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.
Hey all. I've been following along in this and a few of the other threads for awhile, decided to make a profile and join in properly.
I'm getting to the stage that "official" releases are not meaningful to me, and I don't care about keeping current with rules etc. I just want a solid rule set that I can throw some minis and terrain down and have a fun evening with friends.
I have a sizeable collection of Northern figures, and I'm into the Kickstarter fairly deep. I've taken a few runs at getting involved with Heavy Gear, but have yet to play at all. I'd like to ask some of the guys that have run through various iterations of the game:
What is the version you found most playable and balanced? What comprises a complete rule set from that version?
Is there another rules system that these figures can easily be adapted to that you prefer?
I'm looking at Horizon Wars and Polyversal, even though the scale is a bit off.
Smilodon_UP wrote: yoiks - where do the years go? I mean, c'mon, just yesterday, er, only a few years back back, I was, ...so not 40-odd with a niece & nephew already in high school who're soon to be begging for actual vehicles ....
Gawd.
Is it too late to try and hide out by building a fort with the sofa cushions?
_ _
It's never too late. Just don't try to rulelawyer that having one foot in the pillow fort is enough to claim cover! HG rules do not apply!
I took a peek at the poll. Admittedly the number of respondents is low but it seems that the average HG player is about as close to the start of retirement and he/she is to the start of puberty. While I was there, I found this interesting nugget from Dave in the kickstarter thread:
There have been quite the flurry of last minute observations and comments. Good stuff but It's caused some things liek UAs to get a bit of an overhaul (simplification - same system but way less variety in UAs). I taking this whole week getting in the changes. Lots of small things. Checking it thrice and more. That takes time.
-Dave
I'm glad they're making that change. Of course, I wouldn't be posting over here (instead of over there) if I didn't also point out that I warned them about UA spam multiple times both privately (in closed playtesting) and later publicly on the official forums years ago only to be ignored. Better late then never I guess. I'll have to download the next version to see just how much was trimmed off.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
brettness37 wrote: Hey all. I've been following along in this and a few of the other threads for awhile, decided to make a profile and join in properly.
I'm getting to the stage that "official" releases are not meaningful to me, and I don't care about keeping current with rules etc. I just want a solid rule set that I can throw some minis and terrain down and have a fun evening with friends.
I have a sizeable collection of Northern figures, and I'm into the Kickstarter fairly deep. I've taken a few runs at getting involved with Heavy Gear, but have yet to play at all. I'd like to ask some of the guys that have run through various iterations of the game:
What is the version you found most playable and balanced? What comprises a complete rule set from that version? Is there another rules system that these figures can easily be adapted to that you prefer?
I'm looking at Horizon Wars and Polyversal, even though the scale is a bit off.
Welcome! And nice chibi scope dog on the avatar. I'd say give the official rules a try. They're (currently) free to download and they are different from all the previous rules so worth a shot. I can't personally comment on them with any authority as I haven't tried them out (no opponents) or even read the last few versions due to a "wait and see" approach that is currently best for me. As for which Blitz era rules were best, I'd say stick with the Field Manual for the most part. The rules did get marginally better overall with each iteration but the problem is that each step was too small yet fans were charged full price. My personal very biased opinion is that they needed even more simplification beyond the field manual and that the Blitz rules were best for smaller scale (<10 figures per side) skirmish gameplay. I've got a series of house rules meant to simplify the Blitz rules (my previously mentioned bias!); if you're interested, click on my banner to get to the blog and just look for the FLASH! link on the right border.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/02/06 20:04:01
warboss wrote: [..] I took a peek at the poll. Admittedly the number of respondents is low but it seems that the average HG player is about as close to the start of retirement and he/she is to the start of puberty. While I was there, I found this interesting nugget from Dave in the kickstarter thread:
There have been quite the flurry of last minute observations and comments. Good stuff but It's caused some things liek UAs to get a bit of an overhaul (simplification - same system but way less variety in UAs). I taking this whole week getting in the changes. Lots of small things. Checking it thrice and more. That takes time.
-Dave
I'm glad they're making that change.
Of course, I wouldn't be posting over here (instead of over there) if I didn't also point out that I warned them about UA spam multiple times both privately (in closed playtesting) and later publicly on the official forums years ago only to be ignored. Better late then never I guess. I'll have to download the next version to see just how much was trimmed off.
TPTB in Pod-land keep saying the words (as in the latest interview quoted below), but yeah, two years now into the latest attempt and everything is still just business as per usual.
I'd be curious as to if the MP cadre finally gets dropped, because ever since FiF it does truly seem those models are not wanted by the company given how the combat group keeps getting a worse and worse implementation.
