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.

 Tamwulf wrote:


Question for the people that have been playing- do a lot of Gears get one shotted?

I've played alot of games and very few times do I have gears one shotted. If you have a gear get caught with a few modifiers you can get one shotted.

Oneeye wrote:

 Tamwulf wrote:


Question for the people that have been playing- do a lot of Gears get one shotted?

I've played alot of games and very few times do I have gears one shotted. If you have a gear get caught with a few modifiers you can get one shotted.

I find that kind of hard to believe- most of the gears have AR 5-6, and only 4/2 damage (6 points total). Let me see if I understand damage correctly.

I get an MoS of X on my hit test. Then we compare the PENETRATION value of the weapon to the ARMOR RATING of the target. PEN < AR, no damage. PEN >= AR, you do damage equal to the difference in the PEN-AR + the MoS. If your PEN is lower then the AR of the target, it doesn't matter how well you hit it, you deal no damage.

The LAC has a PEN of 6, and a Hunter has an AR 7 with 6/1. To one shot it, I'd have to get a PEN+MoS of 14. That... could be difficult. A bigger weapon though... seems like it could happen. It also means that weapons with the Anti Tank and Armor Penetration traits are HIGHLY desirable. Bazooka's have the AT trait- and Bazooka's are pretty common... It also means that big Gears with high AR's like the Hussar with AR 10, Cataphract, Drake, and Scimitar are immune to any weapon with a Pen value less then 10... which is a LOT of weapons. I think I saw an AV of 12 on the big Striders?

That explanation of damage is turning me off the new game rules....seems somehow more complex that OldBlitz.

Here a simpler way of how you should look at it:

PEN + MoS - Armor = damage done.

Example: a PEN 6 weapon hit a Hunter with Armor 6 with a MoS of 2, you do 2 hits. (6 +2 - 6 = 2)

riker2800 wrote:
Here a simpler way of how you should look at it:

PEN + MoS - Armor = damage done.

Except when that formula's result is 0, of course, which has its own little set of rules...

Which is simple as you roll 1d6 and of a 4+ you do one damage

So I just found a Kickstarter for this and threw a dollar at it for now.

Is there a quick summary for someone who's never heard of it before? I can't even tell what the factions are. There seem to be 4 but two of them have much fewer models than North and South. If those are factions.

riker2800 wrote:
Which is simple as you roll 1d6 and of a 4+ you do one damage

Yeah, so? You did ignore it, did you not? And it adds yet another dice roll to the process, does it not? And it is yet another thing you have to take into account and remember from the core mechanic, before going into special weapon and mini traits that might change how it works, is it not?

Would you agree that it is a special rule that adds mechanical complexity and resolution lenght the the core damage mechanic, and that it kind of doesn't agree with the K.I.S,S school of rules design?

You know, I play with the new rules at least once a week with 3 others player that are all used to WH40K, and we get 100TV game under the 1:30 time mark. So, no, this single rule is not added complexity for us and we are fine with it.

Anything you have to do to resolve an action is added complexity.

riker2800 wrote:You know, I play with the new rules at least once a week with 3 others player that are all used to WH40K, and we get 100TV game under the 1:30 time mark. So, no, this single rule is not added complexity for us and we are fine with it.

...Great! So what? What you and your group might do or don't do is anecdote. And the plural of that is not data. You can play a 100TV game in an hour and a half? Whoa, boy! What's a 100TV game, going by Dave's example builds from the starter, like 8 to 10 minis per side? With a game that you play at least once a week and for which you are a playtester? Funny... I can play an Infinity game with that "many" miniatures in half an hour... and Infinity is a very involved game and I'm a very new player. I can play like a dozen OGRE games in that hour and a half. Riker, don't say that like it is some kind of feat... it is not. It might be in comparison with HG Blitz, but in the whole gaming scene? Please.

mrondeau wrote:Anything you have to do to resolve an action is added complexity.

This. Anything that adds a step in the resolution is added complexity. By the very definition of the term.

 Albertorius wrote:

riker2800 wrote:You know, I play with the new rules at least once a week with 3 others player that are all used to WH40K, and we get 100TV game under the 1:30 time mark. So, no, this single rule is not added complexity for us and we are fine with it.

