind as the "pointless" Gear. Maybe the Bear would've been a better choice. I like that those old Gears exist, they add a tremendous amount of flavour to the setting, but maybe they need to pare things down and leave the irrelevant gears to Assault and the RPG guys.

NuCoal paved the way for the homogenization of the entire setting. The Ferret was cool cos it was unique, so was the Cataphract. Enter the Jerboa and Hussar. And then Drake. And then Scimitar. I'm surprised the South didn't wind up with a butt-wheel Gear. Paxton has, hasn't it? I realise real militaries don't look drastically different, but in a sci-fi game, it's okay for them to. Now everyone gets a butt-wheel and a gearstrider, and it all just tastes the same.

ferrous wrote:
I forget, was the Nucoal book the one that added duelist skills? That was the one that really had me groan.

That's in Nucoal they were introduced, yes. At least they were optional. They were supposed not to be though, and I'll let you guess who lobbied (hard) to get them labelled "optional" a few days before release...

A few things I didn't like:

1). The sheer amount of rule books for a new player. It's pretty bad- something like 5-6 books just for the base rules. And you have to read them from the first book on, as the newer books had some new rules and addendum.

2). Naming conventions- as has been pointed out, some things are a Gear, some things are a Strider, some things are a Heavy Gear Strider... just for crying out loud- they are all Gears with a subtype!

3). The points system and restrictions. "Threat Value and Priority Levels" Like above, you have to buy ALL the books because in every one they will sneak in new costs for models and equipment, and changes to the Priority Level. Horribly, horribly complicated!

4). Army Creation: When you have to rely on a fan created software program to calculate the costs of each model and various threat levels and the options available, you are doing something wrong. It's pretty much impossible to create an army using the books. Gear Garage is awesome, my hat is off to the fan that built it, but the army creation process is fundamentally flawed and impossible to use unless you are a veteran player with all the rulebooks, or you use Gear Garage. Good luck on validating army lists at a tournament!

5). Movement- there are four movement types (five if you include flying)- ground, walk, hover, static. Each mode has stationary, combat speed, and top speed movement. Terrain types are broken down to clear/open, soft, rough/dense, very rough/very dense, impassable, structures, roads, shallow water, deep water, rough water, difficult, and dangerous. Even though the game is not played on a hex map, it's hex based movement where it costs movement points to change facing and move on the table. But the players are encouraged to have good sportsmanship and just "wing it" when it comes to movement. Need I say more?

6.). The actual play mechanics themselves. I should not have to have a degree in mathematics to play a game. What I mean by that- to perform an attack, I get X amount of dice, where X = an arbitrary number listed as 'Attack Skill'. I say arbitrary, because the values don't seem to follow any kind of logical sense. Some are very high, some are very low, and no reasons are given. Now, I roll my attack dice and consider a matrix of modifiers based on my movement and my target's movement. I pile on more modifiers based on the Perks (advantages) and flaws (disadvantages) of both models. At some point, concealment and cover have to be considered- which is confusing as hell. A model can have BOTH concealment AND cover, and both introduce another matrix of modifiers based on a whole bunch of stuff- and it's scaler. As in, you can have varying levels of concealment and cover. Once the total amount of dice has been determined and all the modifiers, I roll the attack dice. It's an opposed test, so the Defender gets to roll defense dice- and oh yeah, the Defender has a matrix of modifiers as well... So do I hit him or not? Well, the modifiers are applied to EACH DIE ROLL SEPARATELY. Like I could get +3 to each die. If I roll 2d6 and get a 3 and a 5, they would be 6 and 8. Same goes for the defense roll. Let's say he rolled a 2 and a 5 at +3 for a total roll of 5 and 8. You compare the two highest numbers rolled- in this case the attacks 8 to the defenders 8. The attacker has to roll higher then the defender to achieve a "Measure of Successes" (MoS). If you get an MoS of 1 or more, you hit, and remember what that MoS is for applying damage. Now the question becomes how much damage did I do? Well, each weapon has a multiplier like x10, x13, x18... take your MoS and multiply it by the damage multiplier. Got a calculator? Compare the Damage to the Armor value of the target. Actually, it's divide the Damage by the Armor Value of the target. So let's say I did 21 damage and you have an Armor Value of 16. 21/16= 1.3125. You drop the decimals (never round) for a total damage to the target of 1. The target model marks off 1 damage box (most gears have 3-4 damage boxes). Each level of damage effects your gear and adds more modifiers. Did you follow all that? Congratulations! You just did some Calculus and Linear Algebra. And I just gave you the simplified version of making an attack. Can you imagine doing that with 10+ models? /shudder

