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.

 Smilodon_UP wrote:
But I think now you'll have to be the one to do the work of finding the posts or digging through the material to fix those items, as you seem to have a pronounced gap in your knowledge of the setting based on your work to date that I'm not sure anyone else can help you cover.

I must admit that a hearty portion of Dave's posts have left me the same impression. To try and fix that, I'd suggest to start with the 2nd edition's Tech Manual and Life on Terra Nova books, to completely "get" the core assumptions of the setting, both about the setting proper and its technologies.

Once done that, you'll be properly informed to a) know how you want stuff to work, b) why you want it, c) what do you need to change and why, and d) properly give the testers a set of assumptions and guidelines to allow them to give actual, useful feedback in a timely manner instead of faffing around because they don't know what stuff is supposed to do.

Because right now, most if not all conversations I've had on the regular forums have left me with a keen feeling, namely that nobody really knows how stuff is supposed to work. That leaves most of their comments and testing void.

They can Retcon all they want- as long as the rules are consistent and constant. I don't want to see a HUGE FAQ or rules addendum less then a year after the new rules come out. That's a sign of sloppy, poor rules development and happens when you make a very complicated, and obtuse rule set.

 Tamwulf wrote:
They can Retcon all they want- as long as the rules are consistent and constant. I don't want to see a HUGE FAQ or rules addendum less then a year after the new rules come out. That's a sign of sloppy, poor rules development and happens when you make a very complicated, and obtuse rule set.

I don't want to see a kickstarter for Heavy Gear: Blitziest Edition a year or two after the rules for this one come out as that is what the decades long history of DP9 indicates will happen. They're not exactly known for coming out with huge FAQs and even the simplest issues have historically taken months of prodding culminating with public drama to fix. We still haven't gotten nor ever will get the huge FAQ that Arena needs.

In any case, if the living rulebook with ALL the rules (and not just some of them like the Field Manual with the "army building" rules in other books) stays a free download, I don't mind getting a large FAQ that is automatically corrected in the FREE and COMPLETE living rulebook download. It may not be the best solution compared with getting right the first time but it is still better than just leaving it a broken mess and/or just charging for another rulebook/edition in the same time frame.

 Tamwulf wrote:
They can Retcon all they want- as long as the rules are consistent and constant. I don't want to see a HUGE FAQ or rules addendum less then a year after the new rules come out. That's a sign of sloppy, poor rules development and happens when you make a very complicated, and obtuse rule set.

I agree, but I sincerely think that before you retcon or change stuff, you should know what there was, to better understand what you want to end up with and how to do it.

Dave did a fair job of explaining the future of the rulebook.

"We know that the Beta rules will be updated several times before they can be locked down as the definitive core rules of the game. We are planning to maintain a Black-and-White PDF of the rules as a free download going into the future, since this is becoming the industry standard. We are a company that sells miniatures and we want players to be able to access the most current rules through all the different formats without having a number of books/FAQ/Errata/updates to lug around and sort through.

"Once the Beta rules have undergone some more revisions, it will depend on the reception and demand for a locked down version to be printed. Even then, there are reasons to offer a print on demand service for those who appreciate a paper copy and retain the format of a living online rule book for accessibility . The simple fact is that doing all the work to lay out a book costs money and time which we would rather spend on artists, sculptors, and development. A living rule book allows us to make changes and save on those layout costs for multiple books.

"We fully expect the Beta rules to remain in beta until the completion stage of this kickstarter, and then be available in a locked format PDF with all the factions represented. When it comes to published material there are several formats such as the Art of Heavy Gear books on special right now on DrivethroughRPG.com, and story line books. In other words, we are looking at a number of solutions and will be surveying our customers to see what will work the best.

"We would rather produce a regular e-book, or e-magazine, of support material once or twice a year, instead of a paper field manual that won't be able to be renewed again until after another rules cycle in 4-7 years. Never mind the risks the company takes printing large numbers of paper books in order to get the price down.