...Great! So what? What you and your group might do or don't do is anecdote. And the plural of that is not data. You can play a 100TV game in an hour and a half? Whoa, boy! What's a 100TV game, going by Dave's example builds from the starter, like 8 to 10 minis per side? With a game that you play at least once a week and for which you are a playtester? Funny... I can play an Infinity game with that "many" miniatures in half an hour... and Infinity is a very involved game and I'm a very new player. I can play like a dozen OGRE games in that hour and a half. Riker, don't say that like it is some kind of feat... it is not. It might be in comparison with HG Blitz, but in the whole gaming scene? Please.

One thing to keep in mind, by that 1h30, you need to take account the time to set the table, get your models out of your bag, some chatting before the game start, etc..

riker2800 wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:

riker2800 wrote:You know, I play with the new rules at least once a week with 3 others player that are all used to WH40K, and we get 100TV game under the 1:30 time mark. So, no, this single rule is not added complexity for us and we are fine with it.

...Great! So what? What you and your group might do or don't do is anecdote. And the plural of that is not data. You can play a 100TV game in an hour and a half? Whoa, boy! What's a 100TV game, going by Dave's example builds from the starter, like 8 to 10 minis per side? With a game that you play at least once a week and for which you are a playtester? Funny... I can play an Infinity game with that "many" miniatures in half an hour... and Infinity is a very involved game and I'm a very new player. I can play like a dozen OGRE games in that hour and a half. Riker, don't say that like it is some kind of feat... it is not. It might be in comparison with HG Blitz, but in the whole gaming scene? Please.

One thing to keep in mind, by that 1h30, you need to take account the time to set the table, get your models out of your bag, some chatting before the game start, etc..

Just like every other game, then? Duly noted.

OK, so, you have time to get your board out, place terrains, get your model outs, play the game, all this in 30 minutes? Is that a race or what?

Heavy Gear is the game of Mathematicians! No other game requires you to perform the Calculus in order to resolve damage!

Yes, that damage roll is a function! Woot! And they said all those math classes I took wouldn't be useful in life...

It's over complicated, requires WAY too many rules inputs, and I'd love to watch someone try and teach a 14 year old kid how to play this game- because that's the real metric right there.

1 1/2 hours to play a 100 TV game? And that includes the small talk, set up and army creation process? I don't really like to say I don't believe you, but I don't believe you. Or, maybe if you are playing on a 2'x2' table with no terrain and you just stand there and shoot at each other...

It's also a bit disconcerting that if you are a play tester, that you are playing a "full sized game" with new rules, concepts, and ideas in less then 1 1/2 hours... so how much play testing did you actually do? What does your "play test diary" look like? What are your write ups to the lead designers like? I would imagine that if you were play testing something, you would be playing more than one game a week. More like 10-15 games a week, and each game would be at least double the normal time as you stop to take notes and maybe even pictures. Then at the end of the week, you would submit a couple page summery to the lead designer including all your notes. Oh, and you wouldn't be here bragging about it, that's for sure. I've never encountered a play tester that wasn't under an NDA, even after the game was released.

Anyways, the topic at had is the absurdly complex and needless damage resolution system of Heavy Gear Blitz. I don't think I've ever seen a more complicated system before... and I play a lot of games. It's not about old neck beards "getting it", or veterans of Heavy Gear saying "it's not that bad!". You have to get kids in on the game- the 12-16 year old crowd that has a ton of disposable income, and nothing but time to play games. They are the future of any game system. I could play a 1500 point game of Warhammer 40K with a 12 year old, and by the end of the game, they would "get it" and be able to play another game with little to no rules input by me. Granted, I might be the worlds "Best Game Demo'er", but it's also the result of the absurdly simple rules mechanics of 40K. Think that will happen with HG:B?

 Tamwulf wrote:
Heavy Gear is the game of Mathematicians! No other game requires you to perform the Calculus in order to resolve damage!

You should really stop talking about your inability to do basic maths. I sympathize for all the problems your innumeracy must be causing you, but it's getting annoying, honestly.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
So I just found a Kickstarter for this and threw a dollar at it for now.

Is there a quick summary for someone who's never heard of it before? I can't even tell what the factions are. There seem to be 4 but two of them have much fewer models than North and South. If those are factions.

The factions in the Kickstarter are North, South, Earth, Caprice.

North and South are, you can think of them in terms of Axis and Allies, in that they are two broad powers made up of smaller factions. Those smaller factions do not have much impact on models. Northern Gears = boxy, Southern Gears = round, and the countries that make up the North and South all use (mostly) the same respective models, but have some different rules and special Gears available to them.