Maybe all that still has to do with a pre-FiF meta / state of thinking? ... /shrug The ease of conversion, and the $$$ DP9 can or does make on the bits due to the ''mecha'' aspect of Gear-police, is totally at odds with how they keep nerf-hammering the MP models and associated squads.
The average age poll did turn out noticeably, markedly, skewed even given how few responded.
brettness37 wrote: [..] What is the version you found most playable and balanced? What comprises a complete rule set from that version?
Is there another rules system that these figures can easily be adapted to that you prefer?
I'm currently working my way through Starships Troopers, which was kind of discussed over here along with a few not on my list.
What I've read so far of Dirtside 2, which is a vehicles rather than an infantry oriented ruleset, seems very similar to a lot of concepts used throughout HG:Blitz! - no opinion yet on if the ''flow'' is better or not.
Tomorrow's War, despite the layout which is so-so but not terribly bad, approaches being all but unreadable though given how the color pages were printed.
So this is really one to read in a PDF format where folks can possibly turn off the background or use select to highlight the text.
Hopefully either of these previous posts might also be of use to you;
JohnHwangDD wrote: Flames isn't the magical be-all/end-all of wargaming, but it is very playable and produces generally reasonable results at a scale that looks good on a 4'x6' board.
HudsonD wrote: If FoW has taught us one thing though, it's that highly-polished, well-written rules will sell, even if the actual mechanism themselves are neither new nor original.
... So says the guy who now plays FoW.
I don't think it's all that bad of a ruleset in the respects of writing and completeness, primarily I'm just not a fan of saves and buckets of dice, but along with Infinity it just doesn't seem a good base idea for a game intended to allow mass sci-fi vehicular combat at any scale.
A number of folks here on dakka have mentioned that either Grunts or Stargrunt might be a viable choice. I have downloaded SG 2 off Wargames Vault but haven't had the time or much inclination of late to do more than browse through the rules.
I was also going to take a look at Strike Legion and Dirtside 2, while Fistful of TOWs has a number of interesting concepts and I think is fairly streamlined without being too dumbed down.
jedi76 wrote: I think I'm gonna start looking for an alternate rule set. Anyone recommend a generic sci fi war game that will handle heavy gear style battles.
The general consensus seems to be that there really isn't one at the moment, as most focus on either complex gameplay, skirmish-oriented figures, or complete mecha bash without much in between.
Another problem is that many games take a WW2-style or Cold War approach that either doesn't factor in high technology or else makes some very poor interpretations of how the tactics should evolve.
The whole point of tanks, APCs, improved infantry armor, and then finally power armor or practical [Walker] vehicles is to allow maneuver under fire. Yet almost always a ruleset still incorporates some kind of suppression or pinning element.
There is a big difference between suppression and overwatch; most games get it wrong. Revealing your position on a computerized battlefield by blazing away without a target should be a very bad thing.
So far, as research into the question, I've been looking at elements of;
Hammer's Slammers
- (The Crucible; $200-400USD for the book is just a mite steep to bother with though.)
Infinity (No Table of Contents, really?) There is an ongoing attempt to port HG into this ruleset, but there is a considerable divide on it working all that well.
Robert Dubois, in an interview released on Monday, February 15th 2016, wrote:[..] But with Jovian Chronicles we tried to have the physics working, which is also true of course, for Heavy Gear. We wanted to have the hard science as that was the background of the guys in our company.
[..] I think we’ll try and remove as many counters and tokens from the tabletop as possible in a new ruleset as they tend to slow down the game. ... New rules will have to go through alpha and beta versions, where we get feedback from the players before they are locked down.
[..] We can't really have them to exact scale as even with 15mm exos the ships would become very big and too expensive for the regular player. Having players shill out $50 for one ship just to have it in scale isn't worth it, sometimes you have to abstract it.
[..] Our main focus has been Heavy Gear as that is our main product line. There's a new computer game in the works for Heavy Gear as well...
[..] As game designers you can have this idea in your head and you think it'll work perfectly and then someone out there goes and says "but what if you do this?" and you realize it completely breaks the game.
[..] Compared to the moulds for the plastic models in the Heavy Gear kickstarter where each one is about $15,000!
[..] With the plastics we're having a company just north of Indianapolis who are going to run the plastics for us. That way we can control the chain of command much better.
[..] Now we're focused on fulfilling our kickstarter for Heavy Gear. We're getting the moulds back from China some time in April and they'll get run late April or early May and when we get all the plastics we'll be packing up orders for the next month and a half. We want to have all the stuff out for backers by the end of June and then we'll have one month to prepare all the stuff we want to take to Gencon. The plan is to have the retail version of Heavy Gear ready until then.