"I think players themselves are more interested in spending the money on the models than the rules over and over again, regardless of what system you play. If we move to a business model with a premium 'pay to download' e-book that includes all the background, and the free rules-only living rule book with a minimum of fluff, then the players will have a choice. Players who want the current story included would only pay for the book once for a premium version and then future updates to the story line could be included with an update to the PDF. This will depend on the demand."

Following the Infinity model is not a terrible idea.

They have been doing the exact same thing throughout the last four years, and the fans love being able to reference the rules independently of the fluff.

I think this is a smart move, allowing the fans to decide if they want their full color fluffy rulebook or just stick with the meat of the rules, and editing anything that gets missed every six months to a year as you go.

The only concern I have over a "living eBook" is that you will need to regularly check for updates, and you'll need some kind of device to read it on- or it'll be expensive to print it out yourself.

Not saying it's a bad thing or good thing, but I've seen arguments break out during a game because one player has a different version of the rules then the other player.

 Tamwulf wrote:
The only concern I have over a "living eBook" is that you will need to regularly check for updates, and you'll need some kind of device to read it on

Not just read it, but also run it, as there are still a couple of the "optimized" e-book pdfs that even my newish multi-core PC has trouble paging through in certain sections.
When I had to do work on an old Vista laptop they were almost unusable, and kept crashing Adobe, Foxit, or PDF-viewer.

Some of the Gear Up e-mags hang on occasion too, probably because of all the layers on the model advertisement pages, etc etc.

If the Pod still uses DTRPG, although over my connection and browser the duplicate/clone Wargames Vault works so much better for some reason, the update notice(s) come as soon as a new version gets uploaded unless disabled in the account settings.
But yeah, if it gets hosted elsewhere that could be an issue - I wanted to look at the HGB:FSG a month or so ago but had to do a Google search because the link in the announcement thread was already defunct and it's not available from DTRPG.
Amusingly enough the search comes up with the top two or three results as BGG rather than the main DP9 site where all the paper terrain and whatnot can be downloaded.

DP9 KS Update wrote:Helping out on the book will be artist, Avelardo Paredes, who's artwork appears in many of our recent releases. Plus for all our old school fans, our original artist, Ghislain Barbe, is back and will be doing the cover for the book.

Wasn't the consensus on the multiple art poll threads to recommend not mixing styles, as the images from these two are pretty diametric going off published examples, especially for the vehicle models.

_
_

 Smilodon_UP wrote:

DP9 KS Update wrote:Helping out on the book will be artist, Avelardo Paredes, who's artwork appears in many of our recent releases. Plus for all our old school fans, our original artist, Ghislain Barbe, is back and will be doing the cover for the book.

Wasn't the consensus on the multiple art poll threads to recommend not mixing styles, as the images from these two are pretty diametric going off published examples, especially for the vehicle models.

_
_

Sounds like Barbe will just be doing the cover, though, which is not exactly rare in the world of, well, any printed media with art in it. Comics regularly have much better (or at least wildly different) art on the covers than on the interiors, for example.

I'd prefer Barbe do ALL the new art (or at least being "art director", or something like that), but seeing some new HG art from him'll be cool, even if it's limited.

I found Heavy Gear 1st Edition 20 years ago in one of my local gaming stores (Amsterdam, NL), it looked good, the problem with it was that I seriously doubted I would get to play it. As getting to play Battletech was already quite difficult. When it went on sale (50-75% off) I bought a lot (1/87 RAFM), since then I've never seen it again in a local game store nor have I played it. Since then I have collected the 1/87 RAFM minis whenever I could (ebay, tmp, gwhobby.net, etc.) also tried to get my hands on the first three editions of physical books (almost have my collection complete). Bought all the Blitz books as pdf at DTRPG as they came out. Even bought 11 heavy CEF tanks and a bunch of decals during a Wayland Games sale (for use as 1/100 light hover tanks). Never bought any of the 1/144 Gears, mostly due to price (very high) and availability (horrible availability in the EU), especially because I had gotten my 1/87 Gears at lower prices then I could get the 1/144 Gears. Another issue was the edition 'wars', new editions faster the GW ever did (I suspect that GW learned 40k 7th release from dp9), not getting all the books finished for an edition before moving onto the next edition, etc. I must also admit that I'm less charmed about HG during the Blitz era then I was during HG 1E... The new vehicle/Gear designs do continue to impress and invoke drooling ;-)

I've been working on a 1/100 HG project for a couple of years (on and off), as the 1/87 models are actually 1/100 according the specs. That kept my interest alive in the universe.