The North, South, and Badlands, which is another "overarching" faction (made up here by some actually quite different armies - those being Peace River and NuCoal) make up the playable factions of Terra Nova, the home planet and main setting of the game and fiction.

Beyond Terra Nova exists Earth, represented on the tabletop by their army the CEF, and the other colonies. Terra Nova is one of around a half dozen very isolated colonies, but now Earth wants its colonies back. Some of the colonies are cool with that, others, not so much. Caprice is a colony which is (mostly) collaborating with Earth and the CEF, but there is a resistance there.

The reason Earth and Caprice in this Kickstarter seem so small, is because they are! Terra Nova's armies have many more models, and have had much more time devoted to them. They are the primary focus of the game, while Earth is the looming threat from beyond.

 Tamwulf wrote:


It's also a bit disconcerting that if you are a play tester, that you are playing a "full sized game" with new rules, concepts, and ideas in less then 1 1/2 hours... so how much play testing did you actually do? What does your "play test diary" look like? What are your write ups to the lead designers like? I would imagine that if you were play testing something, you would be playing more than one game a week. More like 10-15 games a week, and each game would be at least double the normal time as you stop to take notes and maybe even pictures. Then at the end of the week, you would submit a couple page summery to the lead designer including all your notes. Oh, and you wouldn't be here bragging about it, that's for sure. I've never encountered a play tester that wasn't under an NDA, even after the game was released.

Sorry but that post is a load of crap. There are plenty of open playtests in gaming nowadays without NDAs. Also, Fyi, the DP9 NDA expires when they come out with a product (the alpha rules release) or iirc a year after you finish working on it. Finally, 10-15 games a week each taking 3 hours is your criteria for calling someone a playtester??? I know it isn't your strong suit but do the simple math... that time commitment makes you a full time employee of Dp9 in all but name (and pay). Only GW and WOTC likely have resources for staff that meet your criteria to be called "playtesters".

mrondeau wrote:

 Tamwulf wrote:
Heavy Gear is the game of Mathematicians! No other game requires you to perform the Calculus in order to resolve damage!

You should really stop talking about your inability to do basic maths. I sympathize for all the problems your innumeracy must be causing you, but it's getting annoying, honestly.

I must I like that one.

riker2800 wrote:OK, so, you have time to get your board out, place terrains, get your model outs, play the game, all this in 30 minutes? Is that a race or what?

Nope. Just a game. It's not really all that hard, honestly.

Tamwulf wrote:Heavy Gear is the game of Mathematicians! No other game requires you to perform the Calculus in order to resolve damage!

Wow... no, let's not get waaaay too much to the other side either, please.

It's over complicated, requires WAY too many rules inputs, and I'd love to watch someone try and teach a 14 year old kid how to play this game- because that's the real metric right there.

I do believe that the marginal hit rule is overcomplicated for what it brings to the table, but the rest is just addition/subtraction, really.

It's also a bit disconcerting that if you are a play tester, that you are playing a "full sized game" with new rules, concepts, and ideas in less then 1 1/2 hours... so how much play testing did you actually do? What does your "play test diary" look like? What are your write ups to the lead designers like? I would imagine that if you were play testing something, you would be playing more than one game a week. More like 10-15 games a week, and each game would be at least double the normal time as you stop to take notes and maybe even pictures. Then at the end of the week, you would submit a couple page summery to the lead designer including all your notes. Oh, and you wouldn't be here bragging about it, that's for sure. I've never encountered a play tester that wasn't under an NDA, even after the game was released.

If I ever do 10-15 games a week for a playtest, I'd be getting paid for it. No other way in hell.

Anyways, the topic at had is the absurdly complex and needless damage resolution system of Heavy Gear Blitz. I don't think I've ever seen a more complicated system before... and I play a lot of games.

How about Battletech? Warmahordes 'jacks/beasts? There are probably a lot more. Let's not get too carried away, please.

 Albertorius wrote:

riker2800 wrote:OK, so, you have time to get your board out, place terrains, get your model outs, play the game, all this in 30 minutes? Is that a race or what?

Nope. Just a game. It's not really all that hard, honestly.