[..] If we go and say that you have to represent your miniature 100% WYSIWYG like we do with Heavy Gear we limit ourselves, because we force people to buy an insane amount of different models.
So, it would seem about $15K (plus whatever $$$ was no longer necessary for those ''pops'') was saved by cutting (2) models.
_
_
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/02/18 07:50:51
"These reports were remarkably free of self-serving rhetoric. Most commanders admitted mistakes, scrutinized plans and doctrine, and suggested practical improvements." - Col. Joseph H. Alexander, USMC (Ret), from 'Utmost Savagery, The Three Days of Tarawa''
"I tell you there is something splendid in a man who will not always obey. Why, if we had done as the kings had told us five hundred years ago, we should have all been slaves. If we had done as the priests told us, we should have all been idiots. If we had done as the doctors told us, we should have all been dead.
We have been saved by disobedience." - Robert G. Ingersoll
"At this point, I'll be the first to admit it, I so do not give them the benefit of the doubt that, if they saved all the children and puppies from a burning orphanage, I would probably suspect them of having started the fire. " - mrondeau, on DP9
"No factual statement should be relied upon without further investigation on your part sufficient to satisfy you in your independent judgment that it is true." - Small Wars Journal
AndrewGPaul wrote: Still, I hope there is a JC revival, if only so I can get some more minis.
I think DP9 is still doing an annual run of JC miniatures once a year. It looks like the JC miniatures are currently up for pre-order in the DP9 online store, with a shipping date of "early March" if you want to jump in on this year's production run.
AndrewGPaul wrote: I've got almost all the current range. I'd like some new ones, though. There's some cool-looking Venusian designs in the sourcebook, for example.
If you read the full interview with Robert Dubois I've posted to Fire Broadside you'll see that there are indeed NEW stuff on the way. The new fleetscale fighters (shown way back in 2006) are already released and the first four packs of fleet scale exo-armors are up for pre-order and will ship in March. Of course, if you are not interested in fleetscale (about 15mm tall) exos you are pretty much out of luck. DP9 won't produce any more in the old 1/500 scale, although they'll continue selling the ones they have until further notice.
New ships, especially the one from the fleet books, are a very real possibility, but would most likely be part of some kind of crowd funding campaign next year. More details in the interview.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/18 20:14:07
Miniature games. Board games. Roleplaying games. At Fire Broadside!
EDIT: 12 bucks (before shipping or customs) for two bases? Heh... maybe not, after all.
Armada sound like a good idea. As for the price, I'd have to peek over at the Dropzone Commander site to see what their prices are like for the smallest minis in that line for comparison.
AndrewGPaul wrote: I've got almost all the current range. I'd like some new ones, though. There's some cool-looking Venusian designs in the sourcebook, for example.
Oh, yeah! I've got good size fleets (ships and mecha) for both Jovan Confederation and CEGA, but I was always disappointed they were never able to finish fleshing out the forces for Mars or Venus. There really were some cool looking mecha in the sourcebooks for those two factions.
EDIT: 12 bucks (before shipping or customs) for two bases? Heh... maybe not, after all.
Armada sound like a good idea. As for the price, I'd have to peek over at the Dropzone Commander site to see what their prices are like for the smallest minis in that line for comparison.
Well, in this case the point of comparison is with these ones:
Eight squadrons for 20 bucks, not even taking into account cards, dials and stuff. Also, I could just go down to the FLGS and, you know, actually buy them, right now.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/19 19:21:19
Albertorius wrote: It is good that they finally could be arsed to do that.
Like, 10 years too late, maybe, but... good.
Albertorius wrote: [..] Eight squadrons for 20 bucks, not even taking into account cards, dials and stuff. Also, I could just go down to the FLGS and, you know, actually buy them, right now.
They definitely seem to be doing any little thing they can with the other Pod titles (JC & GK) the past year or two, I guess even if it's only to help keep the lights on.
Although having a steady release schedule and products to sell would probably do wonders for that situation too.
Pricing that is actually, competitive on some level I guess with what folks can buy most any time they choose, would indeed probably help a lot more.
On a related note I'm wondering, especially given how fast Robert steps in for anything he feels is negative over in the KS comments or etc etc, if we're supposed to consider Wunji Lau as a company mouthpiece nowadays instead of some kind of old guard member.
This though.... DP9 already has (and has spent the ''majority'' of) the KS money, everything is (supposed to be, anyways) payed for and any future sales are complete profit - yet nobody over in Pod-land seems to get that.