7). In a game with mini-fusion power sources for gears and tanks, with interstellar travel, high tech Gears, and anime action, why is the best weapon in the game a medium bazooka? I mean, really? It's ubiquitous- it's the standard "heavy weapon upgrade" of almost every gear squad (and if you are a min/maxer, you can load out all your gears with it). There are Rail Rifles, Laser Cannons, Particle Weapons, guided missiles, autocannons, gear sized shotguns!!! and the best weapon a player can take is a medium bazooka? A large metal tube that fires a dumb rocket? Really? The game has broken my suspension of disbelief.

8). Bases on the models- some use hex bases, some use round bases, some have no bases at all. Arcs are HUGE in this game, so maybe the bases should be standardized? As a side comment, the model designers need to either make the bases bigger, or make the models smaller, because I'm so tired of all my Gears hanging over the hex bases. I'd love to swap them out for bigger bases, but arcs matter, and trying to see a 60 degree arc on a round base is all buy impossible unless you paint the arcs on your base. Also, there are some base to base rules, and movement goes by your base overlapping the terrain, while line of sight is basically "true line of sight" for concealment, cover, and targeting. You want the smallest base you can on your gears (or, hey! No base at all like the gear striders or most vehicles!)

The current rule system is clunky and over-complicated. It requires far too many calculations for what you get out of it. One simple calculation mistake, say and extra +1 on a die roll, can have HUGE effects on the outcome. I really don't like a game where I have to have a calculator handy "just in case".

Things I like:

1). The fluff is awesome. Love it!

2). It has mecha (gears!)! There is a serious lack of table top games with mecha right now.

3). The artwork! I've always liked the art work for Heavy Gear.

4). The models! Yes, some are gank, but most are just fantastic!

There is a beta edition out for the new edition of Heavy Gear. I haven't read the entire thing yet, but when I'm talking to Robert D. at Gencon and the most exciting thing he can talk about is that you don't have to track ammo anymore in the new edition... well, there went my high hopes. I really, really wish they would get off this derivative calculations for game effects. It really, really needs to be roll some dice, add a few modifiers and Bob is your uncle. It would speed up game play and make the game way, way more accessible to new players who are used to Warhammer 40K and/or Warmachine.

TLDR; I have a lot of issues with the game mechanics, but I love the fluff, background, art work, and models. Plus, MECHA! The new addition showed promise, but it really seems like Dream Pod Nine made another edition that appeals to the veterans of the game and not new players. DP9 will never expand beyond a niche table top game if they continue to make the game for it's current player base and not new players. The learning curve is basically too steep for a new player, much less one that plays other table top games.

I quit playing when they dumbed down the system. The more they dumbed it down, the less i played. Now that it is dumbed down to 40K levels, I have zero desire to play it.

I loved the harder sci-fi feel of it. You had communications, sensors, detection, concealment, heck you could even track fuel. Their design system was amazingly good. The miniatures were cheaper (both 1/87 and 1/144) compared to their competitors than they are now.

I spoke with both Robert Dubois and.... ummm, some other important guy at Gencon about it for like 30 min. I showed my frustration, but they were all about moving forward with this new blitz, saying "its faster!". I played a lot of heavy gear games back in the day, and don't remember folks every complaining about the slowness of it. Compared to battletech it was blazingly flast. Heck, you could lose a unit in 1 shot and often did.

Anyway, that would be why I stopped, I'm tired of the dumbing down of rule systems.

