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.

So Stompy Bot's gone public.

http://stompybot.com/news.html

Is it safe or cynical to assume they ran out of money and their hand was forced? What does Nicosa have to say, warboss?

Sadly, Nicosa has been deep undercover for months and hasn't been able to surface for contact during that time. From my very amateur reading, it sounds like they're trying to raise money. I don't know if a 1 1/2 week time frame is normal for going public for a canadian company but it feels a bit rushed. Even the optimistic talk in that announcement is about how well everyone else is doing and not actually about them. You're not buying stock in the esports industry or the TBS esports tv show but rather this particular company whose offerings so far are IMO very unimpressive.

Eh, I wish them well but frankly I don't expect anything from them. Are any Cannucks reading this thread that have online stock portfolios already that they're checking and want to sink a whole 8 cents into the company (with the option to spend another 12 cents to double their shares!) to get the inside shareholder scoop in the future?

A business announcement that seems to rely heavily on mentioning other people's games doesn't exactly inspire me with a lot of confidence in the product.

 warboss wrote:
Sadly, Nicosa has been deep undercover for months and hasn't been able to surface for contact during that time. From my very amateur reading, it sounds like they're trying to raise money. I don't know if a 1 1/2 week time frame is normal for going public for a canadian company but it feels a bit rushed. Even the optimistic talk in that announcement is about how well everyone else is doing and not actually about them. You're not buying stock in the esports industry or the TBS esports tv show but rather this particular company whose offerings so far are IMO very unimpressive.

Eh, I wish them well but frankly I don't expect anything from them. Are any Cannucks reading this thread that have online stock portfolios already that they're checking and want to sink a whole 8 cents into the company (with the option to spend another 12 cents to double their shares!) to get the inside shareholder scoop in the future?

Such is a life in espionage.

I wonder if they'll actually hit two million.

*comes up out of defilade*

...

Phew.

*rubs left hand*

Howdy, fellas.

Far as the Terra Nova DMZ, guys and gals are sharing many pictures of Gears, asking rules questions, getting answers, and all in all just chilling.

Me, I'm recovering from a little spat I had about a week ago. My left hand was sprained and might have a couple minor fractures. Can't afford insurance, so I just iced it. Guess I got to test out the RPG rules on healing rates.

Ow.

Anyway, Ghislain not being able to supply the cover is mildly disappointing, but I'm hardly one to complain. The man did great work for his time, and I would never be averse to seeing him again at a future date.

On the RPG front, being a writer, I have been, of course, writing. Suffice to say, all and sundry have been asking questions, and I know I don't want to under-deliver.

So, I beg your pardon for the silent routine. It has been somewhat necessary.

As to whether or not the Heavy Gear IP is 'toxic'... I don't think so. It does require its own atmosphere. The idea of World War 2 fighting is a thought I have reflected on in the past, and something I would like to distance from in some respects. At least, the idea of there being an 'Axis' and an 'Allies' off the setting.

Most importantly, the desire to move the story forward and expand on what was begun by the Pod members. That is one of my desires, not only to break out of the 'niche market', but also to provide everyone with stories and places to go in their minds.

Until later.

Hope you feel better, Brandon. Hopefully Ghislain will get to work on Heavy Gear again some time in the future. I had a blurb about prodding for an rpg update but it looks like they finally put one up yesterday according to the dp9 forum thread but I'm not sure where exactly. The Hg arkrite page is still a dead link.

The last link was to a post that was removed, I believe, and the last Arkana post still active was a month ago.

The update they are speaking of was on the Arkrite Press private playtest forums, which were created specifically for those who purchased Test Pilot patches.

I know that some of the guys were chatting on the DP9 thread concerning Arkrite, but I do not know what to do in regards to that. Delivering the rules that were shot down would have been pointless since they were not what the playtesters liked. Edit: I also don't know whether those conversations on the private forums are under confidentiality or not.

Plus I don't want to break my NDA or make promises in Arkrite's stead since I'm just a freelance writer. I certainly don't want to cause a backlash. But I am doing my best.