Wunji Lau, on Thursday, February 18thth 2016 at 12:55 PM, wrote:More importantly, consider the amounts and returns in question. In the Heavy Gear bin, the deleted molds would have cost tens of thousands of dollars to complete; that's money that's not made back until many, many boxed sets are sold, months or years down the line.
I just found that whole (official?) response to be a completely nonsensical reply to Firebreak questioning why the sudden focus on JC and where did the $$$ come from - because as recently as the Fall of '14 the Pod couldn't afford to self-publish their NuBlitz! rulebook, nor pay for any staff additions.
Not to mention that as I pointed out in the start of this post product(s) haven't exactly been forthcoming with any regularity nor in any great quantity since then, so either it costs almost nothing to keep the lights on and/or it costs almost nothing to start up a new scale focus for a neglected title.
Likewise, Dave and Robert are certainly getting paid some portion of a living wage as I don't honestly see them trying to live solely on product offered in place of cash.
After all, RD is the ''Presdient'' of DP9, especially with working ''so hard'' during his 120+ hour weeks (gee, where have most folks heard that line before).... And yes, as a relative pointed out to me, his title really is misspelled on his very own FB page.
So I definitely feel it was a fair question to ask of the Pod, as in just where is this money suddenly coming from, and in addition maybe how long will the company interest last this time.
Spoiler:
Firebreak, on Thursday, February 18thth 2016 at 10:47 AM, wrote:Sorry if this sounds indelicate, but, well, where is the money for this coming from? You've made it very clear, in a respectable show of honesty, that you don't have enough money to do Heavy Gear the way you said you were going to. So... now you're starting a whole new project for a totally separate game?
Wunji Lau, on Thursday, February 18thth 2016 at 12:55 PM, wrote:To add to Doug's observations, project funding is often separated within a company. X money goes here, Y money goes there, and Peter does not get robbed to pay Paul. This is important in any business, because you need to be able to relate costs to eventual income for specific projects. Just because one big product line is the moneymaker doesn't mean that you can use that to justify shifting assigned funding from other, smaller projects (especially R&D projects like JC, since those are your potential future big products).
More importantly, consider the amounts and returns in question. In the Heavy Gear bin, the deleted molds would have cost tens of thousands of dollars to complete; that's money that's not made back until many, many boxed sets are sold, months or years down the line.
Over in the other projects, which aren't Kickstarter backed, and thus run at DP9's usual budget level, there was the time and funding to make a few new pewter sculpts, which run a few hundred dollars for the lot, and which can be put into immediate production (because the spin caster is on site) for a faster return on a much smaller investment; even if the minis don't sell well, the initial investment is quickly paid back, and if no one is buying, then they just don't run those molds on the caster. The potential return is much, much smaller than that for HG, but that's the nature of the pewter minis business as opposed to the injection molded minis business.
TLDR: The money likely comes from existing funds assigned to Jovian Chronicles, and is a pittance compared to the costs involved with the Heavy Gear project.
_
_
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2016/02/19 21:40:32
"These reports were remarkably free of self-serving rhetoric. Most commanders admitted mistakes, scrutinized plans and doctrine, and suggested practical improvements." - Col. Joseph H. Alexander, USMC (Ret), from 'Utmost Savagery, The Three Days of Tarawa''
"I tell you there is something splendid in a man who will not always obey. Why, if we had done as the kings had told us five hundred years ago, we should have all been slaves. If we had done as the priests told us, we should have all been idiots. If we had done as the doctors told us, we should have all been dead.
We have been saved by disobedience." - Robert G. Ingersoll
"At this point, I'll be the first to admit it, I so do not give them the benefit of the doubt that, if they saved all the children and puppies from a burning orphanage, I would probably suspect them of having started the fire. " - mrondeau, on DP9
"No factual statement should be relied upon without further investigation on your part sufficient to satisfy you in your independent judgment that it is true." - Small Wars Journal
2016/02/19 20:14:15
Subject: Re:[Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread
I'm just not super interested in the "how dare you question you must be a troll" thing happening YET AGAIN so I'm gonna let that one go, but I just... People understand why I asked, right?
Bill's going to the store. He asks Bob if he needs anything.
"Hey that'd be great," Bob says. "Can you pick me up some bread, milk, and butter?"
"Uhhh..." Bill thinks that will cost a lot and doesn't really have the money right now for it all.
"Oh, here's $20," Bob says, putting Bill's fears to rest. "That should get me everything I want."
Bill goes to the store. It turns out bread, milk, and butter would be $25, so he doesn't buy the butter. Then he goes over to the pet store and buys some cat toys. He comes back and shows Bob, who's a little upset about not getting everything he thought he'd be getting.
"Well, I guess I didn't really need the butter," Bob says. "Can I have my change?"