Tamwulf, aren't gears diesel powered with the v engines or some such that they can run on almost any combustible fuel? Did they change that to fusion powered somewhere along the line and I missed it?

 warboss wrote:
Tamwulf, aren't gears diesel powered with the v engines or some such that they can run on almost any combustible fuel? Did they change that to fusion powered somewhere along the line and I missed it?

Yeah, basically everything uses internal combustion engines in Terra Nova. Only thing I can think of offhand that uses fusion engines are big landships.

Bad_Syntax wrote:
I quit playing when they dumbed down the system. The more they dumbed it down, the less i played. Now that it is dumbed down to 40K levels, I have zero desire to play it.

I loved the harder sci-fi feel of it. You had communications, sensors, detection, concealment, heck you could even track fuel. Their design system was amazingly good. The miniatures were cheaper (both 1/87 and 1/144) compared to their competitors than they are now.

I spoke with both Robert Dubois and.... ummm, some other important guy at Gencon about it for like 30 min. I showed my frustration, but they were all about moving forward with this new blitz, saying "its faster!". I played a lot of heavy gear games back in the day, and don't remember folks every complaining about the slowness of it. Compared to battletech it was blazingly flast. Heck, you could lose a unit in 1 shot and often did.

Anyway, that would be why I stopped, I'm tired of the dumbing down of rule systems.

You may be surprised to know that lots of folks don't like the ultradetailed rules of games like SFB and CBT and prefer rules that are more streamlined and abstracted. That doesn't make you any smarter nor the rules any dumber. It is simply a preference and NOTHING more.
If you increase model count, you can't maintain the same rules complexity without increasing the length of the game which is frequently undesirable. You may want to pkay 12 hour marathon games that can further span into another calendar day so you can track your each of your two dozen individual gears' fuel eficiency but I suspect that most one game night a week at FLGS players don't agree.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Albertorius wrote:

 warboss wrote:
Tamwulf, aren't gears diesel powered with the v engines or some such that they can run on almost any combustible fuel? Did they change that to fusion powered somewhere along the line and I missed it?

Yeah, basically everything uses internal combustion engines in Terra Nova. Only thing I can think of offhand that uses fusion engines are big landships.

Ok, thanks...that is what I remembered. Tamwulf mentioned nuke gears and I wasn't sure if that was a retcon or recent development. I do agree with a bunch of his points in #4 but that detail caught my eye first.

Hey, come on! Stop talking about nuke gears before they hear you and we wind up with one!

I can see it now - the first in NuCoal's line of "Gearships", fresh out of the Fort Neil shipyards. Part gear, part landship, it hovers, it lasers, it even makes french fries!

 Tamwulf wrote:

There is a beta edition out for the new edition of Heavy Gear. I haven't read the entire thing yet, but when I'm talking to Robert D. at Gencon and the most exciting thing he can talk about is that you don't have to track ammo anymore in the new edition... well, there went my high hopes.

Robert's a damn fool; thats what he mentioned? I swear every time I think that man can't screw up his company any more than he already has, he says something stupid like that. *arrgh*

Tamwulf, please do give the beta rules a read-through. They are a very significant departure from the old system, designed to make the system more accessible and intuitive for players. It may not be perfect; but I believe strongly that it's has a more modern feel than the older system did. Most (if not all) of the mechanical issues you bring up are addressed in some fashion in the ruleset, so you might find it worth your time.

Keep in mind - I wrote most of the rules, so I'm not an impartial observer. But my goals during the early design phases were to address the concerns you raised - hopefully what Dave has done with it addresses the rest. Feel free to ask me if you have any specific questions.

 Tamwulf wrote:

I really, really wish they would get off this derivative calculations for game effects. It really, really needs to be roll some dice, add a few modifiers and Bob is your uncle. It would speed up game play and make the game way, way more accessible to new players who are used to Warhammer 40K and/or Warmachine.

