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.

I just think it's funny that he's not the target audience.

You mean it's funny that he says he's not part of the target audience?

I think he's lucky he's not a target.

ferrous wrote:
I just think it's funny that he's not the target audience.

Were this five years ago, I'd probably be all over it. However, like an ex-girlfriend - sometimes things are better in the past than they would be today. So I'm more excluding myself from the target market, rather than not being in the target market. Is that better?

 Mmmpi wrote:
I think he's lucky he's not a target.

Oh... I'm a target all right. Just a different kind than 'one we want to sell things to'

You can be part of a target audience and still not want to buy something. I'm part of the same target audience, I suspect, and this has me more enthusiastic about Heavy Gear than I have been in a long time.

ferrous wrote:
I just think it's funny that he's not the target audience.

I know for a fact a few here (other than myself) can attest at first hand to how one or two folks at the Pod feel about the 'target audience' needing to meet certain assumptions held by those very same TPTB.
Not playing, not buying, or not pledging, no matter what DP9 offers beyond what folks may already own that they find of interest, is essentially not acceptable.

Things shouldn't have to be that way, let alone continued to be that way after all the talk of starting afresh (over the past year and a half+), nor should all of the things that have happened in either case need to have happened in the first place.
Folks clearly want to give DP9 and/or any associated companies their bated attention if not also their $$$, so why does anyone at all in a position of 'responsibility' or 'authority' at those firms feel the fault lies with the customers alongside the contra-distinguished 'critics'.

(Yeah, all of which just retreads 66 pages of commentary. But still...)

 CptJake wrote:
I know my comments have very often and very deliberately been lees than kind. I am probably on their list of vitriolic haters.
But I do not think I've ever been less than accurate.

Don't like being called a liar? Don't lie.

Don't like getting called out for breaking promises and for poor communications? Don't break promises and learn to communicate better.

To paraphrase; "If you want positive support, be worth supporting in a positive manner."



17 Things Real Leaders Never Say (Task & Purpose short article)

_
_

 Mmmpi wrote:
Also, for the record: I LIKE the new Heavy gear rules. I thought the last edition was unplayable complex (which is why I didn't play it). I don't think that they're ready for publishing, though the vast majority of that is (In my opinion) mostly clean up things, and tightening some of the quirkier rule holes.

Finally, I hope DP9 doesn't follow the GW rules model. I still play 40K, and that's the issue for me. I still play 40K. Why would I switch to a new system to keep playing 40K, when I can just keep playing 40K?

AoS is an abortion of a game.

OK, I'll take yet another gander at the Beta rules (according to DriveThruRPG, last Beta is 19 Mar, 2015?). Last time I looked at the Beta, the acronyms and such made it really unfriendly to work through playing if you weren't already familiar with the nomenclature. And is it just me, or is it crazy that the most basic model (i.e. Jager) carries more gear and has more rules than any specialist?

40k is still relatively newbie friendly. The GW intro scenarios in each starter box do an excellent job of introducing a new player to how 40k plays, and the game is still relatively "clear".

Inspired by GW's managing to boil their AoS skirmish rules down to a newbie-friendly 4 pages, I dusted off the "KOG light" ruleset I had been toying with earlier in the year and got to writing the "setting up a battle" page. I think I like to get the turn mechanics down to a page, with another page on combat resolution, and a final page that describes the models one finds in the classic GP, Strike, Recon and Fire Support boxes from the (pre-Blitz) Tactical era.

While you may not like AoS, the clarity and simplicity is quite nice. Imagine if HG had something that obvious?

For reference, the latest description of a basic(?) Jager is as follows:

Jager
6 TV
UA: GP (0+), SK, FS, ST, HT
W:5" G:6" MR
6 AR
4 / 2 H/S
1 A
4+ GU
4+ PI
6+ EW
Weapons: LAC (Arm, Split:2), LRP, APGL, LHG, LVB (Arm)
Traits: Arms
Type/Height: Gear 1.5"

Compare that with an AoS Warscroll, and the attraction of AoS becomes rather clear, simply by placing all of the rules on the warscroll and using common English. Now, sure, if you've been playing HG from the beginning, no problem, all of those acronyms are just fine. But is it really necessary to abbreviate "Actions" down to simply "A" if the audience is someone who doesn't live and breathe HG? I can give a couple newbies the 4 pages of AoS rules, and the printout for their army and they can be playing pretty quickly with relatively few errors - that's what GW is about. The 228 page Heavy Gear Blitz Tabletop Wargame Living Rulebook Beta eBook (that's "HGBTTWGLRBBe" in DP9 parlance) is far more intimidating. The worst part is that the HGBTTWGLRBBe is easily the cleanest version of the HG model and weapons version I've seen to date.