"Oh, there's no change," Bill says. He notices Bob looking at the cat toys. "Oh, no, I didn't spend your money on these, that was different money. The milk and bread was just too expensive."
Do you see why Bob's not hugely thrilled about the cat toys?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/19 20:14:49
EDIT: 12 bucks (before shipping or customs) for two bases? Heh... maybe not, after all.
Armada sound like a good idea. As for the price, I'd have to peek over at the Dropzone Commander site to see what their prices are like for the smallest minis in that line for comparison.
Well, in this case the point of comparison is with these ones:
Eight squadrons for 20 bucks, not even taking into account cards, dials and stuff. Also, I could just go down to the FLGS and, you know, actually buy them, right now.
While it's been a few months, I think the armada fighters are about the same size as the JC fighters so smaller than the gears (roughly half size?) . The price evens out somewhat when you take that into account but the amount of cards, dials, and paper bits pushes the value back over towards the FFG side. That of course ignores the baked in utility of actually having a possibility of using the SWA stuff in real life compared with JC.
On a related note I'm wondering, especially given how fast Robert steps in for anything he feels in negative over in the KS comments or etc etc, if we're supposed to consider Wunji Lau as a company mouthpiece nowadays instead of some kind of old guard member.
_
Thanks for the link. It is interesting that the KS funds can be used to pay salaries and overhead for the whole company (whether in part or full) that allow those less profitable lines that don't pay for themselves to exist but funds are still earmarked from general sales back into them instead of making up for DP9's mistakes during the KS. I guess the whole not robbing peter to pay paul thing only goes one way. Eh, it's no shock though. What I did find surprising is that they're using shapeways to print the masters instead of a higher res professional company (at a much greater cost) like other companies do. I was somewhat disappointed with the crispness of detail on my 28mm custom designed Scifi fig that I did a few years back with their Frosted Ultra Detail level and that's not even taking into account the "fuzz" I got on half the fig from poor orientation in the matrix on their part. While I admittedly haven't tried out their new since then Extreme detail level, my 28mm (roughly star wars prepainted minis height) model didn't live up to my expectations (especially at $25+ including shipping for one model). I imagine the effect is even more noticeable on figs 1/3-1/8 the volume.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/19 20:32:19
brettness37 wrote: [..] What is the version you found most playable and balanced? What comprises a complete rule set from that version?
Is there another rules system that these figures can easily be adapted to that you prefer?
I'm currently working my way through Starships Troopers, which was kind of discussed over here along with a few not on my list.
What I've read so far of Dirtside 2, which is a vehicles rather than an infantry oriented ruleset, seems very similar to a lot of concepts used throughout HG:Blitz! - no opinion yet on if the ''flow'' is better or not.
I'm starting to think I might have to recommend against porting Heavy Gear over into Dirtside 2, as playing under that system without a number of tweaks means folks might as well be playing using the HGB! rules anyways.
DS2 is a threshold-based, opposed to-hit roll system, and very much a product of 90's era simulation gaming (albeit with a lot more streamlining) alongside a construction system to accommodate any 6mm (1/285) model players may want to use.
It's not bad idea-wise, but without having played I can see a few areas that in all likelihood replicate a lot of what folks dislike in either Blitz! or similar rulesets.
Threshold-based means that whether a roll is opposed or not you'll need to exceed the generated target number for whatever test roll(s) rather than equal or exceed a target number.
This makes Mos 0, where nothing happens (basically being swung in favor of the defender), a definite thing in DS2.
The damage system is also a bit strange.
Provided they hit something, a player then draws from (100+) chits out of a container equal to the size class of the weapon that got used (1-5), which are variously numbered ([11x] 0, [40x] 1, [29x] 2, [20x] 3) and those numbers variously colored (50 red, 25 yellow, 25 green).
Players check a chart to see if certain colors for certain types of weapons are ''valid'' for the range, target type, and target special protection (if any).
If the numbers on the chits after any are eliminated equal the targets armor rating (typically up to ~7) it is ''damaged''; if the armor rating is exceeded it is ''knocked-out'' for the remainder of a game.
There are also some specialty damage chits that take affect even if the target is not destroyed:
[7x] mobility (permanently immobilized),
[5x] systems down - target model (may not take combat actions until repaired),
[2x] systems down - firing model (shot did not not occur, may not take combat actions until repaired),
[5x] BOOM (catastrophic destruction of target).
Just seems like an awful lot of ''you did nothing on your turn'' potential, which is never a good thing in a set of rules, not to mention a number of terms not fully explained in case a player did not already know or understand it.
The cover rules are a bit sparse and open to some interpretation as well.
All that being said however, the morale and area defense/point defense rules don't seem too bad, and there are a few other concepts of interest.