That's basically the way it works. You always start with 2D6, you add some dice depending on situations for your against you, and roll that collection of dice (usually 2D6 to 6D6). You take the highest value, and then for any other dice that equal or beat the 'augment' rating you add +1 to that high value. You still compare against your opponent; but the entire process is smoother and the multiplication / division is completely gone.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Firebreak wrote:

I don't understand the hate for old models etc. (From the company, not the players.) I get that, in reality, there's no reason an Asp should be in a professional army. But who cares about the professional armies? The SRA, the UMFA, and Paxton aren't interesting. The MILICIA is! WFP armies and Badlands are! Squads of weird, useless Gears have always been part of the attraction for me

One major flaw that DP9 suffers from was the decision to expand their 'factions' along background lines, instead of drawing a hard line in the sand from the beginning and saying 'this model is faction X, this model is faction Y, and they don't mingle'. Instead, followed the most permissive model and grouped many 'historical' models together under a single faction. This really hampered their ability to determine which models were successful, by making the choice of a model to field (often) an aesthetic one. This diluted their model line, prompting them to make more and more unprofitable models, instead of trying to expand into new, leaner factions. So now you have the case where plenty of players have a UMFA army (of 15 models) that differs from a NAF army by two models, or a NG army by three models. Only the WFPA (for the North) really had distinct character in play; because many of their downgrades could be used effectively. This isn't to say that armies couldn't easily be invalidated; thanks to arcane construction rules that particular sin was far to easy.

The reason it's a flaw for DP9 is that, for miniature games - new miniatures sell. By expanding the North and South along RPG lines, they took what could have been 8 distinct factions, and essentially made 2. So now you have the problem that all of those models have be desirable between their nearest sibling, and that you have to make them all desirable aesthetically in order to sell enough to make the investment worth it. NuCoal was a huge shot in the army because - surprise! - a new faction always sells well.

They could have made the split (from RPG to wargame) when they changed to Blitz, or L&L, or even now - but they are still doing half-steps instead of taking all the medicine now and dealing with the backlash. Their fans have been a continual drag on them, as they didn't want to address any of their sacred cows. That's understandable - you don't bite the hand that feeds you - but if they want a wider audience they need to loosen up the back-story somewhat and push towards new aesthetics and a bit less of the hard sci-fi vibe. The hard sci-fi element works fine in a RPG setting, but you eliminate many different sub-genres when you maintain it strictly; witness the reaction to the Drake, Scimitar and other 'showpiece' which are fairly good sellers, from all indications.

DP9 has essentially been a wargaming company since Blitz! was first released, but they put people with a passion for the roleplaying game in charge. This has led them down this eternal slide towards oblivion. The only way I think the company can prosper long term is to bring in completely new aesthetics and concepts. They need to start with HG's bones, and work out from there, instead of keeping the focus so strongly on Terra Nova. Gears sell the game - and they just arent' managing those well.

Such has been my opinion for nearly six years now. I doubt they have what it takes to make that change, unfortunately.

It's rather interesting to read in two adjacent posts that the game is both too complex, and too simplified. I digress though...

 IceRaptor wrote:
Big snip

I can't say I agree with everything in there, especially the bits about maintaining (or not) the character and identity of HG on the table, but in the end, what matters the most is DP9's ability to manage the game and licence, or rather its thorough inability to do so. Having followed the beta, Dave has shown so far a disturbingly gleeful incompetence.

This is going to be a fun kickstarter...

 HudsonD wrote:
It's rather interesting to read in two adjacent posts that the game is both too complex, and too simplified. I digress though...

 IceRaptor wrote:
Big snip

I can't say I agree with everything in there, especially the bits about maintaining (or not) the character and identity of HG on the table, but in the end, what matters the most is DP9's ability to manage the game and licence, or rather its thorough inability to do so. Having followed the beta, Dave has shown so far a disturbingly gleeful incompetence.

This is going to be a fun kickstarter...

Yeah, talk about a dichotomy in ideas! I say it's foolishly complicated and needlessly complex, and Bad_Syntax says he gave it up because they dumbed down the system! For Bad_Syntax, I'd say look at Battletech for your rules fix. Or another game out there that you might enjoy- Star Fleet Battles from the Amarillo Design Bureau. If you still want the kind of Rules Mechanic you see in Heavy Gear: Blitz, you might also try Silent Death from Iron Crown Enterprises (surprised the heck out of me to discover they were still in business!).

