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.

Sounds like Tamwulf wants to play a KADA army with a lot of duelists in elite gears. Now there's a Force with violent intentions written all over it...

Cheers!
Dave

DP9 "Beta" update preview wrote:MP Hunter: MFC, LRP, APGL, LVB

Just... wow, Dave ...you keep proving that you don't have a clue about anything related to either HG fluff or legacy models, which makes it rather impossible for much anyone to provide that respectful criticism you claim to so crave.

But hey, in the end just another bit on another model for folks to rip off and/or try to magnetize etc etc etc due to more whipsaw changes, so just blue-tack everything on their entire collections in the meantime right.
Or just leave bits that way forever, so as to be ready for the next changes y'all decide to make that is the exact opposite of everything the company mandated with the last batch of changes -- then Rinse & Repeat.

_
_

Maybe for the next stage of rules DP9 can add in the missing units. Might be difficult with the stripped down versions, unless I've read the rules wrong and stripped down can be added to those variants. I mean, the unit lists are basically excel spread-sheets.

 DP9Dave wrote:
Sounds like Tamwulf wants to play a KADA army with a lot of duelists in elite gears. Now there's a Force with violent intentions written all over it...

Cheers!
Dave

Actually, Tamwulf has a NuCoal army, Black Talon Force, a small Northern force, a couple Southern Gears, another small Caprice force, and a Peace River force. He WAS looking at a CEF Frame heavy force, but gave up when he heard another edition of the game was coming out. He tried to play Arena and found it too difficult to understand and inexplicably unplayable from a campaign standpoint. He found it OK to simulate a one-on-one duel, but that was it, and it was obvious that certain combo's of Duelists were all but unbeatable one-on-one.

Tamwulf participated in the Kickstarter against his better judgement, more to fill out his Northern Force and start his CEF army. He has high hopes tempered by the realistic performance of Dream Pod Nine in the past. He does not like the direction the play test has gone, but still follows along like a sad, disenfranchised Fan Boi of the genre. He would rather have bad/poorly written rules then no rules at all.

Dave, please don't make me refer to myself in the third person again.

 Tamwulf wrote:
He would rather have bad/poorly written rules then no rules at all.

I have never thought rules to be particularly difficult to write, assuming that one has a very clear notion of what one expects the rules to do, and how the game should play from beginning to end.

I have seen many rulesets that were poorly-adapted to the game that people play, resulting in extended playtime from excessive detail - a failure to understand what elements of the ruleset are important to retain, and a failure to understand what elements can be absorbed or ignored as insignificant to the actual playing of the game.

Assuming DP9 rationalizes the stats, I believe a "Lite" Gear game would not be difficult to assemble, using proven mass battle rule concepts as a basis, rather than arcane RPG pseudo-simulation.

Personally, I am watching and waiting to see how the minis come out. If the models are nice and real, then I'll bump my pledge from a placeholder and start knocking something together.

 Tamwulf wrote:


Dave, please don't make me refer to myself in the third person again.

Tamwolf, Lol, I will try not to make that necessary for your sake. I had to imagine you saying that using an Arnold voice to parse it all properly.

@Smilodon - Your comments are noted. All I can say in answer to that is: New Edition Beta. Some of your assumptions are no longer valid since the game has shifted since you were involved.

I agree that Wheatons Law always applies to everyone(!), everywhere, though I am also a fan of the part of Murphy's Law that states "Nothing is as easy as it seems."
http://davetgc.com/murphy__s_law_pannel_by_lone_preacher.jpg

Cheers!
Dave

Dave, I agree that Wheaton's Law applies to everyone but I also think that if you take a thousand people's money that you should put greater emphasis on making sure your company doesn't break it (again).

As for Murphy's Law, there is also another saying about success being 90% perspiration and 10% inspiration. If you thought it was as "easy as it seems" and were wrong, you likely added too much on inspiration and not enough of the other when preparing.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Tamwulf wrote:
He would rather have bad/poorly written rules then no rules at all.

I have never thought rules to be particularly difficult to write, assuming that one has a very clear notion of what one expects the rules to do, and how the game should play from beginning to end.

I have seen many rulesets that were poorly-adapted to the game that people play, resulting in extended playtime from excessive detail - a failure to understand what elements of the ruleset are important to retain, and a failure to understand what elements can be absorbed or ignored as insignificant to the actual playing of the game.

Assuming DP9 rationalizes the stats, I believe a "Lite" Gear game would not be difficult to assemble, using proven mass battle rule concepts as a basis, rather than arcane RPG pseudo-simulation.