No worries, I was just confused as to where the "we're not dead!" update was and you answered it. I wouldn't post any further details but maybe mention to the owners of arkrite that they might want to engage the public a bit more.

ferrous wrote:
A business announcement that seems to rely heavily on mentioning other people's games doesn't exactly inspire me with a lot of confidence in the product.

Especially when the aforementioned ''other people'' are doing the exact same thing in turn - a circle of mutual support is all well and good, but at some point those involved are going to have to put forth more effort(s) than a promise of ''soon'' regarding a rather small pool of unfinished projects.

Of late the Pod itself seems interested only in producing one-off VTOL, Chibi, and wheelie-feet models in betwixt apparently seeing how many concepts they can slap the mountaineering bit onto.

 Firebreak wrote:

 warboss wrote:
From my very amateur reading, it sounds like they're trying to raise money. I don't know if a 1 1/2 week time frame is normal for going public for a canadian company but it feels a bit rushed. Even the optimistic talk in that announcement is about how well everyone else is doing and not actually about them. You're not buying stock in the esports industry or the TBS esports tv show but rather this particular company whose offerings so far are IMO very unimpressive.
Eh, I wish them well but frankly I don't expect anything from them. Are any Cannucks reading this thread that have online stock portfolios already that they're checking and want to sink a whole 8 cents into the company (with the option to spend another 12 cents to double their shares!) to get the inside shareholder scoop in the future?

I wonder if they'll actually hit two million.

Oddly enough, the Facebook notice put up about HG:A back a week or so ago gives the impression that StompyBot already achieved the $2M USD goal instead of intending to raise that amount by selling shares.

Dream Pod 9, Inc.
November 27 at 6:05am wrote:Heavy Gear Assault's publisher Stompy Bot Productions announces $2 million in financing.

On Wednesday (November 25th, 2015) Stompy Bot Productions announced that it has secured $2 million in financing to help springboard Heavy Gear Assault into release status in 2016. The full press release announcement can be found at the following link.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/stompy-bot-sets-its-eye-on-esports-in-2016-and-announces-20-million-financing-2015-11-25

Also this week on Thanksgiving Day they released the latest patch for Heavy Gear Assault, here is a link to the website to checkout the game, which is in early access now.
http://www.heavygear.com/

You can keep up to date on all the latest developments by visiting them on Facebook and liking their page, here is a link.
https://www.facebook.com/HeavyGearAssault

_
_

ferrous wrote:
[..] And they'll have to compete with actually F2P mech games like Hawken and MWO, as well as non-F2P mech games like Titanfall, and who knows when it's sequel will hit. (And honestly, the tank games (WoT, WarT, Armored Warfare) scratch the mech game itch for me better than any of the current crop of mech games. Heck, even WoWs is more fun for me than MWO.

 Albertorius wrote:
That... doesn't sound good, let's be honest about it. They seem to have lost almost $1.4M last fiscal year, which probably mean their expenses have shot up (which, incidentally, is absolutely logical taking into account how much it costs to make a game nowadays of the kind they're shooting for).
To correct that, they seem to have taken a two pronged approach: Early Access for HGA (to make it pull its way, seems like) and start making shovelware titles (...which is not a bad idea, but I guess any resources poured there won't go to HGA).
So yeah, let's see, but it seem that this year is going to be the one that makes or breaks them.

 Smilodon_UP wrote:

ferrous wrote:
[..] And I've seen the alpha gameplay vids of Heavy Gear Assault. The game looks terrible still, I'd maybe try it if it was free to play, but I'm definitely not going to give them any money to try to change my mind, when what I see doesn't look good.

[..] But while it seems you can purchase individual Gear model 'blueprints' on the storefront for $9 to $16USD, the two Gear package of $40USD (Hunter + Jäger) is the smallest 'game pack' that allows you access to actually play.
Which interestingly enough has been a clarification question asked a time or two on almost every venue StompyBot has going, whether that be G+, Facebook, or their own forum - despite clearly being marked as 'required for play' on the storefront.

That indicates to me there might be more interest if HG:A could be trialed for just the $$$ of a single model, even if only for a limited time (perhaps a couple months) with minimal access (or no weekends maybe) like many other buy-ins/trials nowadays.