I'm actually new to Heavy Gear, having never played the earlier editions. I admit it took a few read throughs to really get a grasp of all of the acronyms, but "most" of them are reletively intuitive, besides, it's not like the stat block is "That" different from 40K in terms of complexity.

HG:

TV(Points) UA(unit type) MR(move) AR(Armor) H/S (hp) A (actions/attacks) GU (range attack) PL (dodge and melee) EW (special) Weapons Traits

40K

WS BS S T A I W SV


a paragraph of text explaining weapons, armor, special equipment, rules and option. Base points listed above w/ unit type, and other points listed in options.

If having an A for actions is too complex, than you might want to look at the system you've been promoting a bit more closely, seeing as it uses one and two letters for the entire stat block (just like new blitz).
The rules are a bit better laid out in New blitz, specifically in that I can find every special trait and weapon trait listed in three pages in the back.

You seem to be confusing complex with bad. Look at infinity though. It's a VERY complex system, but it's considered to be one of the best games out there.
And at 225 pages (not including covers, or token pages into my count), the rules are far slimmer than the 40 rulebook (factoring in that ALL the armies are in the one book, rather than divided out into 30+ codexes). The most complex part of the rules for me turned out to be the army building, particularly the strange flexibility/inflexibility of the UA system.


My biggest problem with AoS honestly is that it's a game I didn't ask for. GW replaced an army game I liked with a skirmish game who's only real plus is that I already have 700X the models needed to play.

Following that though is the complete lack of structure in the game for "fair" armies. While GW isn't known for their stellar balancing abilities, AoS takes the cake. The "put everything you want" on the table method kinda doesn't work. While it may be newbie-friendly, it didn't take the newbies watching the demo to ask why they would EVER take things like goblins, when they could have chaos warriors and dwarves. New Blitz at least tries to preemptively answer the rules questions that come up like "how do I make a fair army?", or "what's a fair army?" or "what happens if I shoot at someone who's on a hill in woods with two sets of woods in the way?" "Can I retreat towards my enemy?" or anything involving balance.

I hate to say it, but what GW is about is the same as DP9. Make money. There are just as many accusations about GW not listening to their fan base as there is for dp9 (actually it's most likely more if you just take absolute numbers). But there are really just two things that I want to point out. 1: Simple =/= good. A simple game CAN be good, but that's not an automatic. And the revers, complex =/= bad is also true. 2. If Heavy Gear picks up the GW rules system, it WILL go out of business. Why would anyone buy into it, when they can just keep playing 40K?

Don't take this as a die hard charge to defend New Blitz, or me just tearing into GW. But really: fair is fair. If you're going to criticize DP9 for a stat line that takes up one row in an excel sheet, with an easy to find glossary to look up terms, and uses "A" as short hand for actions, than you need to do the same to 40K that uses half a page, and uses an "A" as short hand for attack.

First off, I personally believe that 40k is overly complex, especially in 6E / 7E form - as I've noted elsewhere, 40k could do with a radical streamlining a la AOS, minus the "End Times" buildup and subsequent Fluff reboot. 40k has moved away from being something that is easily, casually played, and is far worse for it.

The HG statline isn't as clear as the 40k statline, because HG tries to shoehorn too much information in at once - specifically the weapons and special rules. And HG doesn't explain things nearly as well as GW does, in 40k, to say nothing of AoS, which I specifically noted as using words, not abbreviations. Go look at an AoS warscroll: it says "Move", not "M" and "Save", not "Sv". AoSis a step forward in clarity.

As for what I'm promoting, I thought I was promoting AoS as the model to go forward, with clear and concise rules, and all unit information on a single page, no cross-referencing required. I am NOT promoting 40k - you are the one who raised 40k. The only element of 40k that I'm noting as good are the newbie-friendly intro scenarios, because GW actually recognizes that living games require new customers.

