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.

mrondeau wrote:
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 a very bad fit for the Heavy Gear setting,

Interactivity and alternated activation. Two essential components of a modern game, completely missing from Flames of War.

Enforced squad coherency is not needed, and in fact harmful.

I would not use anything from Game Workshop as an example on how to write rules.

Opposed vs "To-hit-then-to-wound" does not change much in term of actual complexity.

The problem is "undersized", not the hexagonal shape. Hexagons are prettier than boring circles.

OK, I'm going to stay delurked, because this is kinda ridiculous.

Flames of War is modern, because that is what people are actually playing, several-fold over compared to Heavy Gear. I bet Heavy Gear sells less than 5% of what Flames does annually, and I wouldn't be surprised if Flames outsells Heavy Gear by at least 100:1. Flames is far less clunky than Blitz, and that's a fact.

Flames is military combat, combined arms, platoon-sized units, company-sized engagements. And you say that's not a fit for the HG universe? Really? As I see it, it's a perfect fit.

Igo-Ugo is the best playing system for company-scale games, by far. Interactivity and alternating activation does not scale. They are bad decisions that only work at a RPG scale.

Squad coherency is how military units operate, which is what HG pretends to be part of.

Games Workshop's 40k US sales probably exceed Dream Pod 9's entire global revenue by at least an order of magnitude. 40k is also military combined arms company-level battles. It's also a good fit.

Opposed adds a lot of delay. Instead of simply rolling dice that the opponent can observe, both sides need to stop and calculate a bunch of modifiers and factors each time someone wants to do something. That's ridiculous. I can have a newbie process a unit of 10 models shooting at another unit of 10 models in about a minute. Can you do that in Heavy Gear? No, not even close.

Boring or not, circles are the de facto standard for miniatures, along with rectangles. Being different for the sake of being different is not good.


Really, the vast bulk if your post is: I played Heavy Gear when it was nigh unplayable (the version of rule where you multiply MOS is objectively terrible. Never again.), and I don't want Heavy Gear to succeed with a modern game that is actually suitable for the company-level vision that is claimed. If you're so happy with 2nd Edition, go play that. Stay out of the discussion for an actual new game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DP9Dave wrote:
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

Thanks for the reply.

100+ pages is still excessive. Are you planning to split the rules off separately from the fluff?

In 40k, I can process shooting/melee a lot faster than Blitz. Throw a die (hit), throw a die (wound), validate save/fail. And I can mass roll. It's very fast, especially as 90% of the models only have 1 wound. 40k scales much faster than Blitz. If you don't believe me, go line up 50 Blitz models each side, and play 6 rounds of combat. In 40k, I can finish that in a couple of hours. Can Blitz?

I like mecha. The models are cool. If I didn't like mecha, I wouldn't be having this exchange with you at all. Good mecha don't excuse terrible rules.

Your claim that "every Gear is the size of a 40K Space Marine Dreadnought" is not true if we're talking model size. I own Space Marine Dreadnoughts, and I own Heavy Gear models (Southern Milicia General Purpose Cadre & Fire Support Cadre). Those models are not anywhere close to being the size of a Dreadnought. The Dreadnought is at least 60% taller, and more than twice as bulky. It's not even close. At best, a Heavy Gear model is the size of a regular 40k Space Marine infantry trooper, except, the Space Marine's Bolter is bigger than the Jager's gun.

I don't think you answered the question - which bases will be included with the models? Is your intent to ship undersized bases so that backers are forced into a hidden cost to buy proper-sized bases? That seems more than a little underhanded. 30mm round would appear to be the correct size based on the feet but if you're pushing 25mm hex for nostalgia's sake, I'd like to know whether I would need to budget for 3rd party bases so the models don't look ridiculous on their undersized bases.

If hex bases are such a good idea for front arcs, why aren't all of your minis on hexes? All of your larger models are on larger 40/50mm round bases. Please explain. Are you deliberately compromising the design intent by shipping round bases with those models?

If it really is a wargame, please play a 40k-scale game with 50 to 100 bases per side, and let us know if you finish 6 rounds of play within 3 hours.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Cruentus wrote:
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.