Saw this here today while checking to see if there was any further news about the share selling now that the planned timeframe seems to have passed.
To quote the relevant, as yet unanswered, part:

RaptorRage on November 30th wrote:Netcode and System Requirements
Getting the netcode optimized to then provide a smooth gameplay experience across a range of machines and not necesarily just the latest hardware or software versions would be another goal that would help cover a larger player base. At some point there needs to be a good official set of minimum and recommended system requirements published, especially if there is going to be a focus going forward on DX12, which sounds like it is only available to Windows 10. I'm not sure about the current acceptance rate of Win10 and how many PC gamers are switching considering there seems to be a notable backlash against the large number of end user data gathering updates that MS seems to be pushing lately, which also have been extended to Win7 and 8 updates as well. What will be the minimum Windows and DX versions fully supported for the full release and going forward, and will there be any graphics and other options restricted to or only optimized for certain versions?

I know I've repeatedly questioned system requirements either here or on the Pod forums over the past couple years, but really, why is something this basic still so up in the air after so long.

Like ferrous I've also delved into World of Warships a bit here this past week; it seems to support a number of play styles, and it runs acceptably well on my less than two years old dual-core PC over a rock bottom Uverse connection.
For a free to play game, even though it does cater towards micro-transactions and/or grinding points in the style of endless-clicky Facebook titles, it has a hell of a ''wow'' factor without getting into the MWO or other online mecha gaming community.

I've never been able to determine whether or not HG:A would run to trial it, even before the other requirement of dropping $40USD on an in-Beta development title (Which may require a brand new PC in the next year or so just to play!).


I really think & agree that StompyBot hasn't thought their business strategy through all that well, and trying to attract folks with the idea of ''cash prizes'' isn't likely to draw that much of a non-hardcore audience, nor even keep that player element in the meantime playing an unfinished title.

_
_

For the number of things that exist in the HG universe, a F2P/P2W WoT model is pretty obvious, but it needs to have rock solid PvP mode.

Having to drop $40 to get started doesn't work when I can jump into World of Tanks for "free".

 Firebreak wrote:

 warboss wrote:
From my very amateur reading, it sounds like they're trying to raise money. I don't know if a 1 1/2 week time frame is normal for going public for a canadian company but it feels a bit rushed. Even the optimistic talk in that announcement is about how well everyone else is doing and not actually about them. You're not buying stock in the esports industry or the TBS esports tv show but rather this particular company whose offerings so far are IMO very unimpressive.

I wonder if they'll actually hit two million.

Looks like no, they didn't, and this is what, the third (fourth?) time that StompyBot hasn't met their desired funding goal(s).
I believe no amount of hype or spin in the world can get new folks to give money to something that has gone this long (~3 years isn't it?) with so little to show for it, other than a company routinely having its hand out time and again on a ''trust us, we'll deliver'' basis.

I'm starting to wonder given how they keep pushing ahead while not changing plans that are so obviously not working as intended nor attracting the audience they seem to want is more that this offering is one of those titles intended to draw funding and publicity towards a bigger project down the road.
Or else the work put in so far has morphed into the nature of a springboard to train up the team and add to their reputation more so than the company's.


I think when folks aren't daily playing something F2P like WoT, WoWarplanes, WoWs, etc etc there might be a reason why - so when folks who paid $40 or more each aren't playing, there is definitely something going on.

_
_

OTOH, Warhammer Freeblade on iPad is out and it's amazing when you're playing it.

Of course, it's monetized in every possible way, with commericals and P2W / accel everywhere...

And yeah, the gameplay itself is standard rail shooter.

Still it looks pretty, sounds good and just works...

And it's "free"...

 Smilodon_UP wrote:
Looks like no, they didn't, and this is what, the third (fourth?) time that StompyBot hasn't met their desired funding goal(s).
I believe no amount of hype or spin in the world can get new folks to give money to something that has gone this long (~3 years isn't it?) with so little to show for it, other than a company routinely having its hand out time and again on a ''trust us, we'll deliver'' basis.

I'm starting to wonder given how they keep pushing ahead while not changing plans that are so obviously not working as intended nor attracting the audience they seem to want is more that this offering is one of those titles intended to draw funding and publicity towards a bigger project down the road.
Or else the work put in so far has morphed into the nature of a springboard to train up the team and add to their reputation more so than the company's.