In general complexity *is* bad, no confusion on my part. Complexity generally signals poor game design, because it typically means that the designer hasn't recognized what's critically important (and therefore deserving of more detail) and what's not important (and can therefore be simplified, abstracted, or even removed entirely). In 2015, the benchmark for rules complexity shouldn't be decades-old 40k, it should be new and shiny X-wing. To the extent that HG is significantly more complex than top-selling X-wing, it is a bad game with bad rules.

While I get that you don't like the change or lack of points, that's not what I'm getting at. HG can keep their fluff and points values, and still be a modern, simplified game that uses actual English words instead of acronym soup.

So, I'll clarify:
1. Simple = Good, Complex = Bad.
2. The Pod was already on their way to bankruptcy, and the KS was their lifeline to continue as a going concern. The idea that HG cannot and should not be streamlined down to a half-dozen pages of core rules a la AoS is nonsense. Nobody is really buying into it, which is why the KS raised such little money for a minis wargame. And being 40k-like certainly didn't hurt Flames of War in supplanting the vast bulk of historicals wargaming.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
1. Simple = Good, Complex = Bad.

Personally, I don't really agree with this. There are great complex games, and there are also very crappy simple ones. You can find good games at all the ranges of that spectrum. Or, in other words, in and of itself, being simple does not make for a better game.

OTOH, if what you wanted to say would be:

Simple = Has the potential to appeal to a wider market, Complex = Has the potential to appeal to a more niche market

...then I would be more inclined to agree. Even if there are still very complex games out there with big markets (like Pathfinder, for example, in the RPG market).

Some complex games can be good, but I'm pretty sure Pathfinder is (somewhat) more streamlined and cleaned up compared to its D&D predecessors from 1E through 3.5E... Also that Pathfinder takes the baseline of a VERY complex (but generally good) game, versus being something dead simple to start with.

Heavy Gear is/was VERY complex and a terrible seller (i.e. not good), primarily getting by on Fluff, miniatures, artwork and supplements, so they have nothing to lose by doing an radical AoS streamlining of the rules and mechanics underlying the game. Again, compare with X-wing - X-wing leverages ALL of the history of Fluff and art and so forth, but has a dead simple gameplay core. It's a rich universe with easy to play. It sells exceedingly well. Why wouldn't HG see a sales improvement with a similarly radical rewrite?

OTOH, had X-wing leveraged something akin to Starfleet Battles for its mechanics, I doubt it'd have gotten past the first year.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Some complex games can be good, but I'm pretty sure Pathfinder is (somewhat) more streamlined and cleaned up compared to its D&D predecessors from 1E through 3.5E... Also that Pathfinder takes the baseline of a VERY complex (but generally good) game, versus being something dead simple to start with.

If you think it's more streamlined than any edition before from 1E to 3.5E, you'd be very, very surprised, then (As in... no way in hell, it's not even a lick more streamlined than 3.5 [in some ways is even worse], and comparing it to 1E is like comparing Ogre with ASL).

But that's really beside the point ^_^. What I meant is that Simple or Complex, in a void, don't really mean that much, but "Simple"+"Good design" makes for a much more approachable game that can cater to a wide audience.

I mean, were we to go all reductio ad absurdum... what's simpler than "flip a coin: heads, I win, tails, you lose"?

I do very much agree that the Pod doesn't really have much to lose with experimenting, though.

OK, sure. I'm OK with that.

Having skimmed the new September update of the new rules, I think I give the current state of the rules a solid 7/10. They're a too complex to really draw in light gamers (ie. ones at who the X-Wing game is a good level). They're also a bit too clunky for people like me who'd appreciate really streamlined rules. But they are definitely playable and it's a fun game. By comparison, I'd give the previous Field Manual rules maybe a 5/10. So IMO, it's a definite improvement.

It's too bad that for whatever reason the transparency in the rules development's went down since the Alpha. In the Alpha there was a lot of healthy discussions about the rules, but it pretty steadily moved behind the scenes over the past couple years. The March rules update was massive, and a lot of the planned tweaks in it happened behind the scenes. Or more likely, I assume, the discussions were restricted to specific playtesters rather than discussed on the forum.

Large and sometimes quirky changes like "IF ignores all non-overhang cover" got introduced - a rule which now has been reversed as of the September update. Some of the though process there should probably have went onto the forums to help other people chime in, or focus their reports on it.