Yes, thank you!

Modern games are dramatically streamlined compared to games of the past. A good example is last year's breakout game: X-Wing. That game is hugely abstracted and simplified compared to Star Fleet Battles. I can run a newbie through an X-Wing dogfight in less than an hour. I defy anyone to do the same with SFB.

I can do a similar squad-level engagement of 40k or Flames in similar timeframe.

X-Wing, 40k and Flames all have a very simple base mechanic to keep things moving along (though I enjoy X-Wing the least). Why can't Blitz have similar goals?


And being very frank, Blitz being different for the sake of being different is not a good thing. It simply raises the bar for entry. A game that looks similar to the market leaders, and plays similar to the market leaders, can grow much faster because the players have less to new stuff learn each time they want to play a pick-up game. If they need to spend hours fumbling through an all-new ruleset just to get started, that's not a good experience.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Your claim that "every Gear is the size of a 40K Space Marine Dreadnought" is a bald-faced lie. I own Space Marine Dreadnoughts, and I own Heavy Gear models (Southern Milicia General Purpose Cadre & Fire Support Cadre). Those models are not anywhere close to being the size of a Dreadnought. The Dreadnought is at least 60% taller, and more than twice as bulky. It's not even close. At best, a Heavy Gear model is the size of a regular 40k Space Marine infantry trooper, except, the Space Marine's Bolter is bigger than the Jager's gun.

Welcome back, btw. I believe he's talking about the "in universe" size of the gears about which he is correct. Gears are indeed roughly the size of a dreadnought compared to a human. His point is that you shouldn't compare infantry on infantry combat (which is predominantly what 40k is) with the more "dreadnought on dreadnought" combat and expect exact correlations. I agree that the rules need to continue to be slimmed down significantly with a relatively ruthless culling of most things that break the pace (unfortunately the much and over IMO expanded EW and CMD stuff) but it may be a good idea to take a few steps back before calling someone (incorrectly) a liar. And this is coming from a very persistent and vocal critic of the company before you throw out any white knight name tags...

You know what? Once I read the word "size", I totally fixiated on physical dimensions. And then the "every" bit made me want to verify, so I ran over, dug into my closet to take out the models and compare them side-by-side and one in front of the other. It never even occurred to me that he might have been talking background fluff vs physical models. Nope, totally clueless. Oops.

Back on point, while I understand the point about Dread on Dread combat, it's important to also note that Dreads are elite "super" units in 40k, whereas HG Gears are akin to 40k infantry (and HG Infantry are like 40k Swarms). I might be persuaded that Gears take the role of 40k MegaNobz or other TEQs on the tabletop. Even then, 40k Dreads are pretty simple to play. I play Imperial Guard, so having lots of Vehicles on board isn't a big deal to manage.

If Blitz is going to be truly ruthless in cleaning things up, I might actually consider HG as a game to play, versus looking at it as a toybox of cute little robots. The EW/ECM/ECCM stuff is messy.

I agree with some of John's points, disagree with others. I've been a big fan of getting rid of all the opposed rolls, and it looks like Dave is slowly trying to do that, or at least lessen then somewhat.

I don't think they should make the game entirely 40k/FoW, (lets face it, the two systems are nearly identical) Currently, Gears really are more like Dreads. They are very rarely removed after one successful attack against them, while almost all infantry in 40k are just fodder.

And I agree that all the EWM/ECM/Spotting stuff still needs more revision, it's been tough as it's something more unique to the setting, to help differentiate it from 40k/FoW, but it's always been poorly worded, and slows the game down.


Personally, I think they should just stick with what they are good at, and aim for a 15 model vs 15 model game, and do what needs to be done to make that fun, quick and financially successful. They only way they could really do a game of 50 vs 50 models is by doing the rather annoying thing that 40k does, where you buy figures that are really just one unit, and might as well be abstracted out to one large die with a wound counter on it.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Which means that your Kickstarter is going to be a one-and-done for most backers.
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.

Morgan Vening wrote:
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.

 Cruentus wrote:
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.