Personally, I am watching and waiting to see how the minis come out. If the models are nice and real, then I'll bump my pledge from a placeholder and start knocking something together.

In my mind, there is no better example then Cataylst Game's current Battletech system.

In the Introductory Rule Box, are "Simplified" starter rules that make the game pretty fun. The actual rules are... well, let's just say I remember playing Battle Droids in 1985, and the game still uses bubble sheets, hex mats, and a 2d6 system where lower numbers are always better. Incredibly detailed system, and for one on one games, plays pretty well. When you step up to Inner Sphere Lances or Clan Stars (4 or 5 Mech's, respectively), prepare to have an entire afternoon available to play.

I remember one of my local players who has some of his mechs in the current rulebooks (awesome painter!) had a set of rules back in 2005 ? that we played just after Catalyst Game acquired the Battletech license. Little did I know that we were playing the new introductory rules for the new game... and I have to say, I love those rules so much more than the regular rules. My love for the game expanded even more with Alpha Strike- which is what the game should be IMO. No more hex maps, no more bubbles, no more incredibly long list of modifiers... just an awesome, streamlined game of mechs. Of course the die hards hate it ("Not detailed enough!", "It's too dumbed down!", etc.), and with so many other great games out there, it's hard to compete, especially when the Battletech Era was the 90's with cartoons, videogames, novels, comics... but that genre seems to have died out. :(

TLDR version- Battletech has the complex, detailed rules that are great for 1-2 Mech's per side, and the streamlined, very fast playing Alpha Strike for when you want to step up to larger games (Lances and Stars or greater). I think DP9 could learn from this.

Exactly. The old stuff is still out there, and the diehards still own their books. But starting new gives the chance for something that plays a 6-10 models per side within an hour's time.

I'm in the position of wanting to play, can probably strong arm my friend Roger to play another game, and I'm looking forward to seeing how the new rule book turns out. For me it needs to be readable and well laid out, the current offering is neither. However, what I have a hard time understanding is the angst over faction composition. Maybe it's just me, but surely you just play with the models you have or want to buy and sod the official lists if they don't work for you, or am I missing something here?

@PIP, I'm with you. Play what I like until army building cleans up.

Paint it Pink wrote:
I'm in the position of wanting to play, can probably strong arm my friend Roger to play another game, and I'm looking forward to seeing how the new rule book turns out. For me it needs to be readable and well laid out, the current offering is neither. However, what I have a hard time understanding is the angst over faction composition. Maybe it's just me, but surely you just play with the models you have or want to buy and sod the official lists if they don't work for you, or am I missing something here?

While things vary significantly in the US from region to region, alot of gamers play at stores here as opposed to the "club" model I see on alot of UK youtube videos. When meeting strangers in that setting for a pickup game, the expectation is that you bring a "legal" army built according to the official lists and not something that varies from it due to house rules that necessitate the opponent's permission to use. If a company decides to suddenly restrict previously widely available models in a faction to only one sublist each, players end up with mutually exclusive models that they in effect can't use together. That obviously isn't an issue if you're playing in a tight knit group of friends but that isn't a typical scenario (in my experience) with strangers and acquaintances. Most every organized play experience I've been a part of (I play exclusively at stores) has by the book army list restrictions as the defacto standard except for preplanned themed events. YMMV but that is why telling people they can't use half their collection with the other half is so unfriendly towards customers and why DP9 gets so much (deserved) flak for it.

That problem is what "counts as" is for. During transition, you do a "counts as" thing while you simplify things. This keeps models legal and players playing.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
That problem is what "counts as" is for. During transition, you do a "counts as" thing while you simplify things. This keeps models legal and players playing.

There is no "transition" if your model is suddenly locked behind a subfaction that is different from other models locked behind yet another subfaction when you previously were able to use both. "Counts as" is an ad hoc temporary band aid, not a permanent solution to being unable to use your purchased models.

Let's get real - at the rate things are going, there is ZERO chance this takes off for store / tournament play.

 DP9Dave wrote:
@Smilodon - Some of your assumptions are no longer valid since the game has shifted since you were involved.

To which assumption do you refer:
Because for myself, it's getting really hard to tell at all anymore in DP9 products what is intentional, what actually is a typo, or what is just an unnoticed/noticed cut+paste error carried over for who knows how long through umpteen Blitz! rulesets.
People understand that change is going to happen, some of it desperately needed, but it is not I think unreasonable for them to be asking for that to be implemented in a planned, workable, and coherent fashion.

From the outside, when a company spends a year publicly on top of a year plus privately working things up but can't fix or doesn't care to fix common mistakes already inherent to almost every previous version of the rules, the subsequent impression is what else aren't they getting right or can't be bothered to make work.