Stompy Bot Closes First Tranche of Financing
Nov 25, 2015
Posted by Admin
Web, Finance

SAINT JOHN, NEW BRUNSWICK, Dec 14, 2015 (Marketwired via COMTEX) -- Stompy Bot Corporation ("Stompy Bot" or the "Corporation") (cse:BOT) is pleased to announce that, further to its news release of November 25, 2015, it has closed the first tranche of its previously announced private placement financing through the issuance of 4,375,000 units of the Corporation (the "Units") at a price of $0.08 per Unit, for total gross proceeds of $350,000 (the "Private Placement"). Each Unit is comprised of one common share (a "Common Share") and one Common Share purchase warrant (a "Warrant"), each Warrant entitling the holder thereof to acquire a Common Share at a price of $0.12 per share for a period of eighteen (18) months from the date of issuance.

Thanks for the update! it looks like they got only $350k out of the $2 million they were hoping for. Considering that the last $340k loan they got back in March lasted them until November before the next round of fundraising,

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/1830/570123.page#8062456

they'll be good until next sumer roughly if nothing else changes (for the worse).

Is the game in beta yet or is it still the open alpha from early this year?

Wow, good catch, Smilodon, thanks.

Man, when the Pod can do financing and fundraising better than you, you know you've got a problem.

Ooooo they also list their share price on their website now! And it's dropped a cent. I wonder if they'll live to regret going public - not that they had any choice, I suppose.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 warboss wrote:


Thanks for the update! it looks like they got only $350k out of the $2 million they were hoping for. Considering that the last $340k loan they got back in March lasted them until November before the next round of fundraising,

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/1830/570123.page#8062456

they'll be good until next sumer roughly if nothing else changes (for the worse).

Is the game in beta yet or is it still the open alpha from early this year?

Very good insight, I didn't think of that!

Didn't the Pod's HG kickstarter pull in half that? I was actually impressed at the final Blitz total even if they themselves were mildly disappointed.

 warboss wrote:
Didn't the Pod's HG kickstarter pull in half that? I was actually impressed at the final Blitz total even if they themselves were mildly disappointed.

The HG KS got 150k $ CAD. I also got impressed with the final amount, given how little actual publicity they did, but I guess being a staff pick helped.

The difference being the Pod's KS met it's goal, rather than falling hilariously short of it - as do all fundraising attempts involving StompyMek or whatever they're called now.

(Whether it turns out that the Pod actually raised *enough* money is a different subject, but they did, at least, succeed.)

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
OTOH, Warhammer Freeblade on iPad is out and it's amazing when you're playing it.

Of course, it's monetized in every possible way, with commericals and P2W / accel everywhere...

And yeah, the gameplay itself is standard rail shooter.

Still it looks pretty, sounds good and just works...

And it's "free"...

Another fun one is Total War: Arena. it's not the same shooter gameplay, so feels very different from the Worlds of Thunder Tanks and Warships. Though it's ancient rome/greece, so uh, not exactly anything close to Heavy Gear. Though a Heavy Gear game like TW:Arena, where you control three squads per person, 10 players per side, would be amazing!

I was going to post the new HG battle report news but was beaten to the punch by the OP. I haven't read the last two? versions of the rules so I'm curious to see how it goes.

 Achilles wrote:



You can download the rules for free HERE.

It plays seemingly fast enough when someone who knows what they're doing (like yourself) is in control compared wtih blitz but it's still not as fast as I had hoped especially considering that this is, as you said, the bare minimum size recommended game. Also, is there another way of handling the counters? I'm not a fan of token spam in a minis game (didn't like it in blitz either and don't like it in Halo now) and it seems like there is a fair amount of stuff on the table. Is that how they recommend using the old wound counters (as CP)? I thought in the initial alpha/pre-alpha version that I last read that the wound markers were still wound markers but that obviously may have changed in the meantime and would be cumbersome at best (5 markers for models potentially). The airdrop rules definitely seem improved over blitz though.

ferrous wrote:
[..]Though a Heavy Gear game like TW:Arena, where you control three squads per person, 10 players per side, would be amazing!