The sparse player-base is a strange thing, because when exposed to the setting most folks are initially attracted, but the problems do indeed seem to come later.

The G+ community is essentially a void, and the only other non-DP9 forums right now are a small one for the Ottawa folks on Game Summit and another that requires logging into & using Facebook.
Any currently active blogs dedicated either in large part or in totality to Heavy Gear are similarly very few and far between.

So I would agree, when taken together all of what I mentioned does not indicate any kind of significant community, let alone the ability to find other folks willing to play, and I doubt the year plus minimum to get the models produced and shipped is going to help in any fashion.
There just doesn't seem to have been quite enough of a critical mass in the past and into the present to draw a larger, self-sustaining fanbase - especially over the past ten years of Blitz!.

mrondeau wrote:
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.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Squad coherency is how military units operate, which is what HG pretends to be part of.

I would add that HG is not taking place in a WW2 or even a Cold War setting where only select vehicles have radios.
Instead, pretty much every vehicle as well as most individual infantry soldiers or their immediate commanders have computerized multi-mode communication systems able to network within the typical battle area represented by a terrain board.
Given that technology I think that each players force can already be considered to have full internal cohesion when present on the tabletop barring select terrain features and/or localized EWAR efforts.

mrondeau wrote:
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'm not a fan of the FoW ruleset, but the force construction system definitely has some real elegance to it, which I think might have to do in large part with how divorced making a list is from the gameplay rules.

_
_

I have been away from this for awhile. So I thought I would come back and tell you Smilodon, that most of the 'love it or leave it' commentary has originated from this thread and another, two year old thread on RPG.net.

For the most part, players who return are interested in the KS, and they are interested in building the community.

Toward that end, I have a Facebook Group here, titled Terra Nova DMZ, for building up the community, answering and asking questions, painting, sharing pictures, and organizing Heavy Gear groups through the social media.

https://m.facebook.com/groups/302254736538781

The Google+ Group you mention may or may not grow because, realistically, I haven't seen as much activity there for pictures, games, battle reports or otherwise. The longest conversations I can recall are from you and I, and that is because you and I have very different opinions.

And as for your question of when the rules will be completed, Dave has already made it very clear that the core rules will be finalized for the Quickstart rules.

My suggestion, which I put in the comments on KS, but I will post them here, is to make the Quickstart rules the foundation that won't change for the next 5-7 years.

Clearly, the idea of the Army sub-Lists will be in need of playtesting and balancing.

However, by the time the Backer kit is complete I expect that we will have a good core rulebook and good Quickstart rules to present to new players.

Also, Smilidon, plenty of people of those 700 have been sharing, posting, and mentioning the Kickstarter.

So there have been several recorded incidents of trolls posting pledges, and we also had one or two Pledger's who were hacked and had theit prices exponentially increased, for which they apologized publicly in comments.

Peace.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@JohnHwangDD

I don't know if we have written to each other before.

Your ideas of playing with 50 to 100 miniatures as a 'wargame', I would like very much.

I suppose that that is a major question to ask of anyone who would be interested.

@Smilodon - HG lacks large community because the rules present a significant barrier to entry, that the typical gamer is not interested in investing the effort to learn.

It's not like HG is the only miniatures battle game out there. Not even the only one with lots of robots / mecha:
- Warmachine.
- Robotech Tactics (which is delivering RIGHT NOW!).
- BattleTech (24 plastic minis for $60).
All of those are plastic starters and have much larger gaming communities.

I would agree that Heavy Gear would have everyone with radios. Coherency still applies due to Gears not being invincible units - cover fire and direct support still applies.

Rules-wise, the fact that they're going "Living Rulebook" suggests that it will never be done.

Flames isn't the magical be-all/end-all of wargaming, but it is very playable and produces generally reasonable results at a scale that looks good on a 4'x6' board.
____

@Brandon - it's a question of how smoothly the game scales against similar things that people play as miniatures wargames. 2 to 3 hours is a typical gaming time for a match, so that is what we might aim for.

It is an interesting thread to read indeed.

I would like to add my thoughts as an outsider to it.