_
_
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/01 20:37:27
"These reports were remarkably free of self-serving rhetoric. Most commanders admitted mistakes, scrutinized plans and doctrine, and suggested practical improvements." - Col. Joseph H. Alexander, USMC (Ret), from 'Utmost Savagery, The Three Days of Tarawa''
"I tell you there is something splendid in a man who will not always obey. Why, if we had done as the kings had told us five hundred years ago, we should have all been slaves. If we had done as the priests told us, we should have all been idiots. If we had done as the doctors told us, we should have all been dead.
We have been saved by disobedience." - Robert G. Ingersoll
"At this point, I'll be the first to admit it, I so do not give them the benefit of the doubt that, if they saved all the children and puppies from a burning orphanage, I would probably suspect them of having started the fire. " - mrondeau, on DP9
"No factual statement should be relied upon without further investigation on your part sufficient to satisfy you in your independent judgment that it is true." - Small Wars Journal
I've taken a few runs at getting involved with Heavy Gear, but have yet to play at all.
Is there another rules system that these figures can easily be adapted to that you prefer?
The metal minis are pretty nice.
I've brought out Blitz a number of times, and it's never really worked for my group.
I am currently in process of writing "KOG light," an ultralight set of rules for my collection of Southern Gear minis. When it's finally "ready", I'll announce to the group.
=======
Question!
I have a number of Southern Gears, and am thinking to spend a few bucks on an opposition force. I am currently leaning toward CEF, due to the clear visual difference.
1) Would a handful of CEF F2 & F6 Frames be a good OpFor? 2) How big are the metal F2 and F6 compared to the old 1/44 Jaeger & Black Mamba models? 3) Are Flails and/or Grel infantry "iconic" in the sense that I should grab a platoon to complement the Frames?
Thanks in advance!
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/03/07 04:06:52
The GRELs are pretty iconic for CEF. GRELs and Hovertanks are the bread and butter.
I only have the older Frames though, so I can't tell you size. Depending on ruleset, they're mostly terrible. Blitz they were overpriced, fragile and not very effective. NuBlitz, I haven't played, so I have no idea, but I'd pretty much expect the same since no one really cheerleads for them. (Instead we tend to get moar PRDF overpowered stupidity)
That said, it sounds like you're doing your own ruleset, so a set of fast but fragile frames armed with high tech weapons could be made to compete with slower, sturdier gears.
JohnHwangDD wrote: [..] 2) How big are the metal F2 and F6 compared to the old 1/44 Jaeger & Black Mamba models?
3) Are Flails and/or Grel infantry "iconic" in the sense that I should grab a platoon to complement the Frames?
AndrewGPaul's CEF model thread here on dakka is the most current that I know of in any relatively active HG venue, although he doesn't have size comparison pictures up (as yet?).
Not sure about the FLAIL infantry minis - like Pilum armor they seem to bring something to the HG setting that dilutes what Gears and their non-Terra Nova derivatives are supposed to offer, and replicates/outright replaces APES out of the already bare-bones offerings from the two allied factions.
ferrous wrote: [..] Depending on ruleset, they're mostly terrible. Blitz they were overpriced, fragile and not very effective. NuBlitz, I haven't played, so I have no idea, but I'd pretty much expect the same since no one really cheerleads for them. (Instead we tend to get moar PRDF overpowered stupidity)
Heavy Gear Blitz [Aug 2006]
- Heavy Gear Blitz! Hammers of Faith (North) [Dec 2006]
- Heavy Gear Blitz! Swords of Pride (South) [Mar 2007]
- Heavy Gear Blitz! Shields of Freedom (Peace River) [Dec 2007]
Heavy Gear Blitz Locked and Loaded [May 2008]
- Black Talon: Return to Cat's Eye (Caprice, CEF, Black Talons) [May 2009]
- Shattered Peace: The War for Terra Nova Book 1 (Eden) [2010]
- Terra Nova Gambit: The War for Terra Nova Book 2 (Utopia) [2010]
- Gear Up (Utopian rules primer & template, Field Testing: Defense Modifiers, Errata) [Issue 1 - Spring 2010] pdf
- Gear Up (Field Testing: HHT-90 Combat Group & Multi-Component Vehicle Rules, Field Testing: New Overkill Rules, Revisions & Errata, Southern Medical Support Section, PRDF Medical Section, PAK/CEF Medical Section) [Issue 3 - Winter 2010] pdf
- Gear Up (Combat Engineering Companies, Official Rules: New Heavy Hover Tank combat group) [Issue 4 - Summer 2011] pdf
Heavy Gear Blitz! Field Support Guide (Consolidation of Gear Up material & unsupported factions to Field Manual rules) [2014] pdf
_
_
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/07 17:04:41
"These reports were remarkably free of self-serving rhetoric. Most commanders admitted mistakes, scrutinized plans and doctrine, and suggested practical improvements." - Col. Joseph H. Alexander, USMC (Ret), from 'Utmost Savagery, The Three Days of Tarawa''
"I tell you there is something splendid in a man who will not always obey. Why, if we had done as the kings had told us five hundred years ago, we should have all been slaves. If we had done as the priests told us, we should have all been idiots. If we had done as the doctors told us, we should have all been dead.