Just so long as the AI carrying out your orders for individual models is a whole lot smarter than in similar games out of the past such as HG 1/2, Civilization, Age of Empires, or the like; I got really tired of blasting my squadmates in the HG titles because they kept wandering into the line of fire.
To the point of not taking them at all if the mission could be otherwise completed; HG 2 in particular got truly annoying by being unable to alter the ''stock'' Gears available to AI pilots when they were literally only a few TV over the per model limit for a particular mission.

 warboss wrote:
[..] I'm not a fan of token spam in a minis game (didn't like it in blitz either and don't like it in Halo now) and it seems like there is a fair amount of stuff on the table.

I honestly don't think any of TPTB in Pod-land have ever truly appreciated how many counters in total are in fact actually necessary to play under the various rulesets (or revisions of same) as they are written.
It was kind of telling during one Skype conversation with Dubois back in ~April '13 that he asked if the counters as previewed for the VASSAL module I was working up could be changed to be more like how the tabletop game ''played out'' with ''official'' tokens.

Just in L&L/FM-era HGB! you had something like the following amount of potential counters, or else you had to be able to otherwise remember the particular state/special rules utilization/etc etc etc of [X] models in your force;
Movement State (using tokens or purchased specialty dice) [what movement type/mode, or if Hull-Down etc etc],
Damage State (using tokens or purchased specialty dice),
Held actions,
Stand-By (weapon) status [may be more than (1) per model and of differing types],
Coordinated target for combat group [Y] by CGL [Y*],
Command Point [from CGL],
Command Point [from AC],
Used ECM or ECCM [or both?],
Forward Observed target [in what cover, by a model with what level of EW skill],
Target Designated target [in what cover, by a model with what level of TD, vs that cover],
Model stunned,
Model affected by Slow-burn,
Model used the ''We're in Trouble'' special action,
Area of Effect markers [or for RoF spray or whatnot using either direct or indirect fire as allowed]
.... and as it is I've probably forgotten or missed some but my few glances through the different versions of NuBlitz and perusal of forum threads hasn't led me to believe that overall amount of tokens on the table has dropped an appreciable amount, just a lot of renaming/repurposing of rule concepts.



On another note, I did have to laugh here this evening at still being permanently banned from the official forums only to once again be cited/linked as a source on that very same website for something related to Heavy Gear.

_
_

Yeah, HGB! has a lot of state tracking.

This carries over to KL, where you want to track movement, damage, stun, FO and target. Not really any way of getting around it for a HG-based game, and KL should be about as skinny as it gets.

 Smilodon_UP wrote:
I honestly don't think any of TPTB in Pod-land have ever truly appreciated how many counters in total are in fact actually necessary to play under the various rulesets (or revisions of same) as they are written.
It was kind of telling during one Skype conversation with Dubois back in ~April '13 that he asked if the counters as previewed for the VASSAL module I was working up could be changed to be more like how the tabletop game ''played out'' with ''official'' tokens.

Spoiler:

Just in L&L/FM-era HGB! you had something like the following amount of potential counters, or else you had to be able to otherwise remember the particular state/special rules utilization/etc etc etc of [X] models in your force;
Movement State (using tokens or purchased specialty dice) [what movement type/mode, or if Hull-Down etc etc],
Damage State (using tokens or purchased specialty dice),
Held actions,
Stand-By (weapon) status [may be more than (1) per model and of differing types],
Coordinated target for combat group [Y] by CGL [Y*],
Command Point [from CGL],
Command Point [from AC],
Used ECM or ECCM [or both?],
Forward Observed target [in what cover, by a model with what level of EW skill],
Target Designated target [in what cover, by a model with what level of TD, vs that cover],
Model stunned,
Model affected by Slow-burn,
Model used the ''We're in Trouble'' special action,
Area of Effect markers [or for RoF spray or whatnot using either direct or indirect fire as allowed]
.... and as it is I've probably forgotten or missed some but my few glances through the different versions of NuBlitz and perusal of forum threads hasn't led me to believe that overall amount of tokens on the table has dropped an appreciable amount, just a lot of renaming/repurposing of rule concepts.