I became interested in heavy gear around mid to late 90's but quickly lost interest because of the cost to get involved from a country on the other side of the pond, eventually some books and minis accidentally slipped to my country and had the opportunity of a first hand experience admittedly almost a decade later.

The game as a game is a design sin, the rules I read and the later Blitz rules that came free on drive through are not for a wargame, not even a really low models count skirmish game, its a heavy RPG ruleset that lost its way and has an identity crisis.

I get there is a drive for a more logical redesign of the rules now, but for the comments I see the same ideas that were bad in my opinion in the past continue.

I cannot comment on DP9's attitude, they have a bad reputation on the partially interested, like me, people and they seem to be on a steady decline, but other than that I have never interacted directly with them.

Coming to present, DP9 seems in my eyes to be stuck in the past, looking at their kickstarter the fonts they use are difficult to read, if on a kickstarter page reading is difficult, I am dreading how the books will be, ther eis no real mention on how the game actually plays/ how many models are involved on an actual game, the models look old, there are several companies that produce mecha games now and their quality is stellar, not only in sculpting, but also on representing something that has the illusion of been functional, the renders look like something that would be acceptable more than a decade ago, if they are going to spend money on this and even make it plastic, why not modernize an old and tired design, keeping the aesthetic but adding the detail?

In my opinion, if DP9 wants to succeed and make their IP strong they need to modernize and streamline, they need to present information in a coherent easy to read way, they need to make game rules that are easy to read and execute and they really should make modern miniatures, a heavy gear is the height of a "28"mm model at this level detail is expected regardless of the "scale" it is supposed to be.

Before I wrote that above I went to DP9's homepage, it is an unacceptable design cluttered with useless information and not delivering the basic questions one would like to ask, the "design manifesto" on the front page is from a blog feed, how long till this gets bumped out by a newer blog post and is lost?

Don't know if this might change your mind, but the most recent edition of the Beta, with the updated rules on September 24, has been receiving word of a lot of rules being cut by Dave here on the DP9 forum for Beta Development:

http://dp9forum.com/index.php?s=8607097becd5c3cd143f2924ac2a6419&showforum=66

I'll quote a few of the posts Dave has made for the updates:

"The following rules are starting to look like good candidates for complete removal from the Beta Rules:

9.5 We're in trouble: Remove Entirely.
We're in trouble came about as a way for model to use actions to reduce the effect of weapons with a high MOS against them. It really isn't required with the options of spending an action to add 1D6 to a defense roll and re-rolls.

18.2 Hull Down: Remove Entirely
This can be replaced by an effect called "using cover".

Update (Nov 12th)
These Traits are being removed/replaced.
Remove Rugged: Anything (Effect covered by DC and Aux Trait)
Remove Fragile: Anything (Effect covered by DC and Aux Trait)
Remove Flanked:XD6 - Flanking a vehicle now is an standard attack modifier of +2D6. (Gears and Stiders will have a standard flanked modifier of +1D6 to the attacker. This will remove the need for remembering to check for the modifier before attacking.
Replace Spider with Mount (Flanked:0D6 equivalent). (This covers the situation of models that effectively have no front or rear arcs and are not nice blocky models used to represent tanks that are easy to identify the rear arcs of.


These are the only rules that are being reviewed for complete removal/replacement.
They are being removed for being duplication of other effects and to simplify the decision tree."




For Traits:

"Here is an updated traits list. The main goal in this review was to ensure that traits were standardized, shortened, and made as legible as possible.
Please comment with any questions, errata, or mistakes noted.
If a trait is not listed here then it will be unchanged from the current book version.

Note that some traits will appear to have some strange terminology especially when referencing Electronic Warfare actions. I will be previewing the updated EW section, Command/orders section and Updated weapons section alphas this week and later next week.

Once the Kickstarter is complete we will be able to update the Beta Rules Download. This preview section is alpha status until that happens and is incompatible with the current beta rules until the beta rules are completely updated. These rules are for commenting only. If you wish to start a discussion about a particular trait please start a new thread and reference this one in it so as not to clutter this thread unnecessarily."

So there is movement to remove the older RPG stats and move to a more streamlined option.