We have been saved by disobedience." - Robert G. Ingersoll
"At this point, I'll be the first to admit it, I so do not give them the benefit of the doubt that, if they saved all the children and puppies from a burning orphanage, I would probably suspect them of having started the fire. " - mrondeau, on DP9
"No factual statement should be relied upon without further investigation on your part sufficient to satisfy you in your independent judgment that it is true." - Small Wars Journal
ferrous wrote: The GRELs are pretty iconic for CEF. GRELs and Hovertanks are the bread and butter.
I only have the older Frames though, so I can't tell you size. Depending on ruleset, they're mostly terrible. Blitz they were overpriced, fragile and not very effective.
That said, it sounds like you're doing your own ruleset, so a set of fast but fragile frames armed with high tech weapons could be made to compete with slower, sturdier gears.
Thanks! Hovertanks are expensive, so GREL infantry and Frames it is!
Amusing that the rules for Frames are nothing like what little fluff I can find...
Yeah, I'm doing my own thing, so fast and hard hitting for sure. ____
JohnHwangDD wrote: [..] 2) How big are the metal F2 and F6 compared to the old 1/44 Jaeger & Black Mamba models?
3) Are Flails and/or Grel infantry "iconic" in the sense that I should grab a platoon to complement the Frames?
AndrewGPaul's CEF model thread here on dakka is the most current that I know of in any relatively active HG venue, although he doesn't have size comparison pictures up (as yet?).
Not sure about the FLAIL infantry minis - like Pilum armor they seem to bring something to the HG setting that dilutes what Gears and their non-Terra Nova derivatives are supposed to offer, and replicates/outright replaces APES out of the already bare-bones offerings from the two allied factions.
Thanks much for the link to the gallery - much appreciated. I'm hoping that they'd be Black Mamba-sized, but as they're different to be different, it'll be OK.
Thanks for the comment on FLAILs - I'm thinking that "ordinary" infantry would be better for my game.
brettness37 wrote: I have a sizeable collection of Northern figures,
I've taken a few runs at getting involved with Heavy Gear, but have yet to play at all.
Is there another rules system that these figures can easily be adapted to that you prefer?
I am currently in process of writing "KOG light," an ultralight set of rules for my collection of Southern Gear minis. When it's finally "ready", I'll announce to the group.
"These reports were remarkably free of self-serving rhetoric. Most commanders admitted mistakes, scrutinized plans and doctrine, and suggested practical improvements." - Col. Joseph H. Alexander, USMC (Ret), from 'Utmost Savagery, The Three Days of Tarawa''
"I tell you there is something splendid in a man who will not always obey. Why, if we had done as the kings had told us five hundred years ago, we should have all been slaves. If we had done as the priests told us, we should have all been idiots. If we had done as the doctors told us, we should have all been dead.
We have been saved by disobedience." - Robert G. Ingersoll
"At this point, I'll be the first to admit it, I so do not give them the benefit of the doubt that, if they saved all the children and puppies from a burning orphanage, I would probably suspect them of having started the fire. " - mrondeau, on DP9
"No factual statement should be relied upon without further investigation on your part sufficient to satisfy you in your independent judgment that it is true." - Small Wars Journal
The basic Type 6-16 and Type 2-21 (same machine, really, except for the head) are about the same height as a Jaeger or Hunter. They're much bulkier, though - wider, deeper front-to-back and chunkier overall.
The Type 2-21 towers over both of those.
I've added a couple of quick side-by-side comparisons of the Type 6-16, 2-21 and 2-19, as well as the metal light hovertank and resin tank. The hover APC uses the same chassis as the metal light tank.
The only Terranovan Gears I own are the resin wrecks, so I've put a quick shot of those next to a Battle Frame.