While those aren't obviously usually all tracked and displayed simultanously, that is still alot. As they said in the video, the two squads played represent the MINIMUM recommended sized game (100tv) which could easily quintuple both the number of models as well as tracking necessary (recommended game size is 100-500tv) It's relatively ok at the beginning of the game for two squads (not ideal as I'd prefer none to start but manageable IMO) but gets much worse once the damage and conditions start stacking during normal gameplay. Some of it may be the custom tokens used (as opposed to the "official" ones) but I don't think the official ones decrease the number of tokens but rather affect the shape/style of the tokens.

http://store.dp9.com/index.php?route=product/category&path=69_94

As for the remaining pair of Pod left, I agree it was a fair point to make that Robert hasn't played the game enough for many years/a decade despite being the final decision maker on anything important. I don't think it's fair to say that about Dave though as he does seem to play (both behind the scenes during my limited time peeking behind the curtain) regardless of whether I agree with his conclusions on some things.

On another note, I did have to laugh here this evening at still being permanently banned from the official forums only to once again be cited/linked as a source on that very same website for something related to Heavy Gear.

You did make some nice helpful things during your time working with/for/helping out the pod. Banning you was obviously their choice but keeping the supplemental game aids you made available on a 3rd party site is yours. YMMV.

You can toss the tracking of movement. I think the DaveBlitz rules do this already. I think its an easy speed up, and removal of a bunch of tokens, have movement modifiers only matter during the units activation. It does prevent a unit from trying to go full throttle in the open to protect itself...but oh well, that doesn't really seem like a scenario that needs to be supported. The other scenario is Stationary giving a bonus to accuracy, but eh, I think the game could probably live without giving a bonus to stationary models -- or move it to the only time you put a movement token down is on stationary models. The one other edge case you lose is with models that have bonuses/negatives in certain modes, like the ferret low profile...but again, it's a small loss compared to never having to track whether someone is in walker, combat, or ground mode top speed.

(we already sort of did this when we played, anything without a marker on it was in ground mode, combat speed, which got rid of about 80% of the movement tokens on the table)

 warboss wrote:
[..] I don't think it's fair to say that about Dave though as he does seem to play (both behind the scenes during my limited time peeking behind the curtain) regardless of whether I agree with his conclusions on some things.

I would agree that he has played some amount of Alpha/Beta NuBlitz during and after development; and yeah, he doesn't seem to have taken to heart a lot of lessons/feedback pointed out to him regarding FM/L&L or previous rulesets of HGB! whether here or anywhere else.

They're still following the few chosen contributors can tweak an area of particular interest to themselves without much any oversight or questioning playbook, no matter how poorly that approach has worked for the Pod and playerbase as a whole in the past.

 warboss wrote:
[..] but keeping the supplemental game aids you made available on a 3rd party site is yours.

[shakes fist] ''They'll rue the day I tell you, RUE the day!'' (lmao)
I'm a bit surprised that anyone still had a link to that, not to mention the particular person that it was who posted it.

ferrous wrote:
You can toss the tracking of movement. [..]

This does seem like one of the easier approaches to a fix; and would let a fixed ACC versus a fixed DEF stat be worth something alongside modifiers like cover.
An assumption could be made I think that any vehicle executing the movement chosen for orders handed down (player choice) is going to ALWAYS attempt to best utilize the terrain it moved through and ends up in/near.
If a vehicle gets caught in the open, it gets caught in the open; accuracy isn't going to be a factor as much as how long an opposing crew takes to react (decision loop) to targets coming into view down whatever visual line of sight their own vehicle currently maintains.

IRL, once ground vehicles start combining [ballistic computers + external sensors + delivery system stabilization] accuracy isn't affected all that much by movement anyways - only range tends to increase if you go stationary, provided the vehicle isn't put at risk if not outright destroyed by doing so.

How much better could accuracy of things like lasers and rail-guns get either by going stationary; +ACC based on movement to most any HG model is a totally nonsensical concept overall just from the standpoint of the technology assumed to exist in game.
Same goes for target movement affecting direct fire ACC; again, almost a totally nonsensical concept for anything not doing an appreciable velocity, which would probably mean at least a Mach number.


I don't think any version of the HG game has really reflected these concepts all that well; tweaks needed for gaming are going to happen, but those ideas should still reflect some kind of feel for the setting they get based upon.