-Brandon F.

Also, the electronic warfare and command section is being streamlined a lot, this section will loose a lot of uneeded fat!

...only at least half of those weren't from the RPG, of course.

Flames of War is basically 40K-lite, that's not what I'd call revolutionary any day.
If FoW has taught us one thing though, it's that highly-polished, well-written rules will sell, even if the actual mechanism themselves are neither new nor original.

... So says the guy who now plays FoW.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
[..] looking at their kickstarter the fonts they use are difficult to read, if on a kickstarter page reading is difficult, I am dreading how the books will be,

Some of the books put out by the current company have their good points - but yes, the amount of errors, especially with spelling, has gotten unbelievably bad just since 2011.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Flames isn't the magical be-all/end-all of wargaming, but it is very playable and produces generally reasonable results at a scale that looks good on a 4'x6' board.

 HudsonD wrote:
If FoW has taught us one thing though, it's that highly-polished, well-written rules will sell, even if the actual mechanism themselves are neither new nor original.
... So says the guy who now plays FoW.

I don't think it's all that bad of a ruleset in the respects of writing and completeness, primarily I'm just not a fan of saves and buckets of dice, but along with Infinity it just doesn't seem a good base idea for a game intended to allow mass sci-fi vehicular combat at any scale.

A number of folks here on dakka have mentioned that either Grunts or Stargrunt might be a viable choice. I have downloaded SG 2 off Wargames Vault but haven't had the time or much inclination of late to do more than browse through the rules.
I was also going to take a look at Strike Legion and Dirtside 2, while Fistful of TOWs has a number of interesting concepts and I think is fairly streamlined without being too dumbed down.

_
_

 HudsonD wrote:
Flames of War is basically 40K-lite, that's not what I'd call revolutionary any day.
If FoW has taught us one thing though, it's that highly-polished, well-written rules will sell, even if the actual mechanism themselves are neither new nor original.

... So says the guy who now plays FoW.

And that's entirely the point. 40k is (was?) the largest minis wargaming market bar none. Flames was broadly similar, leveraging many of the basic 40k mechanics. That speeded understanding of how to play, allowing people to buy the minis and start playing Flames very quickly.

Why HG wouldn't want to leverage the massive investment that GW and BF have made in teaching people to play 40k and FoW is pretty crazy. Insisting to stick with a clearly failed set of mechanics is anti-market and self-pandering at its worst.

Yeah, no. Look, I don't want to open the can of worm that is asking "why does 40K sell so well ?" here on Dakka , but I'm pretty sure it ain't the quality of the rules !

HG was, and still is, a lot more modern in its gameplay concepts than FoW and 40K. What kills HG is the extremely sloppy writing and quality control, whereas this is something the FoW team has excelled at.

While it's fashionable to hate on GW, 40k3's rules do (did?) an effective job of moving players through the game in a manner that scales well. Same with Flames.

HG has mechanics that other gamers have simply refused to touch with a 10-foot pole. The sloppiness isn't the deal-breaker, aside from making their inherently slow and complex mechanics even harder to understand.

http://heavygearthunder.blogspot.com/2014/11/heavy-gear-blitz-ks-beta-postures-dice.html

In comments:


Nov 3, 2014

Thanks. Like the way that Blitz uses the other dice by comparing if higher than skill for a +1 rather than just extra 6s. You'll get bigger skill roll numbers with this system. 

Brandon Fero
Nov 4, 2014

The original designer's idea, if I recall correctly. I had difficulty early on, but now I am starting to understand the elegance of it.


Nov 4, 2014

Actually, now I think about it, this means that the higher skilled you are the less likely you are to get +1s?

Brandon Fero
Nov 4, 2014


There isn't 'skill ratings' any longer. Each chassis is base lined with PILOT, GUN, and EW capabilities with ratings between 2+ (excellent) and 6+ (poor). The base number of dice (2D6) is then modified by Posture, weapon and Vehicle Traits, and then either a unopposed check or opposed roll.


Brandon Fero
Nov 4, 2014

So, you have 3D6. You roll 5, 3, and 2. Your PILOT skill is 3+. The 5 is highest, so that is baseline. The 3 passes the check and adds 1. The 2 doesn't pass, so it adds none.