But I always held onto "If they would make HQ plastic miniatures at affordable prices I would certainly buy!", this KS is the time to put my money where my mouth is. During the run up to the KS they threw some ideas around, we gave feedback, they listed to some advise, ignored some and launched a pretty good KS. They are currently at $81k, enough to get a pretty good starter box at $115CAD ($100US or €80) with 32 minis (sorry I count 3 FLAILS on a base as one mini) and a quickstart rulebook. That translates to me to €1.90 for a Hunter or Jager and €5 for a medium tank. I suspect that will go to almost half that by the end of the KS in three weeks. Those are affordable prices, those are prices I'm willing to pay...

Have there been issues with the dp9 management? Sure, that it's taken this long for them to move to plastic is one big issue. The rules issues is another, having a 'living rulebook' in a digital format is a very good thing imho, it allows access to more folks, more folks being able to make changes by copy/paste an changing values and/or entire rules. And if the old guard doesn't like the game they can house rule it or play using different rules. No fantasy/sci-fi game having been around for 20+ years has stayed the same, Battletech and 40k are no exception...

Cergorach wrote:
I found Heavy Gear 1st Edition 20 years ago in one of my local gaming stores (Amsterdam, NL), it looked good, the problem with it was that I seriously doubted I would get to play it. When it went on sale (50-75% off) I bought a lot (1/87 RAFM), since then I've never seen it again in a local game store nor have I played it.
[..] with 32 minis (sorry I count 3 FLAILS on a base as one mini)
[..] And if the old guard doesn't like the game they can house rule it or play using different rules.

I don't think I've ever seen anything HG in a store period, besides the very occasional dusty copy of either PC game at OfficeMax once upon a time, and only maybe once or twice saw DP9 or HG advertised in game magazines or the like back then around ~2000'ish.

I'm wondering that there wasn't a bit more folks not quite as impressed with the FLAILS either, or at least for how they are being counted as (6) entire models, which seems a touch shady when they aren't comparably sized miniatures to the others.

The amount of interest in the 2e Tactical (boxed set) or TacMini rules shown in the KS comments & KS thread here has been quite nice to see though.

Concerning Flail infantry, this is from the comments sections on the KS regarding them:

Khell 5 days ago
To DP9, a question about the new plastic Flail infantry.
The metal originals had I believe two poses for Mordred Flail, a Morgana Flail, and heavy weapons. For the 3pk of new plastic ones, what do we actually get? Are there swappable pieces to make Morgana's, do we still get the heavy weapon sprue?

Dream Pod 9 5 days ago
FLAILS will be 3 different poses of new design Mordred FLAILS along with one set of all the weapons needed under the new rules.

Khell 5 days ago
@DP9, so no Morgana Flail then?

Dream Pod 9 5 days ago
No Morgana FLAIL for now, maybe later we'll see.

Khell 5 days ago
Is it possible to order the metal Morganas in bulk, rather than packaged with the 12 Mordreds? (Kinda not a KS question I know, but affects what I order)

Dream Pod 9 5 days ago
Yes, I'll get an option to order just the Morgana FLAIL added to the Dream Pod 9 Online Store in the next 2 days.

Gregory Morris 1 day ago
Ok, I've upped for enough FLAILs to round out a unit's worth of brain-in-jar clanking death. I was never really sold on the idea of the FLAILs before but in the Beta they do look like a very solid skirmish screen for Frames.