I think an armored vehicle miniature game turn might be better modeled by something potentially along the lines of this rough idea;
Phase 1: player A moves, while player B may shoot once a model has completed it's total movement (to avoid messy & game slowing ''reaction interruption'' rollbacks by either player); any player A models in [overwatch, or etc] may shoot at player B models that revealed themselves.
Phase 2: player B moves, while player A may shoot once a model has completed it's total movement (to avoid messy & game slowing ''reaction interruption'' rollbacks by either player); any player B models in [overwatch, or etc] may shoot at player A models that revealed themselves.

_
_

My understanding is that the game gives a bonus / penalty for movement to create a risk/reward tradeoff between movement and firepower.

There is something to be said for game in which movement doesn't really affect firepower, and the models just move and shoot the same every turn. Simpler to make rules for, definitely.

The side effect is that the units just move until they reach an objective. I'm not sure it is a better game, though.

I'll fully admit that I'm being lazy but in the version of the rules I last read (probably a year and a half ago roughly), the movement generally didn't need to be tracked. Has that changed since? You were always counted at combat speed outside of your own turn unless you held your action (or whatever the correct game term is) or affected by some other effect (like terrain or an attack that would immoblize you temporarily). Has that changed or are you guys discussing the old blitz rules instead of nublitz? I don't recall the guy in the video marking movement with tokens but I double check that to be sure.

 warboss wrote:
Has that changed or are you guys discussing the old blitz rules instead of nublitz?

More the assumptions behind different versions/implementations of HG and Sci-Fi armored vehicle wargames in general.

No matter the intent, the actual effect over ten years of the SilCore Miniature Rules and original Blitz (plus to a not insignificant extent L&L/FM-era HGB! as well...) seems to be a noticeable turning away of folks previously showing interest in, and wanting to play, HG.
While the actions, choices, and misadventures of TPTB in Pod-land certainly played no small part the rules themselves, whether for gaming or force construction, have clearly been every bit as much a source of disappointment.

_
_

That's because the Pod only listens to fan-friends like Brandon telling that it's all unicorn farts that smell like rosewater, rather than watching actual market trends.

Brandon, unrelated to what is posted above.. does your facebook group have a policy on moderation? I would have asked this there but there'd be no point since it would just be erased. I think Dave Knighthawk Gamersongames is abusing it for his own benefit to simply remove things that he finds uncomfortable as opposed to actual things that deserve moderation. After seeing the GMG gameplay video this past week on youtube, I decided to do a search for more Heavy Gear gameplay videos and found this one posted late last year that I missed:




Now I understand that some folks want to turn their youtube channel into a business but I found the FOUR full minutes of unrelated infomercials preceding the actual content to be excessive. When I looked at his channel, it looked like both of the infomercials were just previously posted pure ad videos placed in front of the battle report. When I finally got to the actual advertised battlereport (as opposed to the plain ads in front of it), it seemed both odd and oddly familiar. I recognized the voice from the Civilian Gamer channel (previously Heavy Gear Reports) and they have in the past contributed new reports to the channel but the actual content seemed odd. It was odd because it was using the old rules instead of the past two years of alphabetasoup editions and certain actions were quite familiar in the actual game. When I looked at his channel, I found that Dave just copy/pasted a 2013 battle report and put on his pair of infomercials in the front with no mention of the original author.




I logged into facebook for the first time in a while (had to get my password email changed as I forgot it!) as I figured that would be a good place to go for clarification and saw him advertising the video there a few days ago. I posted a simple question on his entry about why he was copying an old video from another channel and adding ads (along with a link to the original video) and someone (I assume Dave since he is a mod or whatever there or at least is on the list) and he deleted my post. When I reposted it (thinking that I had screwed it up being a facespace noob), someone deleted the entire entry and the responses. Is it your facebook group's policy to delete polite and complete normal questions when they're simply not convienent? Dave has had a few embarassing events in the past (the big robotech kickstarter meltdown where he actually got most folks to dislike him more than the owner of the kickstarter project being the big one and then pretended to be in a fugue state as an excuse the next day) and I'm not sure he should have policing powers when he abuses them so readily.