Nov 4, 2014

Ah gotcha, low ratings are good. I see.

Brandon Fero
Nov 4, 2014

I am glad I could help. 

Or, we could simply note Gun (3+), apply modifiers and simply roll a d6 to hit...

Then, Opponent could note Pilot (3+) or EW (5+), apply modifiers, and simply roll a d6 to evade.

Guess which scales faster?

You have 75 miniatures to play with?

BrandonKF wrote:
You have 75 miniatures to play with?

Are we using the creative new math like in the kickstarter and counting individual infantry as separate models? If so, then I've got at least double that personally. If we're counting normally, I probably just pass that mark if I include my unpainted stuff.

 warboss wrote:

BrandonKF wrote:
You have 75 miniatures to play with?

Are we using the creative new math like in the kickstarter and counting individual infantry as separate models? If so, then I've got at least double that personally. If we're counting normally, I probably just pass that mark if I include my unpainted stuff.

Count infantry bases as 1 miniature. Count 10 infantry on 1 base as 2 miniatures.



Not crazy about the whole one base thing, but I get it.

Anyway, my point being, I would like to be able to play with 75 miniatures to a side in 2 hours.

-Brandon F.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just for the sake of reality, though, I will take what I get with the Beta until the RPG comes around. I'm a fan of the universe, after all.

BrandonKF wrote:
You have 75 miniatures to play with?

75? Nah. I think I have about 300, give or take, and not counting infantry. I'm thinking about doing a ginormous free for all with all of it using Future War Commander, see how it goes. I've always been a fan of Warmaster, so...

that said, the current ruleset (that being the Beta, but it's the same for the rest of the HG rulesets) would never let you play 75 units a side in a couple hours. A weekend? sure.

 Albertorius wrote:

BrandonKF wrote:
You have 75 miniatures to play with?

75? Nah. I think I have about 300, give or take, and not counting infantry. I'm thinking about doing a ginormous free for all with all of it using Future War Commander, see how it goes. I've always been a fan of Warmaster, so...

that said, the current ruleset (that being the Beta, but it's the same for the rest of the HG rulesets) would never let you play 75 units a side in a couple hours. A weekend? sure.

Heavy Gear Armageddon?

BrandonKF wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:

BrandonKF wrote:
You have 75 miniatures to play with?

75? Nah. I think I have about 300, give or take, and not counting infantry. I'm thinking about doing a ginormous free for all with all of it using Future War Commander, see how it goes. I've always been a fan of Warmaster, so...

that said, the current ruleset (that being the Beta, but it's the same for the rest of the HG rulesets) would never let you play 75 units a side in a couple hours. A weekend? sure.

Heavy Gear Armageddon?

Guess so... never really liked the Armageddon rules. It's asking 40k to do something they'd do better with Epic.

Eh, yeah, I may not be able to tell the difference, since all the models by now are truly m-o-d-e-l-s. Not miniatures.

But you're correct that the current ruleset wouldn't handle 75 miniatures a side in anything close to a few hours.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
You know what? Once I read the word "size", I totally fixiated on physical dimensions. And then the "every" bit made me want to verify, so I ran over, dug into my closet to take out the models and compare them side-by-side and one in front of the other. It never even occurred to me that he might have been talking background fluff vs physical models. Nope, totally clueless. Oops.

Back on point, while I understand the point about Dread on Dread combat, it's important to also note that Dreads are elite "super" units in 40k, whereas HG Gears are akin to 40k infantry (and HG Infantry are like 40k Swarms). I might be persuaded that Gears take the role of 40k MegaNobz or other TEQs on the tabletop. Even then, 40k Dreads are pretty simple to play. I play Imperial Guard, so having lots of Vehicles on board isn't a big deal to manage.

If Blitz is going to be truly ruthless in cleaning things up, I might actually consider HG as a game to play, versus looking at it as a toybox of cute little robots. The EW/ECM/ECCM stuff is messy.