MrThud wrote:
It's too bad that for whatever reason the transparency in the rules development's went down since the Alpha. In the Alpha there was a lot of healthy discussions about the rules, but it pretty steadily moved behind the scenes over the past couple years. The March rules update was massive, and a lot of the planned tweaks in it happened behind the scenes. Or more likely, I assume, the discussions were restricted to specific playtesters rather than discussed on the forum.

Large and sometimes quirky changes like "IF ignores all non-overhang cover" got introduced - a rule which now has been reversed as of the September update. Some of the though process there should probably have went onto the forums to help other people chime in, or focus their reports on it.

Did the transparency go down or did the public participation just drop off? I don't really follow HG discussions much beyond two threads on dakka, Brandon's blog, and whatever they send out in updates. For a community as small as Heavy Gear's, this process of refining the rules has gone on very, very long. I'd guess that alot of folks just tired of it and are waiting to see what shakes out the other end in the final form.

 warboss wrote:

Did the transparency go down or did the public participation just drop off? I don't really follow HG discussions much beyond two threads on dakka, Brandon's blog, and whatever they send out in updates. For a community as small as Heavy Gear's, this process of refining the rules has gone on very, very long. I'd guess that alot of folks just tired of it and are waiting to see what shakes out the other end in the final form.

Well, it's a bit of both. Like, in the early Alpha stages, people would point out their particular issues with the rules, and then there'd be a pretty healthy back and forth between other players and from Dave. The updates were more frequent and with more public forum discussion. The March update by comparison had a huge number of changes, not a lot of forum discussion beforehand, and to my mind not a lot of developer discussion on criticisms coming in from those updates. The forums participation from Dave and the public has been pretty weak between March and September after some initial comments after the March update, too.

So, I think it's a result of participation drop off from both the public, and participation drop off causing drop in public discussion/transparency from Dave.

@warboss - I was poking through your blog, and noticed that you had been working on not-HG "FLASH!" rules. Whatever came of that?


KOG light

As I hinted above, "KOG light" is the opposite of "Heavy Gear": simple, straightforward with very basic interactions. I'm limiting the ruleset to 4 pages:
1. player, army & table setup
2. game & player turns
3. ranged & close combat (still WiP)
4. armies, cadres & models (SRA only)
I've deliberately gone for an accessible AOS style over the rather impenetrable HG style, intending to publish a "complete" ruleset in a few weeks.

Tactical-era sets

In working up the KOG light lists, I want to cover the basic boxes, so I'd like to validate the contents of the old (post-RAFM, pre-Blitz) Tactical-era 5-model boxed sets:

Southern Cadres
- South Tactical Cadre: Command Jaeger, 4 Jaeger
- South Strike Cadre: 2 Black Mamba, Blitz Jaeger, 2 Jaeger
- South Recon Cadre: Black Mamba, 4 Iguana
- South Fire Support Cadre: 2 Spitting Cobra, Support Cobra, 2 Jaeger

Northern Squads
- North Tactical Squad: Headhunter, 4 Hunter
- North Strike Squad: 3 Jaguar, 2 Hunter
- North Recon Squad: Jaguar, 2 Cheetah, 2 Ferret
- North Fire Support Squad: Kodiak, Grizzly, Jaguar, 2 Hunter

Are there sub-variants (e.g. the non-basic Blitz Jaeger in the SSC) that I messed up on above? I want to make sure that my lists cover all of the models as included in those boxes.

Thanks in advance!

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
@warboss - I was poking through your blog, and noticed that you had been working on not-HG "FLASH!" rules. Whatever came of that?

It's over on the right side column under Heavy Gear FLASH! (link below). It's still a tweak of the old Blitz rules to hopefully make it simpler and easier to play overall as well as at the more conducive smaller points values and squad sizes. I worked on it before joining the proof of concept playtesting under IceRaptor of what ultimately became the current alpha/beta/KS rules so it is NOT compatible with them.

http://sitzkrieg.blogspot.com/2013/02/heavy-gear-is-game-that-ive-been.html

It was my first project on the blog so I didn't have the hang of naming the posts them (hence the wierd permanent post name which was just the first few words of the original post).