Remy van Vliet about 4 hours ago
@Bill & William: <snip>(I consider 3 FLAILS on a base as a single mini).<unsnip>

So yes, one base of FLAILs is one miniature by most anyone's standard. But they are going to be 3 separate brand-new sculpts. Word is they want to rework the look with this one.

BrandonKF wrote:

So yes, one base of FLAILs is one miniature by most anyone's standard. But they are going to be 3 separate brand-new sculpts. Word is they want to rework the look with this one.

That's not my point, it was rather obvious that the three FLAILS would be 'unique' sculpts/poses, I believe that they already said this on the dp9 forums before the KS launched.

My point is that dp9 is counting the two bases of three FLAILS each as six miniatures in the KS and the boxed set contents. So we're now at 30 gears and 2 bases of FLAILS, which according to dp9 is 36 miniatures, I think that's only 32 miniatures. A minor point, but something folks need to realize.

That "one base of FLAILS is three miniatures" confusion probably also ties back to when they used to be three miniatures on separate bases that have to stick together.

All of the big infantry models are kind of going through that transition at the moment to "X miniatures per base" instead of "X miniatures per model".

But they appear to be consistent about the practice. Here's the description for the Northern Infantry Platoon in the store:

This Pack contains 40 Northern Infantry miniatures (New Sculpts) and 12 hex bases for the Northern factions. Replaces all other previous Southern Infantry blisters. 40 Infantry pewter miniatures at 1/144 scale, assembly & painting required.

In the beta, that's really going to be some mix of hex-based "team" models and 40mm based "squad" models with several infantry miniatures per base. 40 or 12 or as few as 4, depending on how you count and organize the models.

Is it just me, or is the MHT one fugly model? It doesn't look related to any other CEF model, and looks like it needs some sort of directional thrust component in the front, so the thing can turn. And it has lots of random extra panels going on, it's like the Rob Liefeld of tank models.

ferrous wrote:
Is it just me, or is the MHT one fugly model? It doesn't look related to any other CEF model, and looks like it needs some sort of directional thrust component in the front, so the thing can turn. And it has lots of random extra panels going on, it's like the Rob Liefeld of tank models.

Not just you, no.
I think it looks more like something intended for RL:Centurion.

It's not just you. I don't remember if I posted it here or the other thread but I'm not a fan of both the design ideas and the aesthetics that IMO don't match any of the existing admittedly disparate models in the range. I do like the Acco though on both fronts.

Nope, not just you. I don't really care at all for it either.

...and I have the sinking suspicion that that's the level of his current 3D sculptor, from what I'm seeing. A friend of mine that's also a modeller has (repeatedly) assured me that each and every model currently showing in the KS is "crap that I could have cobbled up during my luch break".

He's a bit full of himself though xD.

You know, I'm sure people complained when they replaced beakies, and I guess in the long run that all worked out for the best but, well, stop changing my Gears, dammit!

 Firebreak wrote:
You know, I'm sure people complained when they replaced beakies, and I guess in the long run that all worked out for the best but, well, stop changing my Gears, dammit!

Speak for yourself! Every SM army I've done I've had to scour the world to find beakies

You'll need to pry my beaky marines from my cold, dead hands, good sir.



Also, Dark Angels are black, I'll have you know, and I don't know what a "grognard" is

 Albertorius wrote:

 Firebreak wrote:
You know, I'm sure people complained when they replaced beakies, and I guess in the long run that all worked out for the best but, well, stop changing my Gears, dammit!

Speak for yourself! Every SM army I've done I've had to scour the world to find beakies

You'll need to pry my beaky marines from my cold, dead hands, good sir.

Oh absolutely! I just anticipated cries of "It's not like OTHER companies don't modify designs."

 Albertorius wrote:
...and I have the sinking suspicion that that's the level of his current 3D sculptor, from what I'm seeing.

 Firebreak wrote:
Oh absolutely! I just anticipated cries of "It's not like OTHER companies don't modify designs."