Yeah, I'm being pretty ruthless with the rules right now as can be shown in the forums. The beta has a lot of clutter and I've broken out the shop vac.

When I refer to size I mean the actual dimensions if the models were the same scale, in the real world. A Space Marine Dreadnought tops out at about 14 feet, a Jager trooper Gear is about 15. The SM Dread is clearly more massive but is a walking pill box compared to the Gear. A Gear is more equivalent to an Imperial Guard Sentinel walker in speed, mobility and armor.

Here is the Activision Hunter Gear 1:1 scale model (life sized). That's a 20' tall backer behind it for scale.


Cheers!
Dave

Well, the Kickstarter is near it's end run. Sitting at CAD$113,442 and 804 backers... I'd call that a successful Kickstart.

I have not contributed (yet). I'm still really on the fence. $100 for 50 models and bits, all in plastic.... I'd love to get that many models! It would be a solid start for just about any faction... well, North, South, CEF, and Caprice anyways (and here I am most interested in Peace River and Black Talons.... and I have a full NuCOAL army too.... LOL).

The rules really, really concern me, and I'm pretty sure I'd be in a situation where I'd have to build up the player base around here to find an opponent- but the rules...! So different from everything my gaming group plays. Those systems being Warhammer 40K, Warmachine, Star Trek Attack Wing, and X-Wing. The "minor" games are Infinity, Relic Knights, Dice Masters, and M:tG (and 1-2 other card games). Point being is that NONE of those games have even CLOSE to the same game mechanics as Heavy Gear. Heck, I've played more games than I care to remember over the last 30+ years, and I'm pretty familiar with all kinds of rule sets. The current HG Beta rules... when I have to read a rule, reread the rule again, think about it, read it AGAIN, then walk away for a bit and come back just to read it AGAIN and I STILL DON'T GET IT or how it would actually work in play, that seems like a bad design to me. Yes, there are some rules that you just need to see on the table in order to understand how they work. Charges in 40K, two-handed throw in Warmachine, and cloaking in STAW are just a few examples of complicated rules that you have to see in action to fully understand.

Simplicity and elegance should be the key words in any rules endeavor. I'm still confused as over the core mechanic in the current Beta. I roll X amount of dice, where X = the skill + whatever extra dice bonus I get (due to cover, or some other effect). I then look at the dice, and the largest number I roll is the "Primary Dice". Now, I look at my skill rating- we'll say it's a 4. Every die that rolls a 4 or better, not including the primary die, adds a +1 to the Primary die. When the final number is determined, it's compared to a "threshold number"- either an opposed roll or set number, whatever. Every number above the threshold is a margin of success that has more effects on things like damage.

WTF is that? Do I want a low skill number, or high skill number? If it's high, I roll more dice, but won't get as many +1's to the final roll. If I have a low skill number, it becomes much easier to get the bonus, but... if I have a pilot skill of 1, what ever I roll on the die will be my Primary Number and my final result. There will be no mods to the die because I'm only rolling one die? That means I could make a "success" on a 1... on the other extreme end, would be a Skill Rating of 5 dice- I could roll a 6, and then 4 more 5 or 6's for a total success roll of 10. Yet the skill rating 5 is supposed to be worse then the skill rating of 1... I'd love to see the curve on these numbers, because something tells me that the "sweet spot" is something like a skill 3 or 4, where a 1-2 would be actually bad for you and a 5-6, while having a higher top end, would have a lower probability of success. Add in opposed skill tests, and I'd say that the higher skill rating (which is supposed to be bad?) would have the advantage over the low skill rating (which is supposed to be good?).

Now then! I haven't really looked at the rules since October, so what I just wrote could be coming from the body part I sit on a lot. I just looked at the Heavy Gear: Blitz 2015 Development, and wow. Even the forums are confusing! The first sticky post says "Nov update preview: Stand by (Alpha). I thought the rules where in Beta? Or have they been rolled back to an Alpha status? Some of the other sticky posts reference the Beta rules that I have, including a November update.

Ah! I get it now- it's for the RULE standby... but why call it Alpha? OMG, so confusing! WHY!?!?!

Alight, I just talked myself out of the Kickstarter.