Ok, you must be playing with people that plan their move very quickly then, what take the most time is player thinking about their next move/action, not really damage resolution. Anyway, we are not really interested in a game of I place my models, then next turn I remove all of them because game is over.

riker2800 wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:

riker2800 wrote:OK, so, you have time to get your board out, place terrains, get your model outs, play the game, all this in 30 minutes? Is that a race or what?

Nope. Just a game. It's not really all that hard, honestly.

Ok, you must be playing with people that plan their move very quickly then, what take the most time is player thinking about their next move/action, not really damage resolution. Anyway, we are not really interested in a game of I place my models, then next turn I remove all of them because game is over.

That's why I said that the plural of anecdote is not data: my anecdote is just as invalid and worthless as data as yours

Honestly, the attack/damage system doesn't feel all that complex, at least compared to 40K's vehicle charts Battletech, and Warmachine. With 40k you have to roll to hit, roll to penetrate, there's a saving throw, than you roll to see what happened, which could lead to more rolling. With warmachine you roll to hit vs defense, roll damage vs armor, apply damage. Looking at HG, you roll to hit vs opponent's piloting, than apply damage, with maybe an additional roll for marginal hits. The math involved is just simple addition and subtraction, and HG's feels like it could be intuitive with a few games under one's belt. Definitely not calculus.

Granted this is all based on appearances.

As a new player (still trying to get my first game), the parts of the game that looks the most complex are the EW, comms, and Command rules. Command seem fairly straight forward, similar in principle to the current Imperial Guard book. EW doesn't even seem hard rules wise, just has alot of interactions and choices of interactions that take seem like it would take time to get used to.

How much does EW factor into a standard game? Should it be something that I should be prepared to defend against? (AKA redundant EW platforms), or would just a token EW gear suffice? Looking at rules it SEEMS like it's something that while useful to have, it doesn't completely over shadow having an extra couple of guns.

And EW, Comms and Command is all being Greatly simplified

 Albertorius wrote:
That's why I said that the plural of anecdote is not data: my anecdote is just as invalid and worthless as data as yours

That may be true; however, in the case of Heavy Gear, there is a consistent pattern of people being exposed to the game, finding the opposed MOS mechanic to be excessive, and not playing again.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
in the case of Heavy Gear, there is a consistent pattern of people being exposed to the game, finding the opposed MOS mechanic to be excessive, and not playing again.

Gawd, that does get so old - a player does everything they can during their activation to get as many [+Attack] modifiers as they can, and in fact might even have the other model dead to rights, only to see absolutely nothing at all happen after figuring all those modifiers for each roll.

In large part the field guides seemed too often to be just a way to limit the heavy weapon models players had to take anyways to be able to do anything in game so that every army list wasn't just complete munchkin min/maxing.

 Tamwulf wrote:
It's also a bit disconcerting that if you are a play tester, that you are playing a "full sized game" with new rules, concepts, and ideas in less then 1 1/2 hours... so how much play testing did you actually do?
What does your "play test diary" look like? What are your write ups to the lead designers like? I would imagine that if you were play testing something, you would be playing more than one game a week.

I don't know that any of the field guide projects I was involved with ever saw anyone do (15) games in total during the months long process for each book.
But I do agree with the time figure per game, especially if that wasn't the actual game time, as that seems quite rushed and I think most anyone would be hesitant about the resultant data or feedback proving useful.

Most of the games I participated in for testing took at least two and a half hours, but three to four or a split session was not uncommon due to conversation about results and checking rules or source material.

_
_

The complexity of how the rules is written is a comment that I've heard a lot and this next update will be updating the language for basic tests to be friendlier. I look forward to showing it to you all.

I'll be back next week. Gonna go relax now.

Cheers!
Dave

As I called out earlier, the Opposed MOS mechanic needs to go away.

In lieu of shooting, a unit may make a 2d6 Piloting test to increase difficulty of being targeted.

That makes it a clear choice to attack or dodge/evade.

Seriously, a key goal should be to eliminate interactivity in favor of playability.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Seriously, a key goal should be to eliminate interactivity in favor of playability.

I feel you are wrong, as a game design principle interactivity does not hinter playability in any form or sense, what you may think is streamlining (or polishing) the rules to enable better playability, that's another chapter altogether.

The current opposed MOS mechanic reduces playability in the sense that it creates delay and uncertainty in resolution, compared to an explicit decision to dodge and a fixed dodge bonus result.