Exactly how many times do multiple and at times entirely different folks have to point out essentially the same things done in error for each design before the impression that gives about the current artist(s) & modeler(s) and thus by extension the company is understood.
Rushing to present something that comes off as half-baked, and/or coming up with ideas "that cannot possibly fail because all of us thought it was a good idea.... except now we need to change this, this, & this," has clearly not served the interests of DP9 in the past and into the present.


Wherever it is that the Pod is taking the game & setting under the most current "vision," if any, less and less does much all of it really fit with Heavy Gear anymore in my opinion.

_
_

Been going back and looking at the 2nd Edition Tactical Rules again, and thinking they are pretty good for a skirmish game, especially if you want to do narrative games.

Anybody ever point up some of the models that came out after they stopped supporting it? With a couple of modifications (I might try using the Bushido rolling mechanism to give a better spread of results) I may be able to talk some people into playing small games with my models.

RJVF wrote:
Anybody ever point up some of the models that came out after they stopped supporting it? With a couple of modifications (I might try using the Bushido rolling mechanism to give a better spread of results) I may be able to talk some people into playing small games with my models.

I did some of the NuCoal stuff for 2nd edition. Or rather, remade them to fit my vision of the faction.

That said, it's actually quite easy to port them. What units were you thinking about?

The NuCoal and PRDF ones. I have the RTCE book which I think has the points for Black Talons and CEF/Utopia etc.

I know I can sit down with the creation table and point everything out, but I was just hoping that someone had already done it in a comprehensive manner so I can just look at how I built my models and find something that fits.

RJVF wrote:
The NuCoal and PRDF ones. I have the RTCE book which I think has the points for Black Talons and CEF/Utopia etc.

I know I can sit down with the creation table and point everything out, but I was just hoping that someone had already done it in a comprehensive manner so I can just look at how I built my models and find something that fits.

Well, this is what I started to do for the NuCoal stuff, but as I said, its intent was to rework them to fit my view of the faction:

http://dp9forum.com/index.php?showtopic=14531&hl=%2Breworking+%2Bnucoal

 DP9Dave wrote:
The new Heavy Gear blitz beta rules are being play tested

Discussion and calculation alone can identify problems and sometimes solutions, but nothing beats dice hitting a table for a reliable playtest.

Our commitment to an online living rule book PDF will allow us the flexibility to make regular updates and fix the bugs that appear,

We're running a successful kickstarter! Period.

Anyone who wants to keep asking questions in an accusatory tone about things that are not going to be answered is just going to have to get used to disappointment, sorry.

Cheers!
Dave

[decloaking]

Hi Dave!

You talk about beta playtesting?? Great. I beta tested the current rules. They are much better than before (with the multiplying), but mechanics-wise, they are now merely about 20 years out of date, rather than 30+ years out of date.

I've played a lot of games and I can do numbers. Your game does NOT scale past a dozen models per side. It does scale past 3 models, so bravo for that. Thing is, it doesn't scale like any of the other wargaming systems out there. This is still a small skirmish game, and it's clunky enough that no player should ever desire to play with more than a dozen models. Which means that your Kickstarter is going to be a one-and-done for most backers.

The Kickstarter is a chance to start with a clean slate of rules that make the game enjoyable to play with large numbers. Do that. Pick something that regularly fields dozens of bases of things, and go forward with a clean new vision that is familiar to your target market.

Your Kickstarter is barely $100k. For a game like this, you're doing OK, but not great. Had this been launched by pretty much anyone else, you'd be looking at a $500k draw.

Quite frankly, you should take the Flames of War ruleset and adapt it to Heavy Gear. Or pay BattleFront to do the conversion. Or license the Flames of War ruleset from them. Make a game that plays similar to the games of the vast majority of your future target customers. Right now, Flames covers WW2, Vietnam, and WW1. It succeeds because it aggressively streamlines things compared to the high detail WW2 stuff that was in vogue during the 70s. There is no reason Flames could not cover Heavy Gear very nicely.