All those folks who were excited enough about the Alpha to post in the Spring, and then went silent, should've been a big clue that you might not be going in the right direction with the Beta - just like the thousands of folks who used to be fans of HG yet aren't any longer.
But I guess in the end the only real option left is indeed to play as you like in your local meta, because if the Pod was capable of getting both a miniatures ruleset and force building right it probably would've happened by now given all (5+?) the iterations.

_
_

@Smildon - I wonder if part of the issue is that DP9 gets all of their models for FREE. It's not like they have to pay money for them. They just take something off the shelf and build it to play with. No big deal.

I've visited DP9 HQ, I can tell you, that excuse doesn't fly.

I'm not sure what to make of that. When you were working there, they didn't play at all? Didn't play with models? Or didn't get them for free? In any case, I hope everyone has a happy new year!

 warboss wrote:
While things vary significantly in the US from region to region, a lot of gamers play at stores here as opposed to the "club" model I see on a lot of UK youtube videos. When meeting strangers in that setting for a pickup game, the expectation is that you bring a "legal" army built according to the official lists and not something that varies from it due to house rules that necessitate the opponent's permission to use. If a company decides to suddenly restrict previously widely available models in a faction to only one sublist each, players end up with mutually exclusive models that they in effect can't use together. That obviously isn't an issue if you're playing in a tight knit group of friends but that isn't a typical scenario (in my experience) with strangers and acquaintances. Most every organized play experience I've been a part of (I play exclusively at stores) has by the book army list restrictions as the de facto standard except for preplanned themed events. YMMV but that is why telling people they can't use half their collection with the other half is so unfriendly towards customers and why DP9 gets so much (deserved) flak for it.

Yes but, and everything after the but is the important part, IMNSHO Mecha games are SF and therefore fictional setting to allow players to freely use their own imaginations, and your assumptions about things over here in the UK are just that assumptions. And again but the point is to negotiate what is acceptable by using army lists to govern this (is again) IMNSHO the problem, not the solution that people tout it as being. Of course YMMV, terms & conditions apply to what I've just said, and errors and omissions excepted.

And one final thing, if whoever from whatever company ever tried to tell me what models I can or cannot use for a SF game they would get a very British profanity as a response from me. Just saying, because some perspectives need to be stated. Disclaimer T&CA, E&OE etc., because I'm just an old school BOF.

If you are talking historical games then research is your best friend.

You asked and I answered. The fact is that plenty of people (the vast majority in my own experience) use the official army lists to almost solely decide what they'll play both with and against. That isn't limited to Heavy Gear nor is it limited to tabletop minis games either. You made up some chapter of your own with homebrew rules in 40k? Sorry, you're not likely to see any tabletop time versus strangers. Got some d&d character you made using fan classes and feats? Don't try bringing that to a convention as your only character or a league event for the first time. You may not be of the same mind but right or wrong that is the baseline I've come to expect from 20+ years of gaming.

Are there exceptions? Sure, but again in my experience they're in the minority unless you're playing exclusively with friends or organizing an event yourself. Brandon's group sounds like an exception from his posts' views on count as and such. Unforuntately, having the company build failure right into the rulebook by screwing over players yet again right after their last real blitz product did that and expecting some community consensus to solve it (when none previously ever developed) isn't going to win many people over either. A significant portion of players won't accept homebrew versus strangers whether out if ignorance or actual bad experiences and segregating minis that were previously together with no limits will ultimately lead to that. Those players who get screwed over (some repeatedly) generally stop posting/buying/caring which is why Heavy Gear is where it is today with the company unable to find players for their marque championship at a venue with tens of thousands of players and why they couldn't afford to develop their last two products or bring much to sell at that same event.

The core rules are the standard that you specifically accept when you "get into" a game. Expecting a random stranger on the other end of a table to accept whatever you've come up with on your own is an assumption that you shouldn't automatically make. It doesn't make that person any less creative, reasonable, or any other pejorative but rather simply someone with a different set of expectations for the game. If the core rules tell you that you can't use what you previously could (and bought), you have to be prepared to not use it. I've experienced it both in trying to use my homebrew HG rules (all politely refused) as well as the "beta" threat values; my opponents in all three cases didn't feel like using any of them and there frankly wasn't anything I could do about it short of going home. Like it or not, every rules product tells you what you can and can't do. It is simply up to you and your opponent to agree whether to enforce it or not. The baseline, if no agreement can be reached, is what the company developed.