I knew the comment about the V-Engines and Fusion engines would grab some attention. It's funny how you can make a comment like that and instantly be corrected, but the point of the comment was still lost. In a setting with such technology possible, why is a medium bazooka the best weapon in the game?

@IceRaptor- No offense, but when you posted the Alpha rules last year I think it was? I made a pretty long and detailed post in the DP9 Alpha Rules Forum about it, and it was pretty much ignored. You did NOTHING to address the issues I brought up. Instead of a Threshold Check and Measure of Success, we now have a Test called a Roll or a Check compared to a Target Number. You count of the amount of successes instead of a Margin of Success. Here is a goody from page 7 of the beta rulebook:

(P(&gt + X ) >=
(P(&gt + X), >=

Select the highest roll (P is the dice roll, but X is never defined. I assume that's modifiers maybe?...). If the attacker's total is higher then the defender's roll, you subtract the defenders total from the attackers roll to get a margin of success. So let's break it down:

You take a derivative with a limit of 0 to the number of dice rolled, then use a function to calculate the highest number, compare that to a derivative function from the defender, and if positive, subtract the defenders total from the attackers total. So, huh. Calculus and Linear Algebra again, though this time I don't have to multiply the result (damage) by something and compare it to the Armor Value.

Movement- we don't have movement speeds anymore, now we have postures (speeds)- Combat Posture, Braced Posture, and Top Speed posture- movement rating (movement points). There is still this clunky movement point system that would work great on a hex map, but on a table top just does not work. An extraordinary amount words and diagrams are expended to show how to turn and when you can turn. What? Why? How difficult and how much game play would it have changed if you simply said " A Gear has a Movement Rating of 5, modified by it's posture, and can move up to its movement rating in inches modified by the terrain." Then you could have broken it down to Combat speed can turn as much as they want, top speed has to either turn, then move, or move then turn, etc. etc. The movement system just doesn't work on a table top. You are basically saying your model is a static model that moves only in straight lines when the battlefield has curves. I can't go around an obstacle in an arc, I have to move in straight lines around it. At least the amount of terrain types was drastically cut down and their effects made more clear. I like the way terrain is either instance terrain or area terrain, and that area terrain can contain instance terrain.

Cover is OK, but again, seems complex. In my mind, a model should have complete cover (hiding behind something or the attacker can't see the model) or partial cover. It's no wonder the percentage thing didn't work according to the call out on pg. 27- it's totally different from what was used in the old rules, and instead of adopting, we now have this bastardized silhouettes thing that defines how much volume (space) my model takes up regardless of it's actual physical size. So we have this very precise way of moving with fire arcs that are critical to making an attack, and suddenly we have this totally abstract cover system. That's a rule disconnect and inconsistency.

Lock (Target lock...) is a needless complication. It's a hold over from the old rules set that just should have been scrapped. What about EW then? EW could be used as a defensive or offensive modifier to the attack and defense roll. Lock just adds more rules to the game, and if you were going for a streamlined version, this should have been dropped entirely.

Damage is different. No more multiply and divide, but now it's add the penetration value of the weapon to the Margin of Success (MoS... where have we seen that before?) and subtract the target's Armor Value (AV). No room for crit hits, which is OK I guess, but "marginal hits" should be taken out- it's always better to take rules away then add, right? Simple is always better. What is happening here is the chance to add more steps and dice rolling in the damage step. We're in Trouble is a "freebie" and a second chance to reduce or negate damage suffered. No matter what the attacker rolled to hit, We're in Trouble gives the defender a chance to reduce this damage. From a design perspective, was this to increase the durability of gears, or prolong the combat? There is a good chance that a really good pilot will be able to never take any damage. I could only imagine that it was a nightmare of balancing weapon penetration values versus Armor Values and then adding in the We're in Trouble rule. The Hull and Structure system is nice. Not too keen on the Weapon Traits though. Some seem far, far too good like Armor Piercing (double the weapons penetration value...) and Anti-tank (add more damage based on how many of your dice, not just the highest roll, got an MoS). Looking at the Weapon Table and thinking about the type of armor and how Lasers work, I would have though all lasers would have the Armor Piercing trait, but they don't. They have high damage values and good range, but no traits except the Gatling Laser. Not to get too picky here, but looking at a Railgun with AP means it has possible penetration values of 14/18/22 while the highest armor rating I saw was an 11. When I see a Mammoth, arguably the largest Strider in the game with AV 11 and 5 Hull/4 Structure, it could be one shotted by a Railgun... haven't looked too closely at what Gears have Railguns, but I'm thinking I'd take one in every one of my forces for the chance to one shot basically anything in the game.