Being pointed, I'm sorry in advance, but why the need to carry so much baggage?
- Why do we need nearly 200+ pages of rules! Go read the Warhammer 40,000 3rd Edition rulebook for inspiration.
- Why the need for so much detail, and everything as an opposed mechanic? That's RPG, not wargaming. 40k resolves this with a series of very simple d6 rolls - why can't you?
- Why old-fashioned, undersized hex bases when all the modern models are on round bases of appropriate size? Why the hex holdover? This isn't played on a hexboard.

I haven't decided whether to back, but if I do, it'll be for the minis, not the rules.

Anyhow, hope the KS finishes strongly.

[cloak]

While I usually refer the Flames of War rules to as the standard on how to write rules, I would not say that they are anything close to modern.
They are polished to a shine, definitively; Well organized, well written and coherent, absolutely. They are also really old.
All the concepts in them were current before I started wargaming.

They are also a very bad fit for the Heavy Gear setting, and have nothing in common with the shreds of vision that have been consistent since 2nd Edition.
Ironically, those shreds are the modern part of the rules. Interactivity and alternated activation. Two essential components of a modern game, completely missing from Flames of War.
In general, given the setting, most of the rules from Flames of War would be wasted: Gears are vehicles and should act like vehicles. Infantry is significantly more secondary in Heavy Gear than in Flames of War.
Enforced squad coherency is not needed, and in fact harmful.
The only thing I would use is the list creation system, but that's because I believe that any and all games that involves organized armies should use that system.
It's fluffy, it's flexible, it can be expanded, and it can be controlled. A system that's perfect from a fluff and gameplay perspective is awesome.

I would not use anything from Game Workshop as an example on how to write rules. This includes the single game they made that I like (Epic).
They are not as badly written as Star Grunt, Dirtside or even Arena, but they are still badly written.

Finally, the minor points:
Opposed vs "To-hit-then-to-wound" does not change much in term of actual complexity.
Binomial distribution simply become "roll as many dice as you can". P(success) has usually little relevance compare to N. They also have a very large variance that actually increases with N.
The problem is "undersized", not the hexagonal shape. Hexagons are prettier than boring circles.

1) The rules are actually closer to 50 pages and the beta is trimming them. The range of models is huge and that's what bring the page count up to 100+. Putting fluff and art in the book for the factions is what will really push the page count up.

2) The opposed mechanic resolves in a opposed roll what might take three or more rolls in 40K. You get success and damage all in one. If you look at the DP9 forums I've started previewing the November update that is removing a lot of opposed rolls for niche situations and replacing them for action>effect rules which are fast. Does it need to be pointed out that this is a game with mecha? With mecha you want the detail. When you consider that every Gear is the size of a 40K Space Marine Dreadnought it makes sense that with what they are armed with and what they are doing that they are significant models.

3) The hex bases are optional. We'll sell you all the 40mm or 50mm bases you want. The rules will accommodate that. The hex bases do make it easy to identify the front arcs by drawing a line corner to corner.

As the beta progresses the responses I'm getting are helping to fashion a faster and leaner game. It is very much a tactical tabletop wargame and not a RPG. The living rule book will also allow for additional rules and factions to be added on cleanly after the beta rules are finalized.

Cheers!
Dave

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Being pointed, I'm sorry in advance, but why the need to carry so much baggage?
- Why do we need nearly 200+ pages of rules! Go read the Warhammer 40,000 3rd Edition rulebook for inspiration.
- Why the need for so much detail, and everything as an opposed mechanic? That's RPG, not wargaming. 40k resolves this with a series of very simple d6 rolls - why can't you?
- Why old-fashioned, undersized hex bases when all the modern models are on round bases of appropriate size? Why the hex holdover? This isn't played on a hexboard.