As for historical games, I'm not sure any research would help me with the Aztecs versus Samurai game I saw a while back nor the US vs US FOW game just a few weeks ago. Using history as the sole arbitor of historical games is even more strict that using the just the official rules of a game and nothing else.

The point of having army lists in a game is usually to use them.

Personally, most of the time I've played HG as a minis game, it has been using the lists and the rules for the wargame. Whenever I haven't, most of the time we've been playing the RPG, which, incidentally, is kind of a better option to get a narrative game anyways.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
@Smildon - I wonder if part of the issue is that DP9 gets all of their models for FREE. It's not like they have to pay money for them. They just take something off the shelf and build it to play with. No big deal.

I feel is more lack of interest in the setting and a general apathy about the game as long as it sells minis, from at the very least the head of the company.

 Albertorius wrote:
, from at the very least the head of the company.

I imagine the fact that after the head of the company, there's like, two other guys contributes, as well. Heavy Gear is all but a basement side project. And they could do great things from that position! But at some point if the minis aren't selling one of them is going to say to the other "Look, I love Heavy Gear, but I've got kids to feed, and this ain't cutting it" and there will go half the company. So sales are a big priority, which leads to the apathy for setting and, well, quality, in favour of "excitement", and new minis.

 Firebreak wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:
, from at the very least the head of the company.

I imagine the fact that after the head of the company, there's like, two other guys contributes, as well. Heavy Gear is all but a basement side project. And they could do great things from that position! (...)

Make that the head of the company, Robert, and one other guy, Dave. That's it.

As for why they won't do great things from that position, you have 50+ pages of answers in this thread...

 Firebreak wrote:
And they could do great things from that position! But at some point if the minis aren't selling one of them is going to say to the other "Look, I love Heavy Gear, but I've got kids to feed, and this ain't cutting it" and there will go half the company. So sales are a big priority, which leads to the apathy for setting and, well, quality, in favour of "excitement", and new minis.

If minis aren't selling, I don't personally have a problem with them going out of print. That, of course, isn't equivalent to dropping support for them in the rules though which is a completely separate idea that I wouldn't support. Having the minis go OOP if they don't sell well doesn't really affect the supply much in my experience. The last time I bought a squad of older sculpt minis (the King Cobra) when FIF came out, the models I got from an online store closeout were at 5-7 years old judging from the very outdated original Blitz pre-L&L packaging they came in and in an older, darker (or aged?) formulation of pewter. It took a 50% off sale for them to finally move that merchandise. One of the relatively few business decisions I've supported the pod doing is switching their low selling lines to OOP with periodic in print status as I think it's a great idea. I think they should do the same thing with blitz for the stuff that they just don't consistently sell enough of as long as they keep the rules support for those minis current (to support the customers who did previously buy them).

Going OOP to save costs is nice and all, but why is it always the minis that are known to be underpowered that sell less ? I wonder if there's a coincidence...

I may have solved my issues with the ruleset.

I bought the Gruntz pdf, and reading and rereading thru it, I like it. I'm thinking it can be used for Heavy Gear with very few issues. Gonna play a few games, and am thinking the most I may need to do is tweek the Soak or add some slight granularity to some of the weapons, and it'll be Heavy Gruntz, and downright Blitzy in play speed.

 warboss wrote:
I'm not sure what to make of that. When you were working there, they didn't play at all? Didn't play with models? Or didn't get them for free? In any case, I hope everyone has a happy new year!

seems obvious that employees and the owners don't get the product for free. After all, if you're producing it then taking it for yourself just eats into profits.

Nomeny wrote:

 warboss wrote:
I'm not sure what to make of that. When you were working there, they didn't play at all? Didn't play with models? Or didn't get them for free? In any case, I hope everyone has a happy new year!

seems obvious that employees and the owners don't get the product for free. After all, if you're producing it then taking it for yourself just eats into profits.

Most companies will give a nice discount to employees, it's only fair. I get a freebie once and a while when I've contributed significantly to the design or pre-sculpting work, or if there is a significant defect in a resin model and I'm willing to take the time to fix it (this is pretty rare).

Though I would describe myself as a miniatures fan, I like my job and respect everyone involved enough not to request freebies. That way lies a terrible feeling of entitlement that I'm sure many people in the industry understand. We accept that we don't get to have all the shiny, but we get to make them for everyone else and that's pretty cool.

Cheers!
Dave

I assume there's also house minis. I mean, you have to show stuff off at cons, if you ever go. And if you want a Hunter for a rules test, you're not going to walk over to the shop, cast one, and then charge yourself.

Among the many issues facing Heavy Gear and DreamPod 9, the fact that there's probably some minis laying around the office is not one of them.