The FLAILS haven't been in the game long enough, in my somewhat grognardy opinion, to be "iconic". Plus, they're fairly boring miniatures. Stick to GREL infantry. If I were wanting an opposing force to be different, I'd think about making it entirely "conventional"; HT-68s and GRELs in APCs, and no Battle Frames at all. Another option, if you're doing your own thing, is mixed formations; the old 2nd edition CEF sourcebook had mixed squads of GREL infantry in APCs and Battle Frames.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/03/08 11:18:52
Yeah, the hovertanks are expensive, but definitely the most iconic of CEF forces. And they're kind of why the Frames exist as they are, as they are supposed to be fast enough to keep up with the hovertanks. That said, they are visually different, not like some of the polar forces, where you can hardly tell the difference. (I'm looking at you Chassuer)
FLAILs were definitely a fail as far as minis go, they're really ugly, I don't know if it's because they are so small, or because DP9 isn't very good at small scale stuff. They've gotten a little better, the redesigns for infantry they have now are definitely better than they were.
I'm in the same boat, I should sell/give away my minis, my odds of going back to tabletop gaming is pretty low these days. And it's even lower odds that I'd find a Heavy Gear gaming group.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/08 17:54:16
JohnHwangDD wrote: I am currently in process of writing "KOG light," an ultralight set of rules for my collection of Southern Gear minis. When it's finally "ready", I'll announce to the group.
Thanks very much for the link - hugely appreciated. Kinda wish I'd have seen it before I started writing KOG light. ____
AndrewGPaul wrote: The basic Type 6-16 and Type 2-21 (same machine, really, except for the head) are about the same height as a Jaeger or Hunter. They're much bulkier, though - wider, deeper front-to-back and chunkier overall. The Type 2-21 towers over both of those. I've added a couple of quick side-by-side comparisons of the Type 6-16, 2-21 and 2-19, as well as the metal light hovertank and resin tank. The hover APC uses the same chassis as the metal light tank. The only Terranovan Gears I own are the resin wrecks, so I've put a quick shot of those next to a Battle Frame.
The FLAILS haven't been in the game long enough, in my somewhat grognardy opinion, to be "iconic". Plus, they're fairly boring miniatures. Stick to GREL infantry. If I were wanting an opposing force to be different, I'd think about making it entirely "conventional"; HT-68s and GRELs in APCs, and no Battle Frames at all. Another option, if you're doing your own thing, is mixed formations; the old 2nd edition CEF sourcebook had mixed squads of GREL infantry in APCs and Battle Frames.
Thanks very much for the info on Frame vs Gear size / bulk. I really appreciate it!
I wasn't really sold on the FLAIL models, which is why I was asking; I'm going to ignore the FLAILS entirely.
I get the "conventional" OpFor being Tanks & Infantry, and it's a good idea; however, it's a *LOT* more spendy than what I'd budgeted for OpFor. The big difference in Frame proportion and style vs Gears is really good for how I want to use them. I gotta say, the heavy hovertank is pretty darn impressive... Maybe as a 3rd option. Hm.
Speaking of 3rd forces, it's nuts how many flavors of forces are in HG, now that I started looking after what's probably been a 10-year absence. North / South / Black Talon / PRDF / ... Gears. Caprice / Utopia / CEF / PAK stuff. It's like there was no editorial control over faction design, something that GW does pretty well. Though it's nice that the Caprice / Utopia / CEF/PAK stuff looks different from the N/S stuff. ____
ferrous wrote: Yeah, the hovertanks are expensive, but definitely the most iconic of CEF forces. And they're kind of why the Frames exist as they are, as they are supposed to be fast enough to keep up with the hovertanks. That said, they are visually different, not like some of the polar forces, where you can hardly tell the difference. (I'm looking at you Chassuer)
FLAILs were definitely a fail as far as minis go, they're really ugly, I don't know if it's because they are so small, or because DP9 isn't very good at small scale stuff. They've gotten a little better, the redesigns for infantry they have now are definitely better than they were.
I'm in the same boat, I should sell/give away my minis, my odds of going back to tabletop gaming is pretty low these days. And it's even lower odds that I'd find a Heavy Gear gaming group.
Thanks for explaining why the Frames are the way they are. I guess I need to try to find a way to get some hovertanks down the road. And you hit the nail on the head as to why I was looking at OpFor Frames over Gears - to the novice, the Gears start to all look the same, but the Frames are clearly different.
Flail proportions are awful if there's supposed to be a "person" inside them. OTOH, if that person is hardwired in, why is the model so ugly?
The Infantry definitely look better. I think I'll want to get some after all.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/08 19:05:22
AndrewGPaul wrote: There isn't a person inside a FLAILS suit - or an F2-xx Frame. Just a GREL brain in a jar.
Problem with that logic, of course, is that they were supposed to fool spectators into believing they were upgraded GRELs with some kind of powered suits...
-- $k 
-- 9k 
-- 6k 
-- 4k 
-- 