I can only speak for myself, but the quickest way for me to dump out of this project, is to make it 40K-lite. Personally, I like the smaller force size, and the more intricate combat system. And while I have many criticisms of the 40K mechanics, I don't need to go into them here. Just to say I think it'd be a mistake for DP9 to do so, for one simple reason. If it's made into a 40K clone, why would a prospective player buy it? When they could just buy into 40K, and have a much larger support base/player base, right from the start? Instead of buying a game at a different scale, and needing to build a playerbase up? From my perspective, the only way Heavy Gear succeeds, is by being DIFFERENT enough both aesthetically, and mechanically, that there's a reason for people to either choose it over 40K/FoW, OR to have both as separate systems. While I like the Heavy Gear universe, I'm not sure it's strong enough by itself, to straight up compete with the monolithic 40K. Cloning 40K just seems like setting it up for failure.

Morgan Vening wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Being pointed, I'm sorry in advance, but why the need to carry so much baggage?
- Why do we need nearly 200+ pages of rules! Go read the Warhammer 40,000 3rd Edition rulebook for inspiration.
- Why the need for so much detail, and everything as an opposed mechanic? That's RPG, not wargaming. 40k resolves this with a series of very simple d6 rolls - why can't you?
- Why old-fashioned, undersized hex bases when all the modern models are on round bases of appropriate size? Why the hex holdover? This isn't played on a hexboard.

I can only speak for myself, but the quickest way for me to dump out of this project, is to make it 40K-lite. Personally, I like the smaller force size, and the more intricate combat system. And while I have many criticisms of the 40K mechanics, I don't need to go into them here. Just to say I think it'd be a mistake for DP9 to do so, for one simple reason. If it's made into a 40K clone, why would a prospective player buy it? When they could just buy into 40K, and have a much larger support base/player base, right from the start? Instead of buying a game at a different scale, and needing to build a playerbase up? From my perspective, the only way Heavy Gear succeeds, is by being DIFFERENT enough both aesthetically, and mechanically, that there's a reason for people to either choose it over 40K/FoW, OR to have both as separate systems. While I like the Heavy Gear universe, I'm not sure it's strong enough by itself, to straight up compete with the monolithic 40K. Cloning 40K just seems like setting it up for failure.

I didn't get that from his post at all. I heard "why isn't this game a bit more abstracted in how the rules work so that you can actually handle more than a handful of units/gears in a game." I for one would prefer to see a simplification. Just about every single game that is being released nowadays is being "abstracted" to lesser or greater extents in order to make it more "play friendly" and to accomodate more models on the table in about a 2 hour play time. If HG wants to be an RPG, then that's one thing. If it wants to be a mass-battle game, that's something else.

I have the old old Heavy Gear Tactical box, and for the life of me couldn't figure out how to actually play it - the spotting, ecm, etc. was beyond my feeble attempts to actually play games. I've since grown older (about 40+ years now), and "get it", but it took awhile. I saw and played Blitz, and it was ok. It was more 'abstracted' than Tactical, but still "complex". Now, it could be a case of 'different strokes" and all that, but if you're trying to grow a playerbase, you don't do it by making players have to multiply, then divide, then square root the result (blatant over-exaggeration there ) in order to resolve a game mechanic or figure out target numbers. That's the easiest way to drive off "most" players. Consider that many of the players who may pick up HG are those 40k players, FOW players, Warmachine players, and Dropzone Commander players. If you don't already play HG, how much harder is it to figure out? How much more complicated is the rule system? If it is, you're unlikely to draw many players.

I know that when I was first drawn to HG, it was right around when I was becoming less enamored with Battletech, and the Gears scratched my "stompy robot" itch. Now that the game has such an emphasis on "combined arms", I'm less interested, much as when Battletech went citytech and aerotech, Warmachine became less about the Jacks (and yes, I know now it can be played Jack heavy, but there was a stretch where infantry was much better), I didn't pursue that either. I've been hanging around the fringes of HG for many years, and they've still not given me any indication that I should actually jump in - from complexity, to lack of a playerbase, to what I read about how things are done, meh. I'll scrabble together a handful of specific Gears to go with my Blitz gears, and then go back to playing an earlier version.

And yes, to each their own, different strokes, etc., but I also think HG could be so much more than it is, and that's a shame.