 Tamwulf wrote:
Simplicity and elegance should be the key words in any rules endeavor. I'm still confused as over the core mechanic in the current Beta. I roll X amount of dice, where X = the skill + whatever extra dice bonus I get (due to cover, or some other effect). I then look at the dice, and the largest number I roll is the "Primary Dice". Now, I look at my skill rating- we'll say it's a 4. Every die that rolls a 4 or better, not including the primary die, adds a +1 to the Primary die. When the final number is determined, it's compared to a "threshold number"- either an opposed roll or set number, whatever. Every number above the threshold is a margin of success that has more effects on things like damage.

WTF is that? Do I want a low skill number, or high skill number? If it's high, I roll more dice, but won't get as many +1's to the final roll. If I have a low skill number, it becomes much easier to get the bonus, but... if I have a pilot skill of 1, what ever I roll on the die will be my Primary Number and my final result. There will be no mods to the die because I'm only rolling one die? That means I could make a "success" on a 1... on the other extreme end, would be a Skill Rating of 5 dice- I could roll a 6, and then 4 more 5 or 6's for a total success roll of 10. Yet the skill rating 5 is supposed to be worse then the skill rating of 1... I'd love to see the curve on these numbers, because something tells me that the "sweet spot" is something like a skill 3 or 4, where a 1-2 would be actually bad for you and a 5-6, while having a higher top end, would have a lower probability of success. Add in opposed skill tests, and I'd say that the higher skill rating (which is supposed to be bad?) would have the advantage over the low skill rating (which is supposed to be good?).

It's initially counter-intuitive, but in the long run it actually works well as a mechanic. The answer is, you want a low skill number. You always take the single highest die, but every other die is compared to the target to see if it adds.

The number of dice rolled are not based on the stat, but on circumstances (is the target at optimal range, in cover, am I running, etc). These are all standardized.

What a low target number allows, is for much higher potential. Here's a hypothetical. Two models, in the same situation, one with a target number of 2, one with a target number of 5. Both will use the exact same rolls.

The spread. 6 dice, 1-2-3-4-5-6 (2 dice base, + 4 dice from every beneficial mod.)
The 2+ guy counts the highest die, a 6, and then adds +1 for every other dice that equaled or beat his target number. So, 6, +4 for a total of 10.
The 5+ guy does the same, but because only one other die hit his target number, he has a total of 6, +1 for a total of 7.

Another hypothetical with the same two guys. 3-3-3-4-4-4
The 2+ guy gets 4+5, or a total of 9.
The 5+ guy gets a 4. No bonuses, total of 4.

In some circumstances, 2d6, results are 5-6, both models get a total of 7. But in most cases, the advantage goes to the 2+, and he's never worse off with equivalent dice rolls. That doesn't mean he can't roll 1-1 vs the other guy's 6-6, but that's part of the randomness of wargaming.

Took me a little while to get my head around it. But it does work.

There is where I got confused. Where does it say you only roll 2d6 for the attack and defense roll? I see the attack and defense modifier table, but...

I found a little blurb under 2.2 Dice Mechanics that says "Each Test requires a set number of Base Dice (BD), normally two six sided dice (2d6), unless indicated otherwise."

Then a couple sentences down it talks about the mods. So, yeah, I guess an attack is 2d6 plus modifiers. To be technical, it's a Ranged Attack using an action to make a GUN Test opposed by the target's PILOT skill. The Margin of Success determines the amount of damage, modified by the penetration value of the weapon used versus the Armor Rating of the target, and then further modified by the weapons traits. Question for the people that have been playing- do a lot of Gears get one shotted?

That's awfully complicated and counter intuitive. I want low SKILL NUMBERS, a lot of dice, and roll high on the dice. The modifiers add or subtract whole dice- and if two dice are the base, then looking at the defense modifiers, there are far more ways to get extra defense modifiers (defense dice) then attack modifiers (attack dice). And it all goes out the window as soon as I use a weapon with the Armor Piercing or Anti-Tank trait. Unless that's changed since October?

When it's easier to explain how to play Euchre, you know your rules are a mess...