Side note here on the Appendix 2 Models table- DC is listed for each model, but I couldn't find what DC was. I assume it's Hull/Structure points which is about the only thing that makes sense to me?

The Force Selection rules seem OK. My biggest hiccup in Blitz! was always trying to figure out the points cost and what was available at a given Priority Level. All of that seems to be gone now. I have to give a HUGE THUMBS UP to Appendix 2 and the models- no more options, just models. I liked the fact that the old RPG Variant names were kept. I.e., Hunter, Hunter Gunner, Assault Hunter, Destroyer Hunter. That simplifies things AMAZINGLY WELL and makes the army selection process so much easier. So far, this is the best thing I've seen about the new edition.

OK, so that's just me having a glance over the rules here. Overall, it's not so much a new edition as a revision of whats come before. There is a huge disconnect for me in the movement/facing rules when compared to the abstractness of the table top. Cover and Silhouettes need to be reworked. Precise rules (cover) combined with abstract rules (silhouettes) muddies up the rules. One or the other, but not both. A lot of things require actions to perform, and most models can only perform one action. That makes things kind of easy to perform/keep track of during the game, but also means a lot of times, I'll have a ton of options available, but when I can only do one of them (like attack) and eliminating my opponent wins me the game... well, maybe attacking should be a free action so that my models can do other things during the game as well, eh? Attacking/Damage still seems needlessly complex. Force selection is great, and needs to stay.

 Tamwulf wrote:

@IceRaptor- No offense, but when you posted the Alpha rules last year I think it was? I made a pretty long and detailed post in the DP9 Alpha Rules Forum about it, and it was pretty much ignored. You did NOTHING to address the issues I brought up. Instead of a Threshold Check and Measure of Success, we now have a Test called a Roll or a Check compared to a Target Number. You count of the amount of successes instead of a Margin of Success. Here is a goody from page 7 of the beta rulebook:

No offense taken. I've not been involved with the development of the rules since shortly after Gencon 2013; Dave took over as sole dictator shortly thereafter. So there's some of your criticisms that I can take the blame for, and some that I'm going to have to punt one. The rules have shifted since I was involved in them, and in the case of not responding to them - I couldn't, because I was never an official rules presence for DP9. They took my work (with my blessing), built upon it and have spun that into the Alpha and Beta, but I was never in a position to respond to you in an official format. However, if I failed to respond to you in an unofficial format - I apologize. For various reasons I've avoided the official forums as much as possible, and only check in here every now and again.

However, with regard to your complaint - I never liked having both a Roll and Check, with the Roll being what you refer to above (roll XD6, you get 1 success for each dice that equals the TN). The original drafts had a single roll system (the check) with opposed rolls being against another player's roll, and an unopposed roll against a threshold. That was scrapped because the roll was 'simpler' than the threshold, enough to warrant the two different systems. I tended not to agree with that - but such is the nature of compromise.

 Tamwulf wrote:

Select the highest roll (P is the dice roll, but X is never defined. I assume that's modifiers maybe?...). If the attacker's total is higher then the defender's roll, you subtract the defenders total from the attackers roll to get a margin of success. So let's break it down:

That's a very tortured way of describing something that works simply in practice, but admittedly is complicated to describe. You determine how many dice you're going to roll - you start at 2D6, and add or subtract XD6 based upon situations. You roll those dice, and pick the highest die that's showing. For each die (excepting the high roll) that is greater than or equal to the model's augment, you add +1 to the high value. For an opposed check, the attacker wins if their total is greater than the defender's, and the difference is the margin of success. In practice, the calculation is fairly simple... throw 2-4D6, pick the highest, add +1 for winners. Compare to your opponent. It's at least in the same realm of complexity as Warmachine (2D6 + attribute, minus opponent's) Malifaux, Infinity, etc.