KOG light

As I hinted above, "KOG light" is the opposite of "Heavy Gear": simple, straightforward with very basic interactions. I'm limiting the ruleset to 4 pages:
1. player, army & table setup
2. game & player turns
3. ranged & close combat (still WiP)
4. armies, cadres & models (SRA only)
I've deliberately gone for an accessible AOS style over the rather impenetrable HG style, intending to publish a "complete" ruleset in a few weeks.

Tactical-era sets

In working up the KOG light lists, I want to cover the basic boxes, so I'd like to validate the contents of the old (post-RAFM, pre-Blitz) Tactical-era 5-model boxed sets:

I'm not familiar with KOG. Is that your own creation or something else? I'd be interested in taking a peek nonetheless. As for the boxed sets, the tactical era/scale minis invalidating the old Rafm ones was partially why I gave up HG the first time (along with the one two punch of invalidating their 2 year old RPG books at almost the same time... so pretty much my entire collection at once and within 2 years of them coming out with any of it) so I won't be able to help you with the tactical box contents. I ignored HG until they started with Blitz several years and several editions later. My advice would be to search ebay and old webstore fronts like noble knight games that have entries for the boxes (even if they're out of stock... you only need the contents list). Noble knight has entries for alot of the really OOP items.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
[..] I want to make sure that my lists cover all of the models as included in those boxes.

If I'm remembering right, it was warboss who noted during the Northern workup that while the [Dragoon] CG type had no minis box anymore (or ever), tweaking the options correctly allowed both the [Strike] and [Fire Support] boxes to be used as a [Dragoon] squadron.
Unfortunately, to my knowledge anyways, no one seems to have gotten together as much in a similar amount of discussion to make sure the Southern cadres were not invalidated or too unusable out of the box during the Forged in Fire workup.


But if you think it'll help, shoot me a PM with an email address and I'll send you a copy of the unused 'as-turned-in' version of the Northern pdf with the test groups' wordings and option lines.

_
_

Yeah, there was something like that. While not perfect, I think it is acceptable to use the same models WYSWIG under a different squad name. It isn't acceptable to just not allow a previously STANDARD build sold by the company to be completely unusable IMO. After what happened with my southern army, one of my priorities in joining playtesting was to make sure that at least the basic box sets and their options were supported somewhere. It was no surprise to me how badly the Southern book came out in that regard when the chief playtester told me that it didn't matter what the dragoon options were and how many units were invalidated since they never had a dragoon box (except that they DID have a dragoon box and it DID matter). That retro-compatibility issue has mostly gone away with the new unit building rules in the alphabeta releases although I haven't checked the last couple of releases to make sure it wasn't creeping back.

@warboss - Thanks, for the info on Flash. If it was abandoned in favor of the current KS rules, then I'll focus there, instead.

"KOG light" is a house ruleset that I started way back in May, but didn't get serious about writing until a month ago, when much of I had written got trashed in rewrites. KL is partly me wanting to play with my handsfuls of HG models, partly me wanting to see how much work is really involved in writing a tactical wargame like AoS, and partly me wanting to show that HG doesn't need to be so complex and impenetrable. I think it'll be another few weeks before I publish, and would be happy to share it with you for your thoughts.

Thanks for the pointers, I'll see what I come up with. I wasn't aware that you had completely blanked the Tactica era from your collection. Sorry.
____

@smilodon - I suspect that your version postdates Tactical, as I don't recall a Dragoon box, just the 4 sets I tried to enumerate above. Reading between the lines in warboss' reply, Dragoons are a Blitz-era thing. Thanks!

And warboss is right about wanting to cover the boxed sets - that's the minimum that any new edition should do. "Count as" / "treat as" is also helpful.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
@warboss - Thanks, for the info on Flash. If it was abandoned in favor of the current KS rules, then I'll focus there, instead.

*snip*

Thanks for the pointers, I'll see what I come up with. I wasn't aware that you had completely blanked the Tactica era from your collection. Sorry.

Yeah, let us/me know what you come up with. You could in the meantime though at least let us know what KOG stands for...

Just to clarify (not that I think anyone but me really cares), Flash wasn't abandoned in favor of the current KS rules. My flash houserules were just my own fan ideas on how to make the blitz game simpler and more intuitive and they never were official in any capacity. I doubt anyone at Dp9 ever looked at my houserules beyond maybe the single chapter I submitted to the Gear Up fanzine years ago (assuming that they even read that). At best, they were developed concurrently alongside IceRaptors double super secret probation rules that ultimately became what folks currently are "testing" and I wasn't even aware of the the Nublitz rules existence until I after I finished the flash house rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

@smilodon - I suspect that your version postdates Tactical, as I don't recall a Dragoon box, just the 4 sets I tried to enumerate above. Reading between the lines in warboss' reply, Dragoons are a Blitz-era thing. Thanks!

And warboss is right about wanting to cover the boxed sets - that's the minimum that any new edition should do. "Count as" / "treat as" is also helpful.

While I don't recall if they existed in the RPG (I'll leave that to the fluff nuts like Albertorius/Smilodon/Brandon), the dragoon box was a 1st edition Blitz "thing" (as opposed to the subsequent L&L and followup Field Manual versions of boxes and editions) with the cartoony cover of a rabid grizzly and not the later model pics.

KOG is really just cog, a tooth of a gear.

I'm still working on a good backronym, which is harder (for me!) than it sounds.

There is a good chance I finish the rules before I finish the name.

WRT Flash vs nuBlitz, which would be easier for a newbie to pick up and play?

I guess the answer to that depends on the familiarity and attachment to the blitz rules. You might be a better judge of that than me given my obvious bias as well. I haven't played any of the last 3 versions of the Nublitz rules and I haven't even read through the last two versions at all beyond a quick glance at the factions as well so my info is way out of date.

If you liked the old blitz d6 combined hit/damage multiplicative mechanics but thought the rules had too much RPG crunch for a squad based minis game, you'll probably prefer my flash house rules. If you didn't like the combined d6 mechanics, you'll probably prefer the nublitz stuff (no multiplication as in blitz, just addition/subtraction in nublitz). My rules kept the same mechanics but IMO took out the unnecessarily complicated RPG stats that while good in an RPG are too much for a squad based game. For instance, here are the stat cards for both blitz and flash. I simplified the stats on the top from 25 fields down to 11.



It's still alot of fields compared with Nublitz (which admittedly has a bigger scope in terms of intended model count per game and needs to be simpler) but I feel it retains enough of the RPG flavor but converts what is necessary to a minis game. YMMV.

Ah, thank you. Multiplication is a hard sell, moreso than Margin of Success, so that's probably not a set of mechanics I'm looking to capture. But I definitely like where you were going with reducing stats (and the associated mechanics and rules).

KOG light uses just 4 core stats: Move, Defense, Hull and Command. KOG secondary stats have Actions and Size implied, Attack varying by equipment, Cost fixed by configuration. The self-imposed 1 page limitation requires some ruthless streamlining.

 warboss wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

@smilodon - I suspect that your version postdates Tactical, as I don't recall a Dragoon box, just the 4 sets I tried to enumerate above. Reading between the lines in warboss' reply, Dragoons are a Blitz-era thing. Thanks!
And warboss is right about wanting to cover the boxed sets - that's the minimum that any new edition should do. "Count as" / "treat as" is also helpful.

While I don't recall if they existed in the RPG, the dragoon box was a 1st edition Blitz "thing" (as opposed to the subsequent L&L and followup Field Manual versions of boxes and editions) with the cartoony cover of a rabid grizzly and not the later model pics.

My books are for the most part all put away in the closet, but I want to say the Dragoon squadron first showed up in the blue-cover Northern Guard Army List (DP9-046) and not in any of the three Tactical Pack booklets.

However, I don't have Hammers of Faith so I don't know 100% for sure if the material in Locked & Loaded is just a simple cut+paste reprint or something revamped/introduced into that version of HG:Blitz! even though data for that later publication states 'contained within'.

_
_

Thanks, Smilodon.

I'm going to assume not, so that the basic N/S army lists are easier to work with with just 4 flavors of squads to start.

Besides, seeing as the old Tactical books had 70 cadres / squadrons each, that's really a fool's errand for me to try and divine out from just the old boxes.

Since this seems to be the main Heavy Gear thread, I figure I could ask my questions here.

How big are the HG infantry figures compared to 15mm figures. I haven't seen any comparisons between the infantry before.

I have HG scale at 1/144, so that would make their infantry 12mm tall.

Thanks JohnHwang. No pic comparisons? I'm just wondering if I can get away with using HG minis in 15mm and vice versa. And what about lines like Firestorm Planetfall or Dropzone Commander? Are they smaller scaled or about the same?