So while it's fair to say it's not as simply as say 'roll XD6 and pick winners' or 'flip a coin', I think comparing it to Calculus is a tad excessive. But then, I'm biased

 Tamwulf wrote:

A Gear has a Movement Rating of 5, modified by it's posture, and can move up to its movement rating in inches modified by the terrain."

The movement system used to be exactly that; you just paid a certain amount of movement in order to make a turn. A walker paid 0" of movement for a turn, ground vehicles 1", hover vehicles 2". Top speed doubled your speed, but also your costs to turn (walkers used 1" at Top Speed). I know there was some complaints that it was 'easier' to turn at top speed than at combat speed, which is why I think they have changed to what they have now. But I don't know the exact specifics of why what they have was adopted - sorry.

 Tamwulf wrote:

Cover is OK, but again, seems complex. In my mind, a model should have complete cover (hiding behind something or the attacker can't see the model) or partial cover. It's no wonder the percentage thing didn't work according to the call out on pg. 27- it's totally different from what was used in the old rules, and instead of adopting, we now have this bastardized silhouettes thing that defines how much volume (space) my model takes up regardless of it's actual physical size. So we have this very precise way of moving with fire arcs that are critical to making an attack, and suddenly we have this totally abstract cover system. That's a rule disconnect and inconsistency.

Silhouettes have become something of a defacto standard for many miniatures games that want to have a strong tournament presence. I'm not a huge fan of them, but concede they do provide utility in the case of disputes. However, last I checked - I thought the rules for cover were based simply on 50% coverage of the silhouette?

 Tamwulf wrote:

Lock (Target lock...) is a needless complication. It's a hold over from the old rules set that just should have been scrapped. What about EW then? EW could be used as a defensive or offensive modifier to the attack and defense roll. Lock just adds more rules to the game, and if you were going for a streamlined version, this should have been dropped entirely.

It was seriously considered. However, by keeping it let me grant a greater battlefield role to scouts, beyond just EW. I think there was a reasonable balance reached - lock only applies if you have full cover, so it doesn't tend to happen except at longer ranges. And the goal to streamline without removing tactical depth, if at all possible - I wanted people to have choices in the course of play. Interactions between those types of rules are the majority of tactics you can get at that scale, IMO.

 Tamwulf wrote:

From a design perspective, was this to increase the durability of gears, or prolong the combat? There is a good chance that a really good pilot will be able to never take any damage.

The last I knew of it, you spent an action to add +1D6 to any defense checks for the remainder of the turn. So that would apply before you roll.. not sure what it is now. Sorry.

 Tamwulf wrote:

Some seem far, far too good like Armor Piercing (double the weapons penetration value...) and Anti-tank (add more damage based on how many of your dice, not just the highest roll, got an MoS). Looking at the Weapon Table and thinking about the type of armor and how Lasers work,

I'll freely admit that Armor Piercing and Anti Tank weren't where I wanted them when I left; getting the 'feel' of them right was really damn hard. I experimented with many things, like making AT weapons work only against high armor targets, or AP weapons doing damage directly against structure points instead of hull. Playtesting went back and forth on them for a while, but I was still focused on trying to get the ACs and RPs working right, with the other weapons coming in later. So I'll take part of the blame for this - it just didn't get done.

 Tamwulf wrote:

Side note here on the Appendix 2 Models table- DC is listed for each model, but I couldn't find what DC was. I assume it's Hull/Structure points which is about the only thing that makes sense to me?

Yup, when I was involved with it, DC was just combination of Hull and Structure points. Nothing more or less.

 Tamwulf wrote:

That simplifies things AMAZINGLY WELL and makes the army selection process so much easier. So far, this is the best thing I've seen about the new edition.

I personally wish they had gone a little further, but this is still leaps and bounds over the old army system.

Hope that helps clear some things up. Good luck in whatever game